It's a load of bovine manure is what it is! Considering he doesn't even understand basic engineering principles (doesn't even know how a diff works!) it is laughable that he presents a car programme.WilliamsF1 wrote:Jeremy Clarkson has an opinion on every car so what he says and doesn't say is irrelevant to a car. Top Gear is stand up comedy act with a car theme.
I bet he knows alot more than he lets on. Top Gear is really immature, politically incorrect and features the best cars on the planet, therefore I love it. We only get rediculously stuck-up car shows in Germany presenting VW-Polos and the like.Jeremy Clarkson wrote:You feed the exhaust of the car into the turbo. Then witchcraft happens and the car goes quicker.
The AA did a survey a couple of years ago and found that 80% of owners didnt know where there power steering fluid and break fluid tanks were and that they should be checked regularly and topped up as needed. I'm a carpenter....But i couldnt explain how to the inner workings of the lithum batterys of my Drill works. As WilliamsF1 said above...Its a stand up comedy show with a car theme. And i assure you Jeremy knows very well how a diff works...He's just like most of the 44million uk motorists....He doesnt care!andrew wrote:It's a load of bovine manure is what it is! Considering he doesn't even understand basic engineering principles (doesn't even know how a diff works!) it is laughable that he presents a car programme.WilliamsF1 wrote:Jeremy Clarkson has an opinion on every car so what he says and doesn't say is irrelevant to a car. Top Gear is stand up comedy act with a car theme.
There is only 1 goal for Bernie, and that is $$$.Sayshina wrote:
The real question to my mind is whether Bernie is really against these engines or just making noise to distract us from his true goal.
I agree, why cant it be twin turbo 1.6ltr V6's like in the late 80's - better for packing up with a gear box too and can actually be a fully stressed chassis member like the current v8's!Ashley wrote:But why don't they choose V6 engines instead of those 4 cyclinders???
Luca Di Motezemolo said that Ferrari would be keen on producing V6 engines.
I agree but for once although he is prob thinking of $$$$ i agree with himCHT wrote:There is only 1 goal for Bernie, and that is $$$.Sayshina wrote:
The real question to my mind is whether Bernie is really against these engines or just making noise to distract us from his true goal.
I reckon if F1 switches from V8 to 4's it will definitely loss its appeal for spectators due to the lack of roaring V8 noises. And that could potentially cost bernie hundreds million worth of hosting fee.
i disagree with Bernie lost million worth of hosting fee . I think ya'll agreed with me that all the hosting fee has been included in the agreement which is normally signed or renewed every 3 @ 5 years.astracrazy wrote:I agree but for once although he is prob thinking of $$$$ i agree with himCHT wrote:There is only 1 goal for Bernie, and that is $$$.Sayshina wrote:
The real question to my mind is whether Bernie is really against these engines or just making noise to distract us from his true goal.
I reckon if F1 switches from V8 to 4's it will definitely loss its appeal for spectators due to the lack of roaring V8 noises. And that could potentially cost bernie hundreds million worth of hosting fee.
A 1.8 litre or 2.0ltr twin turbo V6 would have been far more appealing especially if they weren't crippled to only output 600hp!donskar wrote:To me the key point is: what will the new rules mean to the manufacturers? Can they even pretend there is some sort of trickle-down to their production cars? Ferrari builds no 4 cylinder engines. M-B builds few if any at all (none for sale in the USA). The 4 cylinder rule may lure VW in (I doubt it . . .) but will do nothing to keep M-B and Ferrari in.
Merc produces tons of 4-cylinder engines from the A-class all the way up to the S-class. If they don't sell them in the USA it is a direct result of the market requirements. Everybody and his dog knows that Americans waste the most energy in the world by driving heavier and thirstier cars than any other people on this earth. They have done it for ages and rational debate will not change this. You have to make them feel it in the pocket to change something.djos wrote:A 1.8 litre or 2.0ltr twin turbo V6 would have been far more appealing especially if they weren't crippled to only output 600hp!donskar wrote:To me the key point is: what will the new rules mean to the manufacturers? Can they even pretend there is some sort of trickle-down to their production cars? Ferrari builds no 4 cylinder engines. M-B builds few if any at all (none for sale in the USA). The 4 cylinder rule may lure VW in (I doubt it . . .) but will do nothing to keep M-B and Ferrari in.
Seriously tho what are the chances of getting an always on KERS system? I thought that a mildy warmed up version of what we had now was approved due to dev and running costs?WhiteBlue wrote:Merc produces tons of 4-cylinder engines from the A-class all the way up to the S-class. If they don't sell them in the USA it is a direct result of the market requirements. Everybody and his dog knows that Americans waste the most energy in the world by driving heavier and thirstier cars than any other people on this earth. They have done it for ages and rational debate will not change this. You have to make them feel it in the pocket to change something.djos wrote: A 1.8 litre or 2.0ltr twin turbo V6 would have been far more appealing especially if they weren't crippled to only output 600hp!
The new engines will have in excess of 800 hp in permanent dual torque mode. None of the electric peak power of KERS. Of course Bernie couldn't give a rat's ass what engines they run. It just suits him at this point in time to pick up any point of dissent between FOTA teams. So he publicly supports Ferrari. When I read about the great flocks of race promoters who have approached Bernie with deep fears about the new engine sound I fell on the floor rolling with laughter. Promoters have only one concern when they talk with Bernie. "How do I pay my ever increasing fee and how do I keep my GP". They would not loose one night of sleep over engines, believe me. The story was completely made up for the purpose of showing support for Ferrari.
Dieter Rencken in Autosport+ reported on the plan to use dual torque instead of KERS. He is very realiable and Autosport uses the finest sources in the industry. I think you can take that one to the bank.djos wrote:Seriously tho what are the chances of getting an always on KERS system? I thought that a mildy warmed up version of what we had now was approved due to dev and running costs?
