2226 replies to this topic

[Ali_G]

I dont understand why the proposals of Mario Illien arent followed. Free up engine regs totally, just put a cap on design snd development costs
He claims he was building 80 engines a year on the budget most teams now spend on the current 16 units a year.

That kinda baffled me.

With a fuel limit per GP presumably ?

Would be fantastic to see a bit of variety out there. We could even see Mazda enter with a Wankel engine.

[sosidge]

I dont understand why the proposals of Mario Illien arent followed. Free up engine regs totally, just put a cap on design snd development costs
He claims he was building 80 engines a year on the budget most teams now spend on the current 16 units a year.

That kinda baffled me.

Because there is no practical way of scrutineering spending. However it is very easy to scrutineer dimensions.

[JackTorrance]

They seem to adhere to the testingban too without any scrutineering.
They could easely duck that too testing on a secret track in Iran for instance.

Bmw, Honda, illien and even Toyota cited lack of ability to show their tech know how as one of the reasons to quit F1.
How hard can it be to try and lure them back with a few more unfrozen regs?

[King Six]

It's impossible to enforce any sort of budget cap, so the FIA have to do things another way.

[JackTorrance]

They also close down factories without FIA control. What if FOTA could agree on, say max number of people in an engine department?

[primer]

Yup, people whining about 650 bhp 1.6L turbos know and care nothing about our sports history.

Will we also get 60's spec tires and aero too, then?

Seems to me that the only people romancing the new engine proposal are those who have become stuck in past.

[PayasYouRace]

Will we also get 60's spec tires and aero too, then?

It's precisely because we won't have 60's spec tyres and aero (and other things) that these new engine regs will be suitable.

It's not about engine horsepower but ultimate performance. But even then, with KERS you'll end up with much more than 650hp. Last year KERS was what? 80hp extra. Even with that it's 730hp total. It's expected KERS will be more powerful by then.

[highdownforce]

Looks like that Ferrari may prefer another configuration: 1.8 V6 .
http://www.auto.it/a... al motore 2013

[JackTorrance]

Will we also get 60's spec tires and aero too, then?

Seems to me that the only people romancing the new engine proposal are those who have become stuck in past.

If the choice is Justin Bieber, Pussycatdolls, Pufferdaddy, Ronan Keating vs Hendrixs, Led Zep, Wu Tang and Tom Waits the early years ill be happy to be stuck in the past, thank you very much.

Edited by JackTorrance, 08 September 2010 - 07:16.

[fenixracing]

I dont have any problems with the new aero and engine regulations.
But i dont like that fuel flow meter can you already see it 'wdc no im not the fastest driver but im the best fuel preserve driver' what a joke
f1 is all about speed let the lms, gt series work on fuel consumption

[Spoofski]

They also close down factories without FIA control. What if FOTA could agree on, say max number of people in an engine department?

Absolutely. The teams, at least at the moment, seem to think that the Resource Restriction Agreement is viable when applied to the teams themselves, so why would it not work if extended to the engine manufacturers?

[dav115]

Absolutely. The teams, at least at the moment, seem to think that the Resource Restriction Agreement is viable when applied to the teams themselves, so why would it not work if extended to the engine manufacturers?

Monitoring whether or not a factory is active is slightly easier than summing the engine R&D cost for each team, and that isn't even taking into account outsourcing (be it to an external party like Mahle, or in the case of the manufacturers their respective road-car companies). To be honest, I even have my doubts as to whether all teams adhered to the factory closure agreement. For example I'm sure Ferrari could perform some useful work in the main factory (i.e. road-car buildings) whilst closing the Gestione Sportiva, and for the likes of McLaren all their work takes place in the same huge building anyway!

[dav115]

Looks like that Ferrari may prefer another configuration: 1.8 V6 .
http://www.auto.it/a... al motore 2013

Here's my (poor) attempt at a translation:

After having supported the proposal of the turbocharged 4 cylinder in line 1.6 litre engine, which was suggested last week by the majority of the F1 teams with regards the technical package to be introduced in 2013, Ferrari has carried out a u-turn. From Maranello they now make known that they are opposed to that type of engine, proposing a V6 derived from the current 2.4 V8, with a displacement of probably 1.8L. Engineer Luca Marmorini, who has represented Ferrari in the recent <<technical discussions?>>, says that there isn't enough time to design a 4 cylinder 1.6L engine in two years, that is 2011 and 2012.
"It's a real stretch to think of having, in 2013, an engine that can guarantee the reliability necessary for us to complete a season with only four units, as is wanted". The engine that Ferrari has in mind would be therefore the current V8 with two cylinders cut off, in order to achieve a 1.8L V6. Besides this, Marmorini notes that to install an inline 4 cylinder engine would require a complete redesign of the chassis. "Like this it won't have a structural role", explains the Ferrari engineer, "It needs a reinforcement structure around it, if you are to do without a huge engine casing."

[Ali_G]

I never through of the fact that a I4 might not be able to be used as a load bearing structure for the back of the car.

Didn't BMW run a I4 back in the 1980's. Did cars running this engine need to extend the chassis back behind the driver back then ?

[Spoofski]

Monitoring whether or not a factory is active is slightly easier than summing the engine R&D cost for each team, and that isn't even taking into account outsourcing (be it to an external party like Mahle, or in the case of the manufacturers their respective road-car companies). To be honest, I even have my doubts as to whether all teams adhered to the factory closure agreement. For example I'm sure Ferrari could perform some useful work in the main factory (i.e. road-car buildings) whilst closing the Gestione Sportiva, and for the likes of McLaren all their work takes place in the same huge building anyway!

There's far more to the RRA than monitoring the August factory shutdown. The idea is to cap resources with the objective of limiting expenditure and I don't see why this shouldn't be as applicable to an engine factory as to a chassis factory. Restrictions on CAD, simulation, dyno runtime, engine builds would be as easy to implement as restrictions on wind tunnels, chassis CAD etc etc.

[highdownforce]

I never through of the fact that a I4 might not be able to be used as a load bearing structure for the back of the car.

Didn't BMW run a I4 back in the 1980's. Did cars running this engine need to extend the chassis back behind the driver back then ?

- BMW M12 inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
- Hart inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
- Zakspeed inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
- Alfa Romeo 415T inline-4
* Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

But I'm not able to comment on any possible limitation that this design caused at the time.

Edited by highdownforce, 08 September 2010 - 13:46.

[Louis Siefert]

If the choice is Justin Bieber, Pussycatdolls, Pufferdaddy, Ronan Keating vs Hendrixs, Led Zep, Wu Tang and Tom Waits the early years ill be happy to be stuck in the past, thank you very much.

I agree Wu-Tang's early work is best and will stand the test of time, after O.D.B's departure the group took a turn... well this isn't the forum to discuss that

[Victor_RO]

- BMW M12 inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
- Hart inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
- Zakspeed inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
- Alfa Romeo 415T inline-4
* Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

But I'm not able to comment on any possible limitation that this design caused at the time.

Limitations? Single, massive turbo = massive turbo lag. Also, the Alfa 415T engine was never raced... funnily enough, it was a twin-turbo experiment on an inline-4, two exhaust pipes per cylinder.

[highdownforce]

Limitations? Single, massive turbo = massive turbo lag. Also, the Alfa 415T engine was never raced... funnily enough, it was a twin-turbo experiment on an inline-4, two exhaust pipes per cylinder.

In the sense of chassis fixing.

[Ali_G]

- BMW M12 inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
- Hart inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
- Zakspeed inline-4 1.5 L Turbo
- Alfa Romeo 415T inline-4
* Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

But I'm not able to comment on any possible limitation that this design caused at the time.

Just a thought but is there any reasons why they wouldn't go for a V4 ? Would certainly work from a load bearing point of view.


After a bit of looking around, I see that the BMW M10 used in the Brabham BT55 was not a stressed component.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Brabham_BT55

Would be very weird in this day and age to take such a backward step.



I can see the point of view on going for a 1.6 V6 too. Prob a much cheaper option in the end.

Edited by Ali_G, 08 September 2010 - 15:39.

[pingu666]

dont see the point of cutting more of the engine off, like they did with v10 to v8. Its still a hugely expensive lump.

a non stressed engine is also not a bad thing, if you belive the deltawing guys, it is better in the event of a crash...

[Ali_G]

dont see the point of cutting more of the engine off, like they did with v10 to v8. Its still a hugely expensive lump.

a non stressed engine is also not a bad thing, if you belive the deltawing guys, it is better in the event of a crash...

Was the gearbox stressed in the Deltawing proposal ?

The through of having a frame for the entire rear of the car just seems strange to me at this stage.

[Scotracer]

Was the gearbox stressed in the Deltawing proposal ?

The through of having a frame for the entire rear of the car just seems strange to me at this stage.

This.

[pingu666]

cant remmber if the gearbox was or not. unstressed engine allowed for alot of different types of engines to be possible , plus the rear would have much more crush/crumple zones compaired to stressed.

I guess the lola lmp cars have mostly unstressed engines, as theres a wide viritey of engines running, even more are possible

[One]

Small engine like turbo I4 will create Lots of space to be used up for the AERO. This in turn makes the car goes A LOT faster than what it is now, I assume.

1.8 V6 Turbo Mega KERS 1200 BHP units sounds like real Formula One engine.

[Villes Gilleneuve]

Will we also get 60's spec tires and aero too, then?

Seems to me that the only people romancing the new engine proposal are those who have become stuck in past.

650hp cars with downforce were in the 80-90s, not the 60s.

I'd love to be stuck in the past to watch a race with actual passing (not in the pits), and where driver's don't wave their arms shouting "ridiculous" when they get within 100m of a car in front, our snow plow a car whenever they come alongside.

Regardless, it's a FORMULA, which means that the whole package needs to be considered.

Some of these comments seem like people know nothing about a car, quoting horsepower without knowing torque, weight and downforce.

It's as bad as car manufacturers promoting 400hp cars, without telling us the tank weighs 1000lb more that its competitors and has drum brakes.

Edited by Villes Gilleneuve, 08 September 2010 - 17:36.

[Ali_G]

Small engine like turbo I4 will create Lots of space to be used up for the AERO. This in turn makes the car goes A LOT faster than what it is now, I assume.

1.8 V6 Turbo Mega KERS 1200 BHP units sounds like real Formula One engine.

Check out the Brabham BT55.

Very neatly packaged behind the driver, especially considering it was 1986.

[JackTorrance]

Monitoring whether or not a factory is active is slightly easier than summing the engine R&D cost for each team, and that isn't even taking into account outsourcing (be it to an external party like Mahle, or in the case of the manufacturers their respective road-car companies). To be honest, I even have my doubts as to whether all teams adhered to the factory closure agreement. For example I'm sure Ferrari could perform some useful work in the main factory (i.e. road-car buildings) whilst closing the Gestione Sportiva, and for the likes of McLaren all their work takes place in the same huge building anyway!

Iirc they also already have a cap on windtunnel use. Totally under a gentlemans agreement. FOTA does have its good sides imo.

[Gene and Tonic]

To clarify, would these new engines have a rev-limit? That is one of the main things about the current engines I hate - slipstreaming does not provide much of an advantage as the cars just hit the limiter.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

Wings wont work if the car is spinning or pointing up,

Yeah, but the difference is that in situations where the car leaves the track, it doesn't immediately mean a loss of downforce.

the same situtions when the car will be clear of the groung to lose ground effect.

No, a ground effect car leaving the ground acts completely differently.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

GP2 has used ground effects for 6 years now, without any catastrophes directly caused by it. Unless occasional big shunts like Viso at Magny-Cours

Look at "GP2 crash" on YouTube - not just Viso, but a lot of cars pitching up. That's not the real issue, though - it's about how the car slows down.

Right now, if a car bounces into the air in a spin across a kerb in a corner, it's stuck back to the ground. Make ground effect a larger portion of the downforce, the car is going to travel farther when it's in the air - there's no way around that. All of these paved run off areas are great when the car is on the ground dragging its tires - it's going to suck when the car is gliding across them in the air.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

Wow, that's a pretty wacky analysis of how overtaking happens... don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest more traction as being a way of generating passing.

Wow, that's a pretty narrow way of viewing "passing".

It's not about "generating" passing. I don't want passing "generated". I want marginal passing opportunities to be more likely to succeed. There's a difference.

The way I see it, the more traction the cars have, the less input required from the driver.

"Traction" depends on the context. Having more traction because of *friction* versus *downforce* has nothing to do with "taking away driver skill", because there is still a limit to be exploited.

Take the skill out and you have less passing, because all the cars will be accelerating at the same rate out of the corners.

No. They'll have the capacity to accelerate at the same rate, but the guy on the inside will not be able to do it as soon, and he will not be carrying as much momentum as the outside line. The problem now is that no matter the skill of the driver, not enough HP can be put down on exit due to friction. It doesn't take away the skill, it moves the edge of the envelope to a different place (and it actually adds an "envelope", in that management of momentum and exit traction will be a new thing). The outside line now is too devalued because of the lack of frictional traction - physics wise in F1 the outside line is too hamstrung because of the difference in entrance vs. exit speeds.

Ideally the exit speed acceleration possibilities would have to match the deceleration. Otherwise it's just a braking contest for the most part. "Over under" doesn't work most of the time because of that, the penalty of exit traction/acceleration nullifies it.

Now, if you want traction management to be a key part of F1 - halve the width of the rear tyres.

Makes it worse. The momentum advantage of the outside line is further reduced because you have to set up a line for a slower outside exit, nullifying the momentum advantage.

The brakes slow the car. The wings let the car go around the corner faster; but in a medium to slow corner (ala a Tilke straight+hairpin), as the turn progresses in the exit, the aero becomes less of a factor and the acceleration comes into the equation. That's where F1 is wrong: the tires are too skinny, and the "pass" is over with past the apex because the acceleration is limited to the frictional limit of the tires. The frictional limit occurring at a lower speed than the terminal entrance speed.

Lot's of passing *attempts* are made in F1, it's just they hardly ever stick on exit because both cars are on the straight line friction limit almost instantly.

Because the cars cannot follow within 1 second of one another without losing downforce,

That's a myth. Watch the first lap of Spa; each car in the front of the field is well within a second of each other, they're right on the back of each other from Eau Rouge all the way around. What happens is when guys attempt to take an outside line, once past the apex they can't get the power down long enough to drag race; the rain makes that worse (and skinny tires). After the first lap the racing line is so narrow they have no choice but to start the processional-effect of a single line. Because the momentum-carrying strategy is nullified on the exit by a very limited acceleration zone.


FOR EXAMPLE:

A guy leaving a slow speed corner with a 5 mph momentum advantage finds himself on the friction limit of the tires almost instantly on exit. The guy on the inside line is there not much later. If the guy on the outside line with that 5 mph advantage could keep putting the power down *through friction*, the distance between the cars would be greater past the exit because the inside line guy has a great distance to travel before he reaches the limit.

TC didn't work, because it didn't make the acceleration *longer*, but *sooner*. Bigger tires/more hp would mean the limit on acceleration would happen at a greater distance from the exit of the corner - leaving a gap that can't be there as it is now.

any closing of the gap at the start of a sequence of corners cannot be capitalised on because the following car loses performance.

Again, I call mythical shenanigans. They can obviously follow plenty close now, the limiting factor being overheating.

[Ali_G]

Look at "GP2 crash" on YouTube - not just Viso, but a lot of cars pitching up. That's not the real issue, though - it's about how the car slows down.

Right now, if a car bounces into the air in a spin across a kerb in a corner, it's stuck back to the ground. Make ground effect a larger portion of the downforce, the car is going to travel farther when it's in the air - there's no way around that. All of these paved run off areas are great when the car is on the ground dragging its tires - it's going to suck when the car is gliding across them in the air.

Yet the ACO brought back under car venturis instead of flat bottoms on the basis that flat bottoms are quite dangerous and the LMP cars were likely to flip with them.


Why is the car planted to the ground during a spin ? The car will lose most of it's downforce if it's not travelling inline with it's wings.


Loads of racing series run with venturi's without any problems.


You also seem to have no problem with F1 currently running diffusers which are nothing more than small venturis.

[noikeee]

Wow, that's a pretty narrow way of viewing "passing".

It's not about "generating" passing. I don't want passing "generated". I want marginal passing opportunities to be more likely to succeed. There's a difference.



"Traction" depends on the context. Having more traction because of *friction* versus *downforce* has nothing to do with "taking away driver skill", because there is still a limit to be exploited.



No. They'll have the capacity to accelerate at the same rate, but the guy on the inside will not be able to do it as soon, and he will not be carrying as much momentum as the outside line. The problem now is that no matter the skill of the driver, not enough HP can be put down on exit due to friction. It doesn't take away the skill, it moves the edge of the envelope to a different place (and it actually adds an "envelope", in that management of momentum and exit traction will be a new thing). The outside line now is too devalued because of the lack of frictional traction - physics wise in F1 the outside line is too hamstrung because of the difference in entrance vs. exit speeds.

Ideally the exit speed acceleration possibilities would have to match the deceleration. Otherwise it's just a braking contest for the most part. "Over under" doesn't work most of the time because of that, the penalty of exit traction/acceleration nullifies it.




Makes it worse. The momentum advantage of the outside line is further reduced because you have to set up a line for a slower outside exit, nullifying the momentum advantage.

The brakes slow the car. The wings let the car go around the corner faster; but in a medium to slow corner (ala a Tilke straight+hairpin), as the turn progresses in the exit, the aero becomes less of a factor and the acceleration comes into the equation. That's where F1 is wrong: the tires are too skinny, and the "pass" is over with past the apex because the acceleration is limited to the frictional limit of the tires. The frictional limit occurring at a lower speed than the terminal entrance speed.

Lot's of passing *attempts* are made in F1, it's just they hardly ever stick on exit because both cars are on the straight line friction limit almost instantly.




That's a myth. Watch the first lap of Spa; each car in the front of the field is well within a second of each other, they're right on the back of each other from Eau Rouge all the way around. What happens is when guys attempt to take an outside line, once past the apex they can't get the power down long enough to drag race; the rain makes that worse (and skinny tires). After the first lap the racing line is so narrow they have no choice but to start the processional-effect of a single line. Because the momentum-carrying strategy is nullified on the exit by a very limited acceleration zone.


FOR EXAMPLE:

A guy leaving a slow speed corner with a 5 mph momentum advantage finds himself on the friction limit of the tires almost instantly on exit. The guy on the inside line is there not much later. If the guy on the outside line with that 5 mph advantage could keep putting the power down *through friction*, the distance between the cars would be greater past the exit because the inside line guy has a great distance to travel before he reaches the limit.

TC didn't work, because it didn't make the acceleration *longer*, but *sooner*. Bigger tires/more hp would mean the limit on acceleration would happen at a greater distance from the exit of the corner - leaving a gap that can't be there as it is now.




Again, I call mythical shenanigans. They can obviously follow plenty close now, the limiting factor being overheating.

All of that sounds like a pretty good theory, however I don't agree with what you're saying on that last paragraph - when I turn on my TV I'm not really seeing many passing attempts blocked by the driver on the inside line, but rather lots of people getting stuck somehow without being close enough to pass. If we were seeing lots of blocks that would actually be exciting!

But this doesn't mean some of those concepts you're talking about can't be applied, I think some of that makes perfect sense. For example, with more traction on the exit, someone stuck on the dirty air could try alternative lines out of quick corners and don't lose as much time as they do right now.

Now, I'm a physics noob, but wouldn't the extra torque in these new proposed engines mean these new cars would actually have more traction? Add to that a further minimization of the dirty air issue through the ground effects thing, and we might actually just end up with something not too different from what you want in 2013, in terms of the actual results.

[Pingguest]

Because there is no practical way of scrutineering spending. However it is very easy to scrutineer dimensions.

The FIA could easily enforce an maximum fuel tank size. Without mid-race refuelling a fuel tank size limit would effectively limit the amount of fuel per race. However, the FI(S)A was able to enforce a maximum fuel allowance per race in Group C.

[Pingguest]

Talking about a solution, what about:
- allowing any configuration of engines to be used;
- abolishing the rules regulation the lifespan of the engines;
- keep the ban on mid-race refuelling;
- banning wings and diffusers;
- introducing non-spec, all-weather tyres and a ban on tyre changes.

Theoretically, the manufactures could come up with engines capable of producing more than 1,500 bhp, but there won't be enough grip and traction to get all that power on the tarmac. It would also require heavy fuel loads, causing more wear on tyres and brakes. The engine manufactures will hence be forced to detune their engines and use any increase of fuel-efficiency for a lower fuel consumption.

[Dunder]

Talking about a solution, what about:
- allowing any configuration of engines to be used;
- abolishing the rules regulation the lifespan of the engines;
- keep the ban on mid-race refuelling;
- banning wings and diffusers;
- introducing non-spec, all-weather tyres and a ban on tyre changes.

Theoretically, the manufactures could come up with engines capable of producing more than 1,500 bhp, but there won't be enough grip and traction to get all that power on the tarmac. It would also require heavy fuel loads, causing more wear on tyres and brakes. The engine manufactures will hence be forced to detune their engines and use any increase of fuel-efficiency for a lower fuel consumption.

Any treaded tyre will be hopeless in dry conditions and we would need 6 or 7 stops per race.

[Pingguest]

Any treaded tyre will be hopeless in dry conditions and we would need 6 or 7 stops per race.

Why? Formula Ford don't have downforce and in Australia and New-Zealand they are doing fine with threaded tyres. Before 2009 Formula 1 actually used threaded tyres and they did fine too.

[Dunder]

Why? Formula Ford don't have downforce and in Australia and New-Zealand they are doing fine with threaded tyres. Before 2009 Formula 1 actually used threaded tyres and they did fine too.

Grooves and tread are not the same thing. The lateral movement of the grooves is very small compared to the multi-directional movement that occurs with the tread needed to clear enough water at F1 speeds.

You cannot compare Formula Ford to Formula 1 in terms of the sheer forces being applied to the tyres. Look at how long it takes to destroy a set of intermediates on a track where a dry line begins to appear. This is not because the rubber is somehow too soft, it is simply that movement in the rubber caused by the tread produces extreme heat.

[GhostR]

Why? Formula Ford don't have downforce and in Australia and New-Zealand they are doing fine with threaded tyres. Before 2009 Formula 1 actually used threaded tyres and they did fine too.

Those Formula Fords aren't generating anywhere near as much stress on the tyres, and the tyres go off in a much shorter race than F1 races.

As for the pre-2009 F1 tyres. They weren't treaded, they were slicks with a few grooves cut into them. Very different from the fully treaded all-weather tyres that were suggested.

[Pingguest]

Indeed the stress on the Formula Ford's threaded tyres are far less compared to Formula 1's tyres. That's mostly due to the downforce levels. That's one of the reasons why I proposed to ban wings and diffusers.

[Ali_G]

Indeed the stress on the Formula Ford's threaded tyres are far less compared to Formula 1's tyres. That's mostly due to the downforce levels. That's one of the reasons why I proposed to ban wings and diffusers.

You realise how slow these cars would be ?

[Pingguest]

You realise how slow these cars would be ?

How slow or fast those cars would be remains to be seen. Two years ago Rory Byrne said that Formula 1-cars without downforce be slower than GP2-cars, as if a very little amount of downforce is only needed to keep Formula 1 cars (ceteris paribus) faster. However, in 2005 Ross Brawn called downforce the 'bane' of Formula 1.

In an interview with Autosport, Ross Brawn also said:
"But I haven't heard an argument for downforce. No one can give me an argument as to why racing cars should have downforce. It's like a sort of dependency, a drug that we've become addicted to. I don't think there's any argument that F1 cars should be the fastest things around the track, but that doesn't have to come from downforce. It can come from tyre grip, it can come from engine power, lots of things."

That interview was taken five years ago. To only internet source I could find was ITV.
http://www.itv-f1.co...d...28&PO=33628

[Ali_G]

How slow or fast those cars would be remains to be seen. Two years ago Rory Byrne said that Formula 1-cars without downforce be slower than GP2-cars, as if a very little amount of downforce is only needed to keep Formula 1 cars (ceteris paribus) faster. However, in 2005 Ross Brawn called downforce the 'bane' of Formula 1.

In an interview with Autosport, Ross Brawn also said:
"But I haven't heard an argument for downforce. No one can give me an argument as to why racing cars should have downforce. It's like a sort of dependency, a drug that we've become addicted to. I don't think there's any argument that F1 cars should be the fastest things around the track, but that doesn't have to come from downforce. It can come from tyre grip, it can come from engine power, lots of things."

That interview was taken five years ago. To only internet source I could find was ITV.
http://www.itv-f1.co...d...28&PO=33628

I can't see how a car with no downforce could be created to around a track for 50 laps, faster than present F1 cars. The technology simply isn't there.

Debating wether race cars should have downforce or not is not much of a point for me. What sort of downforce they should be given is key. Let them develope most of their downforce from the bottom of the car and you'll have cars which are suited to close racing.

Having cars which develope most of their downfoce (espeically frontal downforce) from wings and you are stagnating racing.

[J. Edlund]

cant remmber if the gearbox was or not. unstressed engine allowed for alot of different types of engines to be possible , plus the rear would have much more crush/crumple zones compaired to stressed.

I guess the lola lmp cars have mostly unstressed engines, as theres a wide viritey of engines running, even more are possible

The Lola LMP's use semi-stressed engines. Essentially a fully stressed engine with a pair of reinforcement tubular structures on the sides between the tub and the gearbox. They do this with both the V and the inline engines, which isn't that uncommon with LMP cars given that their wider tub gives a more difficult load path into the engine compared with the narrow tub of a formula car.

[pingu666]

downforce = easy mode, which is basicaly why you always want more as a driver or team, and why viewers want less

[Gilles4Ever]

For those with Autosport Plus subscriptions

The future shape of F1 engines by Dieter Rencken

Entirely new engine regulations will be a major component of Formula 1's 2013 rules overhaul. As plans come together, Dieter Rencken got some insight into F1's future from some top engine men

[highdownforce]

For those with Autosport Plus subscriptions

The future shape of F1 engines by Dieter Rencken

Gilles, sorry for quoting it but I had to:

If the Italian[Luca Marmorni] was disappointed at not having his V6 suggestion accepted, his eyes positively lit up when discussing other aspects of the proposed regulations. A host of new technologies have been discussed, many of which would have been rejected outright just two years ago. Think all-wheel energy regeneration; think compound turbo supercharging; think secondary uses for spent exhaust gasses; think steam turbines...

True, the EWG is still at the discussion stage – with engine directors hitting Paris every two weeks or so, usually for a full day – but it is clear that F1 is heading for a full-blown (pun intended) mechanical revolution.

[Alexis*27]

Think expense, think private teams going under to be replaced by the big manufacturers. Again.

Genius idea to spend millions and millions on redeveloping F1 cars for no tangible reason.

[highdownforce]

Would not redeveloping be the tangible reason itself?
Btw, why would the chances of a private team going under in this scenario be so different anyway?
The aero regulation will require totally new cars.