175 replies to this topic

[Latos]

So, I just saw this image that shows fastest race lap times in Australia and Malaysia from 2004-2014 and was shocked that diff is 8 and 10 sec.

So, they use v6 turbo engines with ers and other new battery's, treading the way for new car technology, as f1 is the pinnacle of motorsport. But, as I've heard, read and seen, throughout the history f1 used the technology that it needed, rarely that would define it as a sport. If it's not the best thing for the spectacle of the sport, it wouldn't be used more. First thing that comes to mind is active suspension, traction control, abs, automatic transmission and a lot of driver's aids and high tech electronics. Sometimes some "gadgets" would work, sometimes they wouldn't, so sport would go few years back in time for it's own good. Now, it appears, they have become slaves to economic-green tech that has big effect on the sport itself. If you told me 10y ago that cars will be 10 sec slower in 2014., it would make any sense. If you take football for example, you put the regs that say that now, every team can play with 7 players on a field 30m smaller. For me, that happened with f1 this year.

So, we have seen technology being thrown on this sport, but the sport always new where the limit is and balance it self. Do you think it will happen again? or will it be soon enough?

Edited by Latos, 03 April 2014 - 12:43.

[Brazzers]

Till the fans get pissed off and stopping attending the races/plus the viewing figures collapse. 

[Scotracer]

2020 when the powertrain regs change.

[Lazy]

So, I just saw this image that shows fastest race lap times in Australia and Malaysia from 2004-2014 and was shocked that diff is 8 and 10 sec. 
 
So, they use v6 turbo engines with ers and other new battery's, treading the way for new car technology, as f1 is the pinnacle of motorsport. But, as I've heard, read and seen, throughout the history f1 used the technology that it needed, rarely that would define it as a sport. If it's not the best thing for the spectacle of the sport, it wouldn't be used more.  First thing that comes to mind is active suspension, traction control, abs, automatic transmission and a lot of driver's aids and high tech electronics. Sometimes some "gadgets" would work, sometimes they wouldn't, so sport would go few years back in time for it own good. Now, it appears, they have become slaves to economic-green tech that has big effect on the sport itself. If you told me 10y ago that cars will be 10 sec slower in 2014., it would make any sense. If you take football for example, you put the regs that say that now, every team can play with 7 players on a field 30m smaller. For me, that happened with f1 this year. 
 
So, we have seen technology being thrown on the this sport, but the sport always new where the limit is and balance it self. Do you think it will happen again? or will it be soon enough?

The speeds are nothing to do with the engine, green or otherwise, it's about the aero.

 

The cars have been deliberately slowed for safety's sake, it's not a green issue.

[totgate]

It can't end soon enough!!!!

[Latos]

The speeds are nothing to do with the engine, green or otherwise, it's about the aero.

 

The cars have been deliberately slowed for safety's sake, it's not a green issue.

What happened in in 2003,04,05,06 that needed cars to go slower for safety?

And it is a green issue when you have 100l of fuel per race and have to control the usage.

Edited by Latos, 02 April 2014 - 15:15.

[Timstr11]

So, I just saw this image that shows fastest race lap times in Australia and Malaysia from 2004-2014 and was shocked that diff is 8 and 10 sec. 
 
So, they use v6 turbo engines with ers and other new battery's, treading the way for new car technology, as f1 is the pinnacle of motorsport. But, as I've heard, read and seen, throughout the history f1 used the technology that it needed, rarely that would define it as a sport. If it's not the best thing for the spectacle of the sport, it wouldn't be used more.  First thing that comes to mind is active suspension, traction control, abs, automatic transmission and a lot of driver's aids and high tech electronics. Sometimes some "gadgets" would work, sometimes they wouldn't, so sport would go few years back in time for it own good. Now, it appears, they have become slaves to economic-green tech that has big effect on the sport itself. If you told me 10y ago that cars will be 10 sec slower in 2014., it would make any sense. If you take football for example, you put the regs that say that now, every team can play with 7 players on a field 30m smaller. For me, that happened with f1 this year. 
 
So, we have seen technology being thrown on the this sport, but the sport always new where the limit is and balance it self. Do you think it will happen again? or will it be soon enough?

So why does F1 have to stay in the dark ages of engine technology?

Fuel consumption has always been an performance differentiatior and has been an important development area? Is that green tech?

[0Fritz]

So, I just saw this image that shows fastest race lap times in Australia and Malaysia from 2004-2014 and was shocked that diff is 8 and 10 sec. 
 
So, they use v6 turbo engines with ers and other new battery's, treading the way for new car technology, as f1 is the pinnacle of motorsport. But, as I've heard, read and seen, throughout the history f1 used the technology that it needed, rarely that would define it as a sport. If it's not the best thing for the spectacle of the sport, it wouldn't be used more.  First thing that comes to mind is active suspension, traction control, abs, automatic transmission and a lot of driver's aids and high tech electronics. Sometimes some "gadgets" would work, sometimes they wouldn't, so sport would go few years back in time for it own good. Now, it appears, they have become slaves to economic-green tech that has big effect on the sport itself. If you told me 10y ago that cars will be 10 sec slower in 2014., it would make any sense. If you take football for example, you put the regs that say that now, every team can play with 7 players on a field 30m smaller. For me, that happened with f1 this year. 
 
So, we have seen technology being thrown on the this sport, but the sport always new where the limit is and balance it self. Do you think it will happen again? or will it be soon enough?

 

The tree huggers have forced this upon the car manufacturers. When they go away, the manufacturers will change, and hopefully F1 too. This will be sped up when the EU disintegrates. Hopefully tomorrow.

 

Alternatively, Bernie steps out, new guy steps in and overhauls F1 to put it back where it belongs: a very light and overpowered car, 6 or 7 controls/gauges for the driver instead of the 600 he has now and may the best man win. 

[DampMongoose]

So, I just saw this image that shows fastest race lap times in Australia and Malaysia from 2004-2014 and was shocked that diff is 8 and 10 sec. 
 
So, they use v6 turbo engines with ers and other new battery's, treading the way for new car technology, as f1 is the pinnacle of motorsport. But, as I've heard, read and seen, throughout the history f1 used the technology that it needed, rarely that would define it as a sport. If it's not the best thing for the spectacle of the sport, it wouldn't be used more.  First thing that comes to mind is active suspension, traction control, abs, automatic transmission and a lot of driver's aids and high tech electronics. Sometimes some "gadgets" would work, sometimes they wouldn't, so sport would go few years back in time for it own good. Now, it appears, they have become slaves to economic-green tech that has big effect on the sport itself. If you told me 10y ago that cars will be 10 sec slower in 2014., it would make any sense. If you take football for example, you put the regs that say that now, every team can play with 7 players on a field 30m smaller. For me, that happened with f1 this year. 
 
So, we have seen technology being thrown on the this sport, but the sport always new where the limit is and balance it self. Do you think it will happen again? or will it be soon enough?

 

 

There are so many things I disagree with in your post I'm not sure where to start... I might have a proper go when I've got a bit of time and a large cuppa.  Quite simply though with regard your opening point, the cars capable of those lap times were involved in one of the most boring periods of F1 I've encountered.  You say F1 knows where the limit is but i'd argue if that were the case those 'fast' cars you speak of wouldn't have forced F1 to spawn the utterly ridiculous DRS based pretend excitement we have now.

[ExFlagMan]

The tree huggers have forced this upon the car manufacturers. When they go away, the manufacturers will change, and hopefully F1 too. This will be sped up when the EU disintegrates. Hopefully tomorrow.
 
Alternatively, Bernie steps out, new guy steps in and overhauls F1 to put it back where it belongs: a very light and overpowered car, 6 or 7 controls/gauges for the driver instead of the 600 he has now and may the best man win.

And who is going to pay for it - cannot see any car manufacturer stepping in to produce an engine, or will teams be scouring race car museums to find serviceable DFVs etc.

[917k]

2 races in to the new formula...........come on people!

[Tourgott]

Till the fans get pissed off and stopping attending the races/plus the viewing figures collapse. 

 

Already happens in Germany.

[0Fritz]

And who is going to pay for it - cannot see any car manufacturer stepping in to produce an engine, or will teams be scouring race car museums to find serviceable DFVs etc.

 

Back in the day there were lots of small engine factories. Judd, Hart and even Mercedes just bought Ilmor. Yamaha ran badged Judd engines iirc. Mugen made the engines for Honda (although it was setup by Honda. Etcetera. Actually I think one of the FIA goals some 10 years ago, was to have engines that costed around $250.000 each. Not a bad idea.

[Latos]

There are so many things I disagree with in your post I'm not sure where to start... I might have a proper go when I've got a bit of time and a large cuppa.  Quite simply though with regard your opening point, the cars capable of those lap times were involved in one of the most boring periods of F1 I've encountered.  You say F1 knows where the limit is but i'd argue if that were the case those 'fast' cars you speak of wouldn't have forced F1 to spawn the utterly ridiculous DRS based pretend excitement we have now.

Dude, I'm not talking about times when one team had the edge over everyone else, when you had two tyre manufacturers. I'm just saying that some things are wrong when the cars are going 10 sec slower on the same circuit 10 years latter and having 120 overtakes doesn't make a difference ...

Edited by Latos, 02 April 2014 - 15:40.

[Gorma]

What happened in in 2003,04,05,06 that needed cars to go slower for safety?

And it is a green issue when you have 100l of fuel per race and have to control the usage.

The cars were reaching speeds in the corners and straigths that were too high for most tracks. The runoff areas weren't large enough should something go wrong. That is why we have the Tilkedromes with big runoff areas now days.

[froggy22]

So, I just saw this image that shows fastest race lap times in Australia and Malaysia from 2004-2014 and was shocked that diff is 8 and 10 sec. 
 
So, they use v6 turbo engines with ers and other new battery's, treading the way for new car technology, as f1 is the pinnacle of motorsport. But, as I've heard, read and seen, throughout the history f1 used the technology that it needed, rarely that would define it as a sport. If it's not the best thing for the spectacle of the sport, it wouldn't be used more.  First thing that comes to mind is active suspension, traction control, abs, automatic transmission and a lot of driver's aids and high tech electronics. Sometimes some "gadgets" would work, sometimes they wouldn't, so sport would go few years back in time for it own good. Now, it appears, they have become slaves to economic-green tech that has big effect on the sport itself. If you told me 10y ago that cars will be 10 sec slower in 2014., it would make any sense. If you take football for example, you put the regs that say that now, every team can play with 7 players on a field 30m smaller. For me, that happened with f1 this year. 
 
So, we have seen technology being thrown on the this sport, but the sport always new where the limit is and balance it self. Do you think it will happen again? or will it be soon enough?

People focus on the negatives too much. I'm still sitting here quite impressed about how much power and torque they can get out of a 1.6 engine. The automotive industry has already made steps forward in engine technology and it would be foolish if F1 didn't follow. If we stuck with the old ancient engines, Honda wouldn't be returning, Renault would have likely left and we'd be left with 2 manufacturers and possibly less teams. F1 would die a sooner death if it never changed.

 

F1 as a sport is completely different to Football and you can't compare. F1 has to keep changing to keep up with Engineering challenges and real world relevance, Football doesn't have many if any challenges to overcome.

 

And as we've already seen from the first 2 races, the new regulations have made these cars more of a challenge to drive.

 

But by all means, continue to moan about the speed....

[ExFlagMan]

Didn't work out though did it - as soon as someone comes in and spends a bit more on their engine such great ideas rapidly go down the pan.
I guess a 'spec' engine might work price-wise, but you certainly wouldn't be able to hear the engine note for the whine of comments from this forum!

[Latos]

The cars were reaching speeds in the corners and straigths that were too high for most tracks. The runoff areas weren't large enough should something go wrong. That is why we have the Tilkedromes with big runoff areas now days.

...and slower cars. So that's ok?

And i don't remember crashes in that period that where so serious that FIA needed the to react. DC into Wurtz- nothing to do with speed.  maybe Heikki in Spain?

[RAGE12463]

...and slower cars. So that's ok?

And i don't remember crashes in that period that where so serious that FIA needed the to react. DC into Wurtz- nothing to do with speed.  maybe Heikki in Spain?

so you want to see the huge crashes before you take action?

[0Fritz]

People focus on the negatives too much. I'm still sitting here quite impressed about how much power and torque they can get out of a 1.6 engine. The automotive industry has already made steps forward in engine technology and it would be foolish if F1 didn't follow. If we stuck with the old ancient engines, Honda wouldn't be returning, Renault would have likely left and we'd be left with 2 manufacturers and possibly less teams. F1 would die a sooner death if it never changed.

 

F1 as a sport is completely different to Football and you can't compare. F1 has to keep changing to keep up with Engineering challenges and real world relevance, Football doesn't have many if any challenges to overcome.

 

And as we've already seen from the first 2 races, the new regulations have made these cars more of a challenge to drive.

 

But by all means, continue to moan about the speed....

 

- Weve had 1,5 engines with 1000 horses 30 years ago. A step forward in technology you say?

 

- Honda left, came back, left, came back, left and came back again.

 

- Renault left, came back, left, came back, left, came back, left and came back again.

 

- Weve had Prius technology in F1 since 2009.

 

- A 3 and a half million dollar costing, 760 bhp engine that lasts about 2000 miles has pretty much NOTHING in common with road cars.

 

- Teams spending up to 10 million dollars a year extra on radiators: dito.

 

- F1 teams spending on average 100 million dollars a year to design new cars each and every year, and then run then in 18 races has pretty much zero in common with road cars.

 

 

I like change, and I like new engines with this note: they should sound like a bat out of hell. The current ones dont, and the arguments you give why we should have them are moot.

 

You want road car relevance in F1: introduce traffic lights and road works. Dare I say it: impose speed limits on the track. Think of the children!

[Latos]

so you want to see the huge crashes before you take action?

No, that's why the have Tilkedromes and better crash/impact structures and fia tests...and now we have extremely slow cars for f1 standards, so what do you do next?

[DampMongoose]

Dude, I'm not talking about times when one team had the edge over everyone else, when you had two tyre manufacturers. I'm just saying that some things are wrong when the cars are going 10 sec slower on the same circuit 10 years latter and having 120 overtakes doesn't make a difference ...

 

Nor am I, I am stating that in response to your point that F1 knew where the limit was and will reset it to cmpensate.  Which is just not true.  If they had a concept of the limit for keeping the spectacle, they wouldn't have ended up with processional races due to the cars reliance on aero grip.  I'm all for a formula where the racing is better (although not the artificial crap at present) if it means the cars are slower while being more technologically advanced. 

 

To counter your argument about factors not being for the best of the sport, being scrapped, unfortunately, there are many cases where the opposite is true, some having been imposed by outside influence, just like the green issues at present.  Tobacco sponsorship was incredibly good for F1, but is no longer allowed, multiple engine sizes, multiple tyre compounds, qualifying engines, all were very good for the spectacle and we had some of the largest grids and pre-qualifying during that time.  But they have all been lost and not for F1's improvement.  So i don't agree with you that F1 goes back on itself to redress the balance, as it has shown repeatedly that it does not! 

[Lazy]

...and slower cars. So that's ok?

And i don't remember crashes in that period that where so serious that FIA needed the to react. DC into Wurtz- nothing to do with speed.  maybe Heikki in Spain?

Go and argue that with the drivers, but it has nothing to do with the engines, which is what your thread is about.

[Lennat]

- Weve had 1,5 engines with 1000 horses 30 years ago. A step forward in technology you say?

 

- Honda left, came back, left, came back, left and came back again.

 

- Renault left, came back, left, came back, left, came back, left and came back again.

 

- Weve had Prius technology in F1 since 2009.

 

- A 3 and a half million dollar costing, 760 bhp engine that lasts about 2000 miles has pretty much NOTHING in common with road cars.

 

- Teams spending up to 10 million dollars a year extra on radiators: dito.

 

- F1 teams spending on average 100 million dollars a year to design new cars each and every year, and then run then in 18 races has pretty much zero in common with road cars.

 

 

I like change, and I like new engines with this note: they should sound like a bat out of hell. The current ones dont, and the arguments you give why we should have them are moot.

 

You want road car relevance in F1: introduce traffic lights and road works. Dare I say it: impose speed limits on the track. Think of the children!

 

I kinda agree. However, there should be a balance. I HATED the frozen engines, no drama, no change... They should have simply raised the fuel limit (flow AND tank size) so that they crushed the old V8s. How about something like 120 liters an hour (flow) and a 130 liter tank or so (to make it a bit less marginal as well)? They would STILL use less fuel than the V8s, but have V10 levels of power. THAT would be exiting, green AND fast cars.

Edited by Lennat, 02 April 2014 - 16:08.

[Pingguest]

One should not underestimate the consequences of the equalization and mandated longevity as well as the standardization of several components, such as the tires and electronics. At the beginning of the millennium no part was homologated or standardized and mandated longevity was unheard of. 

 

The 2004 speeds were too high; drivers had to cope with tremendous forces and even Michael Schumacher - at that time known as one of the fittest drivers - complained about severe neck pain after races. In case of an shunt the forces became a threat for drivers' safety. In this respect I would like to recall Jarno Trulli's crash during the 2004 British Grand Prix.

Although the 2004 situation required the FIA to act, the measures which were introduced for the sake for safety as well as motivated by the desire for cost reduction, worth criticism. The ethical consequences are simply unacceptable. In 2002 no-one would have accepted the FIA to have such a big influence on races as they acquired by introducing the current tires and introducing regulations dictating the fundamentals of car designs. 

[Latos]

Nor am I, I am stating that in response to your point that F1 knew where the limit was and will reset it to cmpensate.  Which is just not true.  If they had a concept of the limit for keeping the spectacle, they wouldn't have ended up with processional races due to the cars reliance on aero grip.  I'm all for a formula where the racing is better (although not the artificial crap at present) if it means the cars are slower while being more technologically advanced. 

 

To counter your argument about factors not being for the best of the sport, being scrapped, unfortunately, there are many cases where the opposite is true, some having been imposed by outside influence, just like the green issues at present.  Tobacco sponsorship was incredibly good for F1, but is no longer allowed, multiple engine sizes, multiple tyre compounds, qualifying engines, all were very good for the spectacle and we had some of the largest grids and pre-qualifying during that time.  But they have all been lost and not for F1's improvement.  So i don't agree with you that F1 goes back on itself to redress the balance, as it has shown repeatedly that it does not! 

Ok, let's agree that f1 doesn't know where the limit is and lets say that the f1 "spectacle" curve is steady going downward in the last...i don't know 20 years? I'm saying that curve just became very steep.

Edited by Latos, 02 April 2014 - 16:46.

[Hyatt]

I hope the green tech era will be extended ... harvesting on front-axle should contribute a lot. I like the technology behind this ....

[Red17]

Didn't work out though did it - as soon as someone comes in and spends a bit more on their engine such great ideas rapidly go down the pan.
 

 

This is always how all cost cutting ideas have end up.

 

As for the lack of speed. Give engineers 2 years and you will see laptimes getting closer. Oh, by the way, these are the same rulemakers who enjoy toying with tyres.

[RealRacing]

- Weve had 1,5 engines with 1000 horses 30 years ago. A step forward in technology you say?

 

- Honda left, came back, left, came back, left and came back again.

 

- Renault left, came back, left, came back, left, came back, left and came back again.

 

- Weve had Prius technology in F1 since 2009.

 

- A 3 and a half million dollar costing, 760 bhp engine that lasts about 2000 miles has pretty much NOTHING in common with road cars.

 

- Teams spending up to 10 million dollars a year extra on radiators: dito.

 

- F1 teams spending on average 100 million dollars a year to design new cars each and every year, and then run then in 18 races has pretty much zero in common with road cars.

 

 

I like change, and I like new engines with this note: they should sound like a bat out of hell. The current ones dont, and the arguments you give why we should have them are moot.

 

You want road car relevance in F1: introduce traffic lights and road works. Dare I say it: impose speed limits on the track. Think of the children!

Exactly, when did the idea come forth that F1 had to be relevant to road cars? F1 was/should be entertainment first and foremost and its main participants should have this most important thing in common: passion for motor racing. The problem is that the most powerful teams nowadays do have commercial interests for their involvement in F1: Ferrari, Mercedes, Honda, Renault and that's why they are trying to steer the sport in that direction. Why are teams like Williams in the sport? Yeah, maybe they'll come up with some patent that they can sell to the automotive industry but aside from that? They want to race and survive of the entertainment part of F1 itself (i.e. prize money from the championships). And IMO that's the way it should be. How many independent teams were there in the history of F1 with no other motivation than the love of their owners/sponsors for the sport of racing? As I said in other thread, if corporations want to test their mass-market products, they might as well do it in their own test tracks, labs and simulators. Heck, if they want, they can even organize an intra-industry tournament with all kinds of statistics and technical data being displayed and exchanged via the internet or whatever if that gets the engineers' hearts racing. Or, if they really want to go to the trouble of taking cars to tracks all over the world to test stuff, do it with endurance cars as at least they are closer to what they want from road cars in terms of consumption and engine resistance. Us racing fans? No thanks, keep your useless fuel consumption PIP, your conserve engine messages and your team orders. Honestly, if Bernie retires and is able to start a parallel championship with these characteristics, I'll leave F1 in a hurry.  

[ExFlagMan]

Ok, let's agree that f1 doesn't know where the limit is and let say that the f1 "spectacle" curve is steady going downward in the last...i don't know 20 years? I'm saying that curve just became very steep.

I guess it depends on your definition of 'spectacle'.

No idea how long you have been following F1, but where is the spectacle in a season where the highest no of cars completing full race distance was six, the average 3-4 and the lowest was 1. Its not even that there where dices further down the field, most races had about 10-12 classified finishers and most of those where several laps down and limping home.

And what sort of formula produced this 'spectacle' - only the 1986 one with mega-boost power levels (1000 bhp - but only for one qualy lap - if it lasted that long), plus a tyre war - precisely the things that many here are claiming as the epitome of F1 spectacle.

[LuckyStrike1]

V8 engines 2006 - 2013
V10/V12 engines 1995 - 2005

Non-turbo era 1989-1994

 

So ... expect the current engine regulations to be in effect for about 8 years and only with some smaller modifications. Enjoy. 

[SealTheDiffuser]

I kinda agree. However, there should be a balance. I HATED the frozen engines, no drama, no change... They should have simply raised the fuel limit (flow AND tank size) so that they crushed the old V8s. How about something like 120 liters an hour (flow) and a 130 liter tank or so (to make it a bit less marginal as well)? They would STILL use less fuel than the V8s, but have V10 levels of power. THAT would be exiting, green AND fast cars.

 

the tanks are already bigger than 130 liters...  

[Latos]

I guess it depends on your definition of 'spectacle'.

No idea how long you have been following F1, but where is the spectacle in a season where the highest no of cars completing full race distance was six, the average 3-4 and the lowest was 1. Its not even that there where dices further down the field, most races had about 10-12 classified finishers and most of those where several laps down and limping home.

And what sort of formula produced this 'spectacle' - only the 1986 one with mega-boost power levels (1000 bhp - but only for one qualy lap - if it lasted that long), plus a tyre war - precisely the things that many here are claiming as the epitome of F1 spectacle.

Since 98.

Well, my definition of spectacle is 2012. I quite liked 2007,06,05. I don't remember 15 dnf being constant since beginning of 2000's

[Lennat]

the tanks are already bigger than 130 liters...

I meant kilos, sorry... .)

[Maustinsj]

The tree huggers have forced this upon the car manufacturers. When they go away, the manufacturers will change, and hopefully F1 too. This will be sped up when the EU disintegrates. Hopefully tomorrow.

Alternatively, Bernie steps out, new guy steps in and overhauls F1 to put it back where it belongs: a very light and overpowered car, 6 or 7 controls/gauges for the driver instead of the 600 he has now and may the best man win.

Or when the racetracks are submerged...

[DampMongoose]

Ok, let's agree that f1 doesn't know where the limit is and lets say that the f1 "spectacle" curve is steady going downward in the last...i don't know 20 years? I'm saying that curve just became very steep.

 

F1 cars themselves are aways a 'spectacle' as they are the most advanced vehicles under the constraints they are designed for, but that does not mean the racing is.  When you look at the current cars capabilities using the powertarins we have this year they are amazing technological creations. 

 

Although Non-F1, the greatest motor racing for me in recent years was Group C in the late 80's, prior to Bernie and his crowd sticking their jealous oars in. Multiple engines of differing size and aspiration, multiple tyres, but all governed by a Fuel limit. It was brilliant and relevant. 

 

I think by using the term spectacle you perhaps are straying between a wish for advanced cars that are less restricted by nature of their design or ouside influences like 'green' or 'healthy', but you also crave an element of exciting racing? I may be wrong but I can't see exactly what your issue is at the moment? 

[Lazy]

The tree huggers have forced this upon the car manufacturers. When they go away, the manufacturers will change, and hopefully F1 too. This will be sped up when the EU disintegrates. Hopefully tomorrow.

 

Alternatively, Bernie steps out, new guy steps in and overhauls F1 to put it back where it belongs: a very light and overpowered car, 6 or 7 controls/gauges for the driver instead of the 600 he has now and may the best man win. 

The oil will run out before the tree huggers go away. 

[DampMongoose]

Since 98.

 

 

Ah, the penny drops.

[quasi C]

It's only going to get "worse" from here on.

[chunder27]

Are people really that impressed by how much power can be got form these engines?

 

Before modern metallurgy and everything was really involved BMW were getting insane power from their 4 cylinder 1.5 litre engine, 1300 hp was the rumour though I am inclined to not believe these old wives tales, well over 1000hp certainly in qually.

 

OK they were using toluene, insane octance fuels, but these were days of very basic ECU control, hardly any real digital technology.

 

I would love to see qually engines, but that can never happen for cost reasons, BMW built engines at Monza in 86 that literally did 3 laps, out, qually and in, and Fabi's disintegrated on the slowdown. But they could afford it as they basically used knackered old high mileage 4 cylinder road engine blocks that were re-engineered and cost bugger all as they were the most weathered and toughest to cope with the boost pressure.

 

Modern engineering has a lot to learn I think, it is all far too PC based and not enough people getting out there and doing something radical with their minds, hands and feet.

[mclarennut]

The tree huggers have forced this upon the car manufacturers. When they go away, the manufacturers will change, and hopefully F1 too. This will be sped up when the EU disintegrates. Hopefully tomorrow.

 

 

What a childish statement, you really think electric F1 cars will disappear and us so called tree huggers will just go away   this is the future and its here to stay, in years to come EVERYONE will be driving electric cars,  the manufacturers know this and have embraced it with both arms and I expect F1 cars will one day be very fast once they have spent time and money improving them.

 

If we was all so backward in thinking we would still be in the dark ages...

 

PS

 

I am a tree hugger and proud of it, I love the planet I live on & we all know that changing fuel cars to electric won't make things better but every little bit helps..

 

PSS

 

I also love F1, shock horror................

Edited by mclarennut, 02 April 2014 - 17:29.

[Bartonz20let]

Can we have a big thread for all this 'in the good old days' talk?

What's wrong with F1??

[Fastcake]

I wish people wouldn't start 1000 threads on the same subject, just because their opinion apparently deserves its own thread.

 

I not going to fully repeat what I normally say, but it's about image, not reducing carbon emissions or to attract new fans. The world is moving on, big NA engines are going out, smaller turbo engines with energy recovery are coming in. F1 can keep with the times or find itself ostracised by sponsors and manufacturers.

[Latos]

What's wrong with F1??

 

 

For me, personally...THIS:

 

[4MEN]

It will end with the V4 diesel.

[Bartonz20let]

For me, personally...THIS:

It wasnt a question, it was a suggestion for a thread title.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but we don't need a million threads to get the point across.

[scheivlak]

Don't forget we had hard/medium Pirelli tyres on a track that saw rain everyday - while we had a tyre war in e.g. 2004. That makes quite a difference! Furthermore aerodynamics are pretty important in Malaysia and aero is far more restricted this year - compared to last year - than engine power (some engines are possibly already more powerful!).

 

If you whinge about 8-10 seconds difference you shouldn't whinge about the engines.....

[billm99uk]

When the flat 4 greener tech era begins? Or maybe they'll just wait for electric?

Seriously, you sound like the Indy crowd when they lost the front-engined roadsters....

[Andrew Hope]

Judging by the amount of a certain plant one must smoke before watching an F1 race becomes interesting again, I'd say the green era will never end.

[undersquare]

The faster the cars are, the harder it is to overtake.