21 replies to this topic

[V8 Fireworks]

It works for Formula Three, WRC etc...

 

It's fair, it's the same for everbody.

 

Do it now in F1?

[itsnoe30]

Because it's not a spec series. Mercedes shouldn't be punished for being better.

[Kalmake]

Those are primarily to limit power, not equalize. In F1 that job is done by the fuel flow limiter.

[DrF]

If it's down to the chassis then Mercedes should have no problem with it.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

When should Mercedes (or anyone) be penalised for doing a better job?

 

Where was this when Red Bull was winning 4 on the bounce?

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 17 March 2015 - 07:40.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

DrF, on 17 Mar 2015 - 07:19, said:

If it's down to the chassis then Mercedes should have no problem with it.

They probably don't but why should they!

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 17 March 2015 - 07:40.

[Jimisgod]

itsnoe30, on 17 Mar 2015 - 05:50, said:

Because it's not a spec series. Mercedes shouldn't be punished for being better.

Name a season that hasn't happened to a dominant team. Maybe back in the mid 90s.

[SealTheDiffuser]

puuhleaaase!

no, thx have a nice day.

[FerrariV12]

The only time I remember restrictors being used in top-flight motorsport for any sort of equalisation was in 1990s/2000s LMP racing, and that was between different capacities/configurations, rather than penalising someone for building a better engine, e.g. you had Audi's 3.something-litre turbo, NASCAR-based 6-litre Ford V8s, 4-litre F1-derived Ferrari V12s and Judd V10s, etc. So each particular configuration was mapped to an air intake size. Of course with the new fuel-flow LMP1 regulations that is no longer needed either.

 

If you put the same diameter restrictors on all the cars, it would have no likely effect on the pecking order. If Merc are given a smaller one to hobble them, then to repeat what others have said (only because it's true), why should they be penalised for doing a better job?

 

I'm far, far from being a fan of Mercedes or Lewis "number 1 is irrelevant" Hamilton, but it's a matter of principle, I felt the same when Williams, McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull all had their times dominating in my lifetime.

 

GrumpyYoungMan, on 17 Mar 2015 - 07:40, said:

 

Where was this when Red Bull was winning 4 on the bounce?

 

To be fair it was there, plenty of moaning through Vettel's dominant period, I can't find any posts to link to but I'm positive there'd have been similar rumblings about ways to slow Red Bull down. In fact with RB it went further than speculative message board threads, here's the sporting boss off the sport's control supplier being his usual, wonderful, impartial self:

 

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/107415

Quote

"It is a bit bizarre - unless you all want us to give tyres to Red Bull to help them win the championship, which appears to be the case.

 

I didn't agree with it then, and I don't agree with it now.

[Massa]

V8 Fireworks, on 17 Mar 2015 - 05:43, said:

It works for Formula Three, WRC etc...

 

It's fair, it's the same for everbody.

 

Do it now in F1?

 

 

Go watch btcc then. Or GP2, or Formule Ford or whatever. The day F1 become a spec series i will stop watching this farce.

 

Whatever the gap i just want to see the best car - hopefully Ferrari - win. If they have to lap the field 136 times then they have to go for it.

[tmekt]

I guess we have to have these regulations unchanged forever as any suggested change is somehow "punishing Mercedes" even though they would obviously have the same chance in finding an advantage in the new, tweaked regulations.

Edited by tmekt, 17 March 2015 - 10:25.

[midgrid]

FerrariV12, on 17 Mar 2015 - 10:17, said:

The only time I remember restrictors being used in top-flight motorsport for any sort of equalisation was in 1990s/2000s LMP racing, and that was between different capacities/configurations, rather than penalising someone for building a better engine, e.g. you had Audi's 3.something-litre turbo, NASCAR-based 6-litre Ford V8s, 4-litre F1-derived Ferrari V12s and Judd V10s, etc. So each particular configuration was mapped to an air intake size. Of course with the new fuel-flow LMP1 regulations that is no longer needed either.

 

Toro Rosso also ran with a restricted V10 engine in 2006 instead of changing to a V8.

[ExFlagMan]

Would it necessarily help Renault and Ferrari that much. It might limit maximum power output from the ICE component but the engineering goal with these PSU's is probably more about integrating all the components rather than sheer ICE output, something I assume Mercedes have achieved better/faster than the others.
I read somewhere that Renault have upped their power output significantly with their latest upgrade but now the drivers are having more problems utilising that extra power.

In any case, many posters on here (and it seems some of the F1 Working Group/Bernie/ex-drivers etc) are clamouring for the cars to have 1000+ bhp and somehow I doubt even Mercedes could achieve that with air inlet restrictions.

[jonpollak]

Jp

[Henri Greuter]

Another piece of concern,

 

From what I have understood, the Mercedes engine also has the better Hybrid components within the power unit.

I can not figure out yet if using an air restictor will have any effect on the hybrid components and their efficiency. An air restictor will affect the turbo, but will that have effects on the hybrid parts connected with the turbo and the efficiency of that?

 

Besides that, I have the feeling that air flow restrictors are most effective on higher rpm levels so that makes me wonder how efficient a air intake restictor can be.

And isn't there much moaning nowadays about the current engines already being kept low in their rev range because of efficiency?

 

 

Henri

[jee]

Mercedes should not be slowed down, the others need a better chance to speed up.

[maverick69]

No real need for an air restrictor on a turbo. You just turn the boost down.

[kevinracefan]

itsnoe30, on 17 Mar 2015 - 05:50, said:

Because it's not a spec series. Mercedes shouldn't be punished for being better.

they shouldn't be... but, they probably will be... F1 has never been afraid to trim team's advantage when the show is suffering...

[CaptnMark]

Massa, on 17 Mar 2015 - 10:20, said:

Whatever the gap i just want to see the best car - hopefully Ferrari - win. If they have to lap the field 136 times then they have to go for it.

 

Red Bull wants to equalize engines, to make it about aeroplane development again...

 

IMO, equalize aero first. Perhaps a large can of Red Bull on top each car

Edited by CaptnMark, 17 March 2015 - 12:13.

[Henri Greuter]

maverick69, on 17 Mar 2015 - 11:49, said:

No real need for an air restrictor on a turbo. You just turn the boost down.

 

 

Group A rallycars of 1987 on used an air restrictor to cap off power output. Toyota created quite a scandal one year when they had found a manner to bypass the restrictor illigally and undetected for a while until it finally was dsicovered that they were cheating.

Le Mans prototypes and GTs also used air intake restrictors.

 

the idea itself isn't so strange, i only doubt if it will be helpful given the characters of the current F1 combustion engines and how they are used in the entire power unit.

 

henri

[thiscocks]

V8 Fireworks, on 17 Mar 2015 - 05:43, said:

It works for Formula Three, WRC etc...

 

It's fair, it's the same for everbody.

 

Do it now in F1?

Whats wrong with the fuel flow limiter?

[dgsg]

"The day F1 become a spec series i will stop watching this farce."

 

Thought it already was?