Goldrusher <goldrusherREMOVETHIS (AT) telenet (DOT) be> wrote:

Mandated V-angle ? Or will we see again 120º engines ?

Higher octane rating = higher compression, higher boost or both.
That is nice (and they can say F1 will be carbon-neutral *).

* only the race cars, obviously.

Controlled how ? Intake restrictor ? I would like to see a fuel-rate
limiter, but I doubt that will happen. Since there will be a power-boost
button, I suppose there will be a boost limit and that will solely control
the power.

No minimum weight ?

This is actually not too bad an idea for the engine rules. Less cylinders
= less cost. With the turbo that relatively low amount of power should not
be difficult to reach. And the 10,000rpm makes it more like normal engines,
so there migt be some relevance to car buyers.

Ok.

Well, that is too hard to forbid, I suppose...

My first thought was "What ? That doesn't make much sense." But then I
noticed that this integrates with the "kinetic energy recovery system".
That is, electrical brakes on the front wheels recover energy during
braking and then are used as electric motors during the next acceleration.
So there won't be a drive axle beneath the driver.

So there will be no need to have 2 wind tunnels and a supercomputer
running CFD programs 24/7 to be competitive in F1 ? And cars won't have
dozens of tiny wings, spikes, etc. ? And the driver might get a better
seating position ? And it might be possible to follow another driver
through a fast curve ?

Can't say I disagree with that (specially if Pinifarina is asked to
design it (yes, I know they have a special relationship with Ferrari,
but they also have designed some of the most beautiful cars ever)).



http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19163.html
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=39287

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

"Goldrusher" <goldrusherREMOVETHIS (AT) telenet (DOT) be> wrote




Just make them take off the freaking wings.

"Goldrusher" <goldrusherREMOVETHIS (AT) telenet (DOT) be> wrote


so F1 wants to be a spec car series based in asia.

fia/fisa/ eccelstonia needs to be broken up and recreated anew..

On May 18, 2:31 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu... (AT) rcn (DOT) com> wrote:
Mosley has done enough damage to F1, Now he want's to screw it up some
more. He should have stayed retired.

Paul Ian Harman <chatterbox (AT) doctorwhowebguide (DOT) net> wrote:
Happened in NASCAR... Car of Tomorrow, anyone?

pete
--
pete (AT) fenelon (DOT) com "how many clever men have called the sun a fool?"

Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
Because GP2 provides good racing. F1 provides "The Show". Bernie prefers
the latter, and Max wants it to all look vaguely 'eco'.

pete
--
pete (AT) fenelon (DOT) com "how many clever men have called the sun a fool?"

<TonyMitch (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote


How much more time does Mosley have in his postion? Once Bernie goes
does that mean Mosley is history as well?

On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:20:37 +0200, "Goldrusher"
<goldrusherREMOVETHIS (AT) telenet (DOT) be> wrote:

Why stop there? I think they should all be the same color, put the
same numbers on all the cars, and use cloned drivers. The winner to be
determined by the car that uses the least fuel completing the
distance. Cars to start at ten second intervals, no passing allowed.
Bill Smith

Goldrusher wrote:
With what are Ford supposed to go F1 racing with?

A1GP in the near future?

A1GP?

*yawn*


Regen braking in F1. How *exciting*.

??

A1GP.

A1GP.

Mad Max yawns again...


--
Cheers
Graham

Make a little birdhouse in your soul...

Bill Smith wrote:


Drivers?

Entire fleet driven by remote datalink from a trailer in Hyderabad.