F1 - Turbos Make A Comeback?
 

]http://formula-1.updatesport.com/news/article/1163689855/formula_one/F1headlines/Turbos-to-make-a-comeback/view.html

http://formula-1.updatesport.com/new...3jabouille.jpg
2011 may see forced induction
http://cdn.fastclick.net/fastclick.net/tv.gif

Nov.16 (GMM) Turbo-charged engine regulations will return to formula one probably in 2011, FIA president Max Mosley said this week.

Whilst declaring peace with the carmaker union GPDA's Burkhard Goeschel in Munich, Mosley suggested that the end of normally-aspirated engines in grand prix racing will coincide with a more environmentally friendly sport of the future.

"The capacity would be up for discussion because we don't want to have a ridiculous level of horsepower," he said, adding that the engines would rev to a minimum of 15,000rpm and use 'bio fuel'.

Mosley also said the final 'fuel burning' stage of the current qualifying system is bad for F1's image and a tweak is possible for 2007.

He explained: "If we want to change that for 2007 we need unanimity. One of the suggestions is that we take five minutes off and allow an extra set of tyres. Then you are going to see non-stop action."

In a Q&A published on the FIA's website on Thursday, Mosley also said he would probably retire before 2010.


Written: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:10:55

Ja, a diesel needs to be FI.

If their fear is insane hp why don't they mandate a limiter? Besides speed there must be some way to monitor the power an engine is making, does anyone know?

Besides renault won't get anywhere with that car. Don't they know staggered setups are always bad?

There is a way. You would use a intake restrictor to limit air flow.
That car pictured is from about 1980. Staggered setups do work on cars with insane weight to horsepower ratios. They need to keep the rear tires stuck under acceleration, both forward and lateral.
As for biofuel, do you think he is talking about ethanol?

I seriously doubt he's talking about biodiesel. Especially not with a 15000 rpm ceiling. Ethanol is probably what he is referring to.

I typed a long post yesterday but my internet connection went out as it was "posting". I was hoping it made it through.

Someone already answered your question regarding staggered setups. Someone also mention air restrictors in which place they are already restricted for air intake. Don't know the size. Now they are being restricted by rpms. The first move to limit horsepower was the move from 3.0L V10's that were pushing 1k-hp with some manufacturers topping that number. With the move to 2.4L V8's they were cutting 20% of that power. Now the cars are pushing 800hp, and some could be over with many hitting over 20k rpms as of late. Now the new rev limit of 19k will stop the insane amount of hp output. But then you have aero. When the cars went from V10's to V8's they would have been slower, but the aero department made up for the lack of hp and the cars are as fast if not faster than the V10 counterparts. Doesn't matter what they do to slow speed and bring more safety. Technology will show who is the master and the cars will continue to get faster.

My main problem with the FIA's rules is that the sport is now being turned from a "Run what you brung" series to a spec series. They are all going to be on 1 tire manufacturer. All being rev limited. It is starting to suck.

Those are my ramblings.

The safety problem with the current cars is always going to be cornering speed... as in it is rediculously high in F1 right now. The two main drivers of that are aero and gumball tires the latter of which s/b corrected by reverting to one tire supplier in '07.

Now if the FIA would only get rid of F1's flat/stepped undertray rule and reduce the wing size then we would have something closer to real racing like GP2, currently the best open wheel series on the planet IMHO.

As for power, 900-1000hp wouldn't be a problem if they actually had to lift and down shift for "medium speed" turns or brake before the 50m board for 1st gear chicanes. F1 had that much power 25 years ago when the tracks were totally unsafe. Diesel LMP1's have 1000lbs+ of torque now and that's not a problem because they're not flat out 75% of the lap around Road Atlanta or Le Mans.

There is one more element that you forgot. One of the major reasons why the F1 cars are going faster around tracks even though they have less power is they are using better tire technology this year along with the other improvements you mentioned.

^^And you are correct. Tyres are a BIG BIG part in the cars chassis and engine package.

One brand tires will help F1 and here's why, Marbles. One brand means that they can be made harder to eliminate the problem of marbles. This will aid in offline passing and braking. It brings the driver more back into the sport.

Instead of going to one brand couldn't they mandate a minimum tire compound hardness and test them with a rig or test car to make sure they are not creating marbles? I'm never a fan of single supplier up front because the lack of competition tends to reduce manufacturer motivation to fix problems that arise and create a better tire. I would think the FIA would constantly have to be stepping in on behalf of the teams when ever there was a problem with the tire since the manufacturer would have no immediate incentive to fix things before the next race.

Just my opinion.

The Michelin/Bridgestone competition didn't help this in Indianapolis last year.

Don't even get me started about how much of a load of crap that was! According to Road and Track the suggestion was to put a chicane in the track to slow down the top track speed so the michelin tires could have competed but Ferrari wouldn't agree to it and Bernie Eccelstone said...okay we won't do that. In my mind Bernie had the ability to change the track and throw a full grid race instead of bowing to Ferrari. :mad: :spank:

In a less heated answer to your comment Al: If Michelin were the only tire supplier then there would not have been a race so I guess it did work...kinda. :mad:

And don't even get me started on that. You want someone to change the track layout after the cars have been setup and tested because someone else did not come prepared? Michelin did not test their tires on the track, knowing that it was repaved. Bridgestone did, and also used previous data to construct their tyres.

Oh, and next time something doesn't go your way, Ferrari did it.

:rofl: Fair reply. Yeah I agree it's not that easy to just change the track at the last minute on the teams. I agree Michelin didn't come prepared. I blame Bernie not Ferrari though. He could have set up a competitive track that the other race teams were willing to sign up for and told Ferrari that was how it was going to be instead of rolling over and putting on a farce of a race.

Edit: I found the article and I'm going to change my position.: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=2403

I'd like to retract my blame of Bernie Eccelstone and place it firmly on Max Mosley the FIA president that decided not to change the course. Bernie was in favor of the change along with the teams.

Here is the autoweek article: http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...73263559668629

It also mentions Max as a supporter of the one tire supplier for F1 like you mentioned Al.

Haha, I was being sarcastic about the staggered wheels statement poking fun at those around here who swear by equals on all 4s. Of course if done correctly a staggered setup will run well, it induces different characteristics than eqaul around that may compliment or hurt certain cars/drivers. Not always just about weight over the rear but allignment combined with other suspension factors.

Ideally they limit the amount of fuel per race. This will automatically limit max power and produce more fuel efficient engines. (No reason to limit rpm, boost or adding any restrictors.)

Thats a good thought. I can see the window sticker on the new models now. Get 5 mpg city/15 mpg highway/2 mpg track...I don't know if that will solve the corner speed issue though.

I think I speak for a lot of fans when I say stop trying to find ways to make these cars slower. Do what has to be done to make the tracks safe but dont take away the spirit of F1, which is the pinnacle of innovation and technology. The teams have the money and drivers know the risks. If you're too poor or too scared, find a different job.

The worst decision they made; Homologation of the engines for the next 3 years?! What a joke.

f1 would solve many of its own problems if they just made a decision and stuck with it. Why switch to v8's and have the teams spend all that money for the FIA to just say that the cars are still cornering too fast? Limit aero grip and mechanical grip and it makes no difference if the cars have 800hp. Also maybe making a spec brake pad too, it would be nice to see real braking duels, rather than driving to the 1 marker and standing on it.

Engine restrictors or rpm limiters don't really affect corner speed either. Corner speed is for instance reduced by adapting aerodynamic rules or race tracks.
It's not a new concept anyway. They already did limit the amount fuel per race on Turbocharged engines (I believe around 1988 or so) to give naturally aspirated engines an advantage. And in fact turbocharged F1 engines running in the late 80's were the most efficient F1 engines ever produced.

The reason why they equalize engines more and more (same number of cylinders, no exotic materials etc.) is about reducing the probability that any team comes up with a superior engine in one season and simply rules the place (as it used to be the case in the past). (Bad for business).
To reduce this risk they could introduce weight 'penalties': For example and simplified: The first 3 of a race have to carry extra weight during the next race.
They claim that they limit engine options to reduce costs, which doesn't really make too much sense, since the money on hand is higher than it was ever before in history.

Allowing more innovation makes a race series less predictable. So they apply more rules in order to limit innovation and make it more predictable. After all it is a business and not a playground for engineers as it used to be.
Also, 30 years ago F1 drivers still risked their lives to win and nowadays they have families and financial advisors.

Oh yeah, moving to V8's were to save money :Freak_ani

I think all the FIA should be doing is making sure that the races are as fair as possible from a race stand point. The more rules the worse id say! Formula 1 is the pinnicle of performance and is ment to be so. The why regulate them so much. The point is to be the absolute peak in automotive tech and skill. I understand its for driver safety and what not but i think the team should worry about that more then the FIA. Limiting the technology is just taking away from the sport. Take the mass dampers thing. I am no renault fan, im actually a ferrari fan but thats new technology and i think its stupid to say remove it. Engine homogulation is the biggest load of crap yet and im afraid it will only get worse. We will see how long it lasts, hopefull not long at all

Somehow they found that the mass dampers were movable aerodynamic parts which were buried under the front nose and out of view.