Do we still care about F1?

I have voted for proposal 2, but they don't explain what happens if, for example, a Merc engine lets go in the first 15 minute session.
Either proposal must be better for the punters/viewers than the current alternative to mogadon.

Tony

I guess there is no penalty for it! Who knows? Good question!

Anyway, F1 is in an "unstable flux" as far as the rules etc goes for now, will probably sort it self out or demise in 2008!

Yep. New aero rules this year, V8 engines next year, might be 2010 before stability and confidence return.
As a matter off interest:

http://www.cosworth.com/downloads/cosworthV8_movie5_medium.mpg

A sneak of a 2006 V8. And it is reliable.

Tony

I lost interest in F1 about 5 years ago and I watched a couple of grand prixs this year for the first time since then and I've lost interest again.

Out of those two I would prefer option 1, but I would prefer if it just went back to an open 1 hour qualifying session with refueling during and after the session.

Qualifying is not the problem with F1 though, they need to get the cars closer on the track so there is actually some racing happening not a procession. The races I watched the commentators were getting excited when some overtaking happened in the pit lanes, I for one don't find that exciting.

quote:

Originally posted by Tony Lockhart:

A sneak of a 2006 V8. And it is reliable.

Tony

20,000 rpm! The current F1 engines are seldom revved over 17-18k if my memory of in-car footage serves me right.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
20,000 rpm! The current F1 engines are seldom revved over 17-18k if my memory of in-car footage serves me right.

2.4 litre V8's and 3.0 litre V10's have the same displacement per cilinder, so equally high rpm numbers should be no problem in the first place. Also, a shorter engine will have lighter (and less) revolving parts, which might give room for some extra rpm.

The V8's will also rev up quicker, btw.

Cheers,

Edo

I am not the pimple of an engineer but my understanding is that the feet-per-second limit cannot be exceeded much; but that high revs are possible from a short stroke/wide bore engine.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I am not the pimple of an engineer but my understanding is that the feet-per-second limit cannot be exceeded much; but that high revs are possible from a short stroke/wide bore engine.

That is correct, and that's why I think the newer engine spec will be able to deliver the same rpm: probably same bore and stroke as the currect spec as displacements are also identical.

Decreased weight of the revolving parts is the next best thing I can think of.

Cheers,

Edo

So Edo, do you think the smaller engines will slow anybody down?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
So Edo, do you think the smaller engines will slow anybody down?

I don't know what other rules will change, but the higher rpm Cosworth is now showing (off) will compensate for part of the decrease in displacement. At 20k vs 18k, the smaller engine will (theoretically) have only 10% less bhp.

But mind you, this only holds when the engine is revved up over the old 18k limit. Before then, you'll always have 20% less power.

So what do I think? All other rules equal, I think it will slow them down only slightly.

Cheers,

Edo