FIA confirms latest proposals for 2011

[Zytek_Fan]

I4s are doable, but they should let them go with 2.0 litre, rather than a pathetic 1.3 to 1.5

[fisetdavid26]

Originally Posted by Quiggs

Turbo I4's? Sounds like VW needs to get in on this. 20 valve turbo ftmfw.

If the costs are significantly lowered I'm quite sure this will happen.

I like everything the FIA is suggesting, seems like they're going in the right direction.

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

The FIA banned rotary engines.

Meanies.

[lightweight]

Originally Posted by Quiggs

Turbo I4's? Sounds like VW needs to get in on this. 20 valve turbo ftmfw.

VW is referred in the official document issued by the FIA, among the existing manufacturers.

The only reason that I can think of, is that VAG is would be interested in entering F1, if they liked the post-2011 regulations.

Quiggs I've got a feeling that they will be using the TSI mated to a DSG transmission

http://www.fia.com/resources/documen..._Framework.pdf

http://www.fia.com/resources/documen..._Framework.pdf

[2ndclasscitizen]

They go on about energy recovery, so F1 cars are going to be hybrids now?

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

Why may I ask? F1 hater?

What I meant is that I couldn't care less about the number of cylinders F1 engines will have. They don't sound distinctive (just a scream) so why bother?

On a side note, yes F1 is boooring.

[jediali]

its only boring if no-one crashes

[jediali]

Originally Posted by lightweight

VW is referred in the official document issued by the FIA, among the existing manufacturers.

The only reason that I can think of, is that VAG is would be interested in entering F1, if they liked the post-2011 regulations.

Quiggs I've got a feeling that they will be using the TSI mated to a DSG transmission

http://www.fia.com/resources/documen..._Framework.pdf

http://www.fia.com/resources/documen..._Framework.pdf

Why TSI? that engine is designed for rev-wide performance, F1 engines are optimised around a single narrow operating speed. Whats the point of having a s/c for low revs if the car never uses low revs?

[orne]

I think the rules are generally moving in the right direction and all they're saying is that they predict turbo I4s would be the best choice, the beauty of this is that they can try other configurations since the limit is set by efficiency and not displacement so we might end up seeing different configs.

Also, this encourages innovative designs which is what the F1 philosophy should be.

About the I4s, that's nothing new in F1 and since they wouldn't reach those insane revs they might even sound better than current cars.

Overall, it's certainly alot less boring than having 22 cars with a 2.4 V8...

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by jediali

Why TSI? that engine is designed for rev-wide performance, F1 engines are optimised around a single narrow operating speed. Whats the point of having a s/c for low revs if the car never uses low revs?

I'd make cars a lot more forgiving though, and probably faster since ratios could be wider I guess. And there's sometimes where F1 cars use low revs like on really tight corners (Loews epingle anyone?) and on the start.

[orne]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

I'd make cars a lot more forgiving though, and probably faster since ratios could be wider I guess. And there's sometimes where F1 cars use low revs like on really tight corners (Loews epingle anyone?) and on the start.

Yea, but those advantages would be countered by the extra weight of the engine and the extra consumption...

[jediali]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

I'd make cars a lot more forgiving though, and probably faster since ratios could be wider I guess. And there's sometimes where F1 cars use low revs like on really tight corners (Loews epingle anyone?) and on the start.

i see your point. getting better torque distribution is important (but i still think TSI is too complex for F1). During the transition form 3.0 V10 to 2.4 V8 some poorer companies (couldn't afford V8 yet) where told they could keep using the V10 as long as you lower your revs (to reduce power). But lower the revs and retain a 600cc advantage you can actually get more torque from the engine. This made the V10's more responsive at lower revs and allowed good pickup out of corners.

[blackcat77]

I'm not as much concerned with the engine as I am dramatically reducing the downforce -- a 50% reduction is not enough, IMHO -- and getting rid of all computer-aided driving assists. My ideal would be the old cigar-tube cars of the 60s, but safety requirements would make them impossible.

[ruim20]

i agree to all, exept the automatic change in downforce when following a car... i have no ideia how that would work, i also think theese rules should come sooner than they are being proposed, specialy the fuel limit for races. F1 as given nothing to the car world exept samller engines that use more fuel to get the same HP.

[Mr.Tiv]

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

I4s are doable, but they should let them go with 2.0 litre, rather than a pathetic 1.3 to 1.5

They'll surely be anything but pathetic. In 1998, Mach 2 racing dyno'd their 1986 Ford RS200e at 840bhp and 700ft/lbs of torque. It runs 30psi boost in a 2.1L I4. Considering advances in technology, F1 engineers should be capable of similar results with a smaller engine, yes?

At any rate, any change in F1 is a welcome change. It can't get any less exciting, so they might as well try any random ideas that pop into their heads.