| Re: F1 | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: E M (pokiebaron gmail.com)
|
|
| Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:35:34 -0800 (PST) | |
Hi Thomas,
While I agree a smaller engine package does give some additional design freedom, many things are taken into consideration with the aerodynamics, not just making it a smaller cross section. F1 cars are some of the worse, if not the worse cars when it comes to aero drag. F1 cars are also built underweight, often by several hundred kilos, so that ballast can be added to bring the car up to minimum weight, and giving the desired weight distribution. It's another way to balance out chassis design boo boos, that sometimes don't surface until the car is in its test phase.
I think on the whole, going smaller is more to appease those who frown upon F1, or anything that burns fossil fuels. I would imagine with the reduced size, parts will be beefed up as they try to extract more and more power out of less displacement and rpm's. And regardless of size, as we all know, there's really only one way to make power, and that is to get as much air and fuel into an engine, anyway possible. Fuel economy in this context is very much relative.
Some used to think the turbo on an old Porsche 930 was like getting free power. As the boost went up, they had to dump a lot more fuel in it too to stop the whole thing from going bang. Amazing how much gas those old 3.0 engines could eat when you started to tickle the loud peddle and spin the turbo up. ;-) hee hee
Ed
911SC
While I agree a smaller engine package does give some additional design freedom, many things are taken into consideration with the aerodynamics, not just making it a smaller cross section. F1 cars are some of the worse, if not the worse cars when it comes to aero drag. F1 cars are also built underweight, often by several hundred kilos, so that ballast can be added to bring the car up to minimum weight, and giving the desired weight distribution. It's another way to balance out chassis design boo boos, that sometimes don't surface until the car is in its test phase.
I think on the whole, going smaller is more to appease those who frown upon F1, or anything that burns fossil fuels. I would imagine with the reduced size, parts will be beefed up as they try to extract more and more power out of less displacement and rpm's. And regardless of size, as we all know, there's really only one way to make power, and that is to get as much air and fuel into an engine, anyway possible. Fuel economy in this context is very much relative.
Some used to think the turbo on an old Porsche 930 was like getting free power. As the boost went up, they had to dump a lot more fuel in it too to stop the whole thing from going bang. Amazing how much gas those old 3.0 engines could eat when you started to tickle the loud peddle and spin the turbo up. ;-) hee hee
Ed
911SC
On 10 December 2010 20:14, Thomas Reynolds <kjtar [at] att.net> wrote:
To: "Tom Reynolds" <kjtar [at] att.net>Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 9:31 PM
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/10/officially-official-formula-one-goes-with-1-6-litre-four-cylind/http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/kjtar%40att.net
All I have to say is...
What
The
F*ck?
Jesus why don't they just grab some power trains from the Toyota Prius
assembly line and get the whole thing over with?
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/pokiebaron%40gmail.com
Sponsored by BooyahMedia.com
and F1 Headlines
http://www.F1Headlines.com/
- Re: F1, (continued)
- Re: F1 E M, December 10 2010
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.