Comments on: FIA releases 2010 calendar and details of green racing future

By: F1: British Grand Prix developments liveblog October 20-28 | Brits on Pole

F1: British Grand Prix developments liveblog October 20-28 | Brits on Pole — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:11:23 +0000

[...] from Formula One Management about the grands prix in Canada and Britain shortly”. James Allen has the story here >> Also Autosport has got across the potential appointment of Sir Rodney Walker: read its story [...]

By: Rich C

Rich C — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:09:31 +0000

Actually, IRL sucks because it is a spec series. Same engines, same builder, same ol’ everything.
Champcars (previously called “Indy Cars”) were better, and more interesting, with many variations of engines and builders. They also raced on ovals, street circuits, and actual road tracks, such as in Montreal, where the fastest of them would have made the back of the F1 grid. Faster than IRL cars as well, with Ari Luyendyk still holding the absolute lap record at Indy with a 239 mph lap back in the olden days.

By: Jim, Belfast

Jim, Belfast — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:39:35 +0000

James – in your opinion how far is F! away from an alternative fuel source – e.g. alcohol, hydrogen etc etc?

Surely such a move would be world leading in climate change and would be give F1 more postitive global PR than ever before?

Even the British Govt might then throw Silverstone a few quid to upgrade the Burger Bars and erm.. whatever else Bernie thinks we can improve.

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:24:16 +0000

Rich – you answered my comment, but missed the point…

James quotes the FIA statement which mentions a metric of “power per unit of energy”.

Cynicism aside, I was simply wondering which of the current cars developed the most power per unit of energy – i.e. with current engines, who would perform best under this suggested new regime. For example, I seem to remember someone saying the Ferrari was fuel hungry. The Mercedes engine is supposed to be good – would it still be good? Would the Williams or BMW (whichever it was who did the flywheel KERS) suddenly become the class of the field?

By: Colbourne

Colbourne — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:57:21 +0000

I think this could put more variety into the sport as each designer tries a different technique to get the most performance from the cars. Will a variety of fuels be allowed in F1 and if so is it by a fixed volume or calorific value amount. Will we have a handicap formlula to equalize the allowed fuel or bateries.

If handled correctly I expect this will be good for the sport.

By: F1: Check here for latest news on the British Grand Prix | Brits on Pole

F1: Check here for latest news on the British Grand Prix | Brits on Pole — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:27:52 +0000

By: Martin Collyer

Martin Collyer — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:36:18 +0000

Wish I was an engineer and had better understanding of some of the ideas being proposed here.

A quantity of energy rather than a quantity of fuel as we know it, sounds interesting but I am worried about the sound of the engine, if any.

Mosley has admitted, I think, that it has been a mistake to strangle creativity and there have been some very strange decisions taken. Why, for example, did we need a 2.4 litre V8 at enormous expense when we had plenty of 3 litre v10s, and they all sound the same.

One point I agree with though is to limit the engine revs. More revs costs more money, we are always being told.

Consider the following and I will apologise in advance if this sounds like a history lesson. When I bought my first car in 1967, a typical road-car engine would rev to 5,500 rpm, but the recently introduced Cosworth DFV was red-lined at 10,000-ish rpm.

Now, a typical road-car engine revs to a dizzy 6,500 rpm or thereabouts while an F1 engine could rev to 20,000 rpm, probably more, if it were not resticted. Why? If we think that racing is supposed to improve the breed, and plenty of contributors to this blog do think that, it seems that doubling the revs of an F1 engine in the last forty years has not given a lot to road-car engines.

At least we now know that Mosley is history, I am hoping that he will not be able to control or even influence racing from the FIA senate, let the new era of cooperation begin.

By: Kedar

Kedar — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:31:05 +0000

Well Having a strategy and policy is one part and implementing it is the other. Before 09 started we read about all those FIA promises where they were planning to increase mech grip and bring down Aerodynamic grip (to the levels of 10 years ago?) and introduced some changes. This didnt work anyway (Thanks to the double diffuser) and like everyone complains following a car in F1 is next to impossible. FIA did have a chance (where the Redbull team had managed to have a really fast car minus the double diffuser) to outlaw this but considerations outside the policy like the competitiveness and hence the livelihood of the engineers and team personnel at Brawn was given more importance and the Policy and Intent promptly ignored! Call me a skeptic but I am not sure if this is going to change anything at all

By: Glen Slagg

Glen Slagg — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:52:12 +0000

Even now, with refuelling, fuel efficiency is an issue because extra weight has such a bearing on lap times and efficiency.
If, for example, the Mercedes can do two laps more than the Ferrari for the same weight of fuel, that is a significant advantage strategy wise. So I’m sure that they are already squeezing every Watt (well approx 30% of the Watts) that they can out of their existing fuel.
I’m sure that today’s “best” engine is also the most efficient, so unless they completely free up development, allow any capacity, and any technology, the status quo will not change one jot.

By: James Allen

James Allen — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:57:12 +0000

Ascension Day, that is correct. It’s a tradition but it doesn’t line up every year