That's more like it!

 

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117620

 

Just need to restrict the traction control, limit the width of the rear tyres, have small front and rear wings, retain flat bottoms between the axles, ensure that rear diffusers are properly controlled and we will be back to seeing who are the men and who are the boys.

 

I'm old enough to remember the 1500bhp turbo era (from 1500cc!) and it was an awesome if somewhat dangerous era!

This is a standard Bernie trick - distraction.  Who knows what he has up his sleeve that will sneak out under cover of the 1000bhp debate.

 

 

Having said that, they're probably around 800 total bhp now, so it won't be a great change, just ease off on the fuel flow rules a chunk

 

 

The big power turbo years were ruled by the team who could make the biggest power without it going bang before the finish.  Given that Mercedes are so far ahead already at the moment, how big will their advantage be if the engines are deregulated some more?

Edited 9 February, 201511 yr by camelspyyder

This is a standard Bernie trick - distraction.  Who knows what he has up his sleeve that will sneak out under cover of the 1000bhp debate.

 

1100bhp?

Take the wings off completely and ditch all the electronics. Get back to the golden age where the driver actually had to drive the car.

 

1100bhp?

 

You wish.  The manufacturers are in this to show how green they are - and a 50% fuel saving between 2013 and 2014 with only a slight loss of speed is a big green statement.

 

A horsepower race is not in the manufacturers interests - and god knows there's not much money coming to F1 from anywhere else at the moment.

Take the wings off completely and ditch all the electronics. Get back to the golden age where the driver actually had to drive the car.

 

 

and half of them died?

The big power turbo years were ruled by the team who could make the biggest power without it going bang before the finish.  

 

Especially in qualifying where the wick would be turned up to 11. The idea was for the engine to hit meltdown at the end of its qualifying lap and hopefully make it back to the pits. The fuel used at the time was also horrific, and needed men in 'spacesuits' to handle it. And yes, it could have powered rockets!

 

Great days!

Omlettes, eggs etc

and half of them died?

Modern F1 cars crash at much higher speeds than they did in the 60s, since you really have to slow down to go around corners in a car with no downforce. They died due to no thoughts towards safety. Helmets and seatbelts only just became mandatory, there were almost no barriers so cars hit walls and trees and the fuel tanks were steel so ruptured very easily, soaking drivers who had poor fireproofs and torching them. Many races didn't even had a doctor or ambulance on site and marshals didn't have much equipment with which to tackle cars that burst into flames (no fireproofs). Go read about Jackie Stewart's crash at Spa, where he was stuck, upside down in a barn with fuel pouring all over him and he couldn't get out as noone had any tools to remove his steering wheel and he got taken to hospital in a spectator's car. Watch Grand Prix: The Killer Years, its an excellent documentary on why F1 was so dangerous.

 

Wings and electronics have nothing to do with a modern car's safety cell, track design or emergency facilities. It is those changes that improved drivers survivability, not fancy gadgets. You can build a modern 'classic' F1 car which is just as safe as one with wings.

Horsepower has little impact on whether racing is exciting to watch or not , well 10,000hp cars are exciting and that's why i prefer drag racing.

 

F1 really needs to address downforce to make overtaking easier and more common

I'm all for more power.

 

Modern F1 cars crash at much higher speeds than they did in the 60s, since you really have to slow down to go around corners in a car with no downforce. They died due to no thoughts towards safety. Helmets and seatbelts only just became mandatory, there were almost no barriers so cars hit walls and trees and the fuel tanks were steel so ruptured very easily, soaking drivers who had poor fireproofs and torching them. Many races didn't even had a doctor or ambulance on site and marshals didn't have much equipment with which to tackle cars that burst into flames (no fireproofs). Go read about Jackie Stewart's crash at Spa, where he was stuck, upside down in a barn with fuel pouring all over him and he couldn't get out as noone had any tools to remove his steering wheel and he got taken to hospital in a spectator's car. Watch Grand Prix: The Killer Years, its an excellent documentary on why F1 was so dangerous.

 

Wings and electronics have nothing to do with a modern car's safety cell, track design or emergency facilities. It is those changes that improved drivers survivability, not fancy gadgets. You can build a modern 'classic' F1 car which is just as safe as one with wings.

 

 

I know, I am a devoted student of racing history.   Why not post a picture of a modern safe alternative rather than a death trap Lotus 49 then? 

OK

 

http://www.stuart-taylor.co.uk/cars/f1-67/

 

Its only a track day car, but its a 1967-style car built to modern safety standards and is the first thing on my shopping list should I win the lottery.

You wish.  The manufacturers are in this to show how green they are - and a 50% fuel saving between 2013 and 2014 with only a slight loss of speed is a big green statement.

 

A horsepower race is not in the manufacturers interests - and god knows there's not much money coming to F1 from anywhere else at the moment.

 

Not necessarily, the FIA WEC cars have been on a fuel saving drive as well yet the new hybrids while more efficient are more powerful and faster than they have ever been as they develop around twice the power (the new Nissan LMP1 will hit around 1250bhp at full power) and with both drive systems engaged they temporarily become four wheel drive.  Even more impressive is the fact the cars are designed to be able to run for 24 hours straight at full race pace with nothing more than fuel and tyres.

 

I agree with posts above that more engine power isn't really a solution to anything and think it's the aerodynamics that need to be looked at, they seem to cause such a huge variation in speed and prevent the cars racing close to each other.

Not necessarily, the FIA WEC cars have been on a fuel saving drive as well yet the new hybrids while more efficient are more powerful and faster than they have ever been as they develop around twice the power (the new Nissan LMP1 will hit around 1250bhp at full power) and with both drive systems engaged they temporarily become four wheel drive. Even more impressive is the fact the cars are designed to be able to run for 24 hours straight at full race pace with nothing more than fuel and tyres.

I agree with posts above that more engine power isn't really a solution to anything and think it's the aerodynamics that need to be looked at, they seem to cause such a huge variation in speed and prevent the cars racing close to each other.

if the WEC cars had 1.6 litre engines I could see your point, but they are running 2 to 3.7 or 4 litres if i remember correctly. I bet they cant match a current F1 for fuel efficiency.

Edited 13 February, 201511 yr by camelspyyder

if the WEC cars had 1.6 litre engines I could see your point, but they are running 2 to 3.7 or 4 litres if i remember correctly. I bet they cant match a current F1 for fuel efficiency.

 

It's a surprisingly difficult question to answer as the teams don't really provide much in the way of information so it's difficult to know how fuel efficient a car is, there's the further difficulty that events on track such as safety cars can skew the figures so the cars will be more fuel efficient at that point.  Bigger capacity doesn't necessarily mean less fuel efficient, I think at one point they commented on Top Gear that one of the least fuel efficient cars they'd ever had on the track was the 400bhp Lancer Evo X despite only having a two litre engine.  The strategy behind F1 and WEC is completely different, the F1 engines are tuned for speed as it's effectively a sprint race with the requirement for fuel efficiency being relatively new while endurance cars have to be able to last 24 hours so they can't be tuned as highly and they've always had to be fuel efficient before their new rules forced them to even more fuel efficient - if the cars can't make it a certain number of laps before refuelling they're sunk as over 24 hours they lose too much time in the pits, it's a much slower process than for F1 cars.  

 

Another element is the the WEC manufacturers have a much wider choice of technologies for both the main engine and the electric systems unlike F1 where the engine rules are very strict.  Last year Audi opted for a four litre turbocharged V6 diesel engine using a flywheel electric system (although they opted for less energy recovery systems than allowed to ensure reliability), Toyota went for a 3.7 litre normally aspirated V8 engine with a supercapacitor electric system, Porsche went for a two litre turbocharged V4 with a battery electric system while this year Nissan have chosen a 3.5 litre turbocharged V6 with a flywheel recovery system unusually with the engine in the front and front wheel drive.  That allows teams to choose the setup they think will give them the power and efficiency they need, Mercedes clearly nailed the new engine regulations but neither Renault or Ferrari did so it's possible they could have produced better engines if they more flexibility to build the engines they wanted.

 

Going by the total figures at the end of the race which is very rough but it's all I can find to work on, Hamilton won the Monza GP (probably the closest to Le Mans with the long straights) covering 306km so assuming he had around 135 litres to start with he managed a fuel efficiency of 44.12 l/100km or 6.4mpg

 

The winning Audi completed 379 laps at Le Mans (13km circuit) with 29 pit stops, assuming the car was filled full with fuel every time (58 litre fuel tank) that mean it consumed 1682 litres of fuel to cover 5165km meaning 32.56l/100km or 8.67mpg.

 

The lead Toyota completed 374 laps at Le Mans with 31 pit stops, also assuming the car was filled full every time (68 litre fuel tank) meant 2117 litres consumed for 4862km so 43.54l/100km or 6.5mpg.

 

Both Porsches had serious issues and had to retire, their engine was designed around the new fuel efficiency rules so it was meant to be more fuel efficient with a small main engine and be able to harvest and store more power than its rivals but while the battery system had better capacity the cars seemed to be struggling with charging the battery quickly compared to the flywheel and supercapacitor systems.  Of course Hamilton probably didn't have a full tank of fuel and and the LMP1's definitely didn't fuel fully every time but I think the results are in the right ball park.

 

John

It's a surprisingly difficult question to answer as the teams don't really provide much in the way of information so it's difficult to know how fuel efficient a car is, there's the further difficulty that events on track such as safety cars can skew the figures so the cars will be more fuel efficient at that point.  Bigger capacity doesn't necessarily mean less fuel efficient, I think at one point they commented on Top Gear that one of the least fuel efficient cars they'd ever had on the track was the 400bhp Lancer Evo X despite only having a two litre engine.  The strategy behind F1 and WEC is completely different, the F1 engines are tuned for speed as it's effectively a sprint race with the requirement for fuel efficiency being relatively new while endurance cars have to be able to last 24 hours so they can't be tuned as highly and they've always had to be fuel efficient before their new rules forced them to even more fuel efficient - if the cars can't make it a certain number of laps before refuelling they're sunk as over 24 hours they lose too much time in the pits, it's a much slower process than for F1 cars.  

 

Another element is the the WEC manufacturers have a much wider choice of technologies for both the main engine and the electric systems unlike F1 where the engine rules are very strict.  Last year Audi opted for a four litre turbocharged V6 diesel engine using a flywheel electric system (although they opted for less energy recovery systems than allowed to ensure reliability), Toyota went for a 3.7 litre normally aspirated V8 engine with a supercapacitor electric system, Porsche went for a two litre turbocharged V4 with a battery electric system while this year Nissan have chosen a 3.5 litre turbocharged V6 with a flywheel recovery system unusually with the engine in the front and front wheel drive.  That allows teams to choose the setup they think will give them the power and efficiency they need, Mercedes clearly nailed the new engine regulations but neither Renault or Ferrari did so it's possible they could have produced better engines if they more flexibility to build the engines they wanted.

 

Going by the total figures at the end of the race which is very rough but it's all I can find to work on, Hamilton won the Monza GP (probably the closest to Le Mans with the long straights) covering 306km so assuming he had around 135 litres to start with he managed a fuel efficiency of 44.12 l/100km or 6.4mpg

 

The winning Audi completed 379 laps at Le Mans (13km circuit) with 29 pit stops, assuming the car was filled full with fuel every time (58 litre fuel tank) that mean it consumed 1682 litres of fuel to cover 5165km meaning 32.56l/100km or 8.67mpg.

 

The lead Toyota completed 374 laps at Le Mans with 31 pit stops, also assuming the car was filled full every time (68 litre fuel tank) meant 2117 litres consumed for 4862km so 43.54l/100km or 6.5mpg.

 

Both Porsches had serious issues and had to retire, their engine was designed around the new fuel efficiency rules so it was meant to be more fuel efficient with a small main engine and be able to harvest and store more power than its rivals but while the battery system had better capacity the cars seemed to be struggling with charging the battery quickly compared to the flywheel and supercapacitor systems.  Of course Hamilton probably didn't have a full tank of fuel and and the LMP1's definitely didn't fuel fully every time but I think the results are in the right ball park.

 

John

 

NIce - so ignoring the diesel the petrol F1 and WEC cars are both doing 6.5mpg give or take - and the Toyota is already givng 1000PS total. F1 cars are more draggy I think - even trimmed out for Monza.

F1 cars are more draggy I think - even trimmed out for Monza.

 

Really? I would be surprised by that based on no more knowledge than looking at the frontal area. 

I will caveat this by saying that I have never enjoyed sportscars so am certainly not an aficionado. 

tweenster, on 15 Feb 2015 - 22:43, said:

Really? I would be surprised by that based on no more knowledge than looking at the frontal area. 

 

look at the top speeds - the WEC are 20 mph faster comparing LM spec with Monza F1

Edited 15 February, 201511 yr by camelspyyder

look at the top speeds - the WEC are 20 mph faster comparing LM spec with Monza F1

 

Really? F1 cars hit 360kmh/223mph at Monza in 2014 so are WEC really doing 245(ish)? That I would like to see.

Really? F1 cars hit 360kmh/223mph at Monza in 2014 so are WEC really doing 245(ish)? That I would like to see.

 

Hmmm.  360 with a tow and DRS - Lemans cars are pushing 390 by themselves.

A quick bit of Googling shows the top speed record at LM is 407kmh/253mph in 1988 - was that pre-chicanes on the Mulsanne straight?

Hmmm.  360 with a tow and DRS - Lemans cars are pushing 390 by themselves.

 

Where? Top speed at LM in 2014 was apparently 'just' 211mph.

A quick bit of Googling shows the top speed record at LM is 407kmh/253mph in 1988 - was that pre-chicanes on the Mulsanne straight?

 

Yes that was the WM Peugeot which only had reaching 400kph as it's objective.  it's overall laptime was slow and it didnt last long in the race.

 

The modern cars are able to reach almost that speed even though the straight has been chopped into 3 bits.  In fact the next part of the track Mulsanne to Indianapolis is faster than the traditional straight now.