DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**YonkFiorc** · 09-04-2010, 01:03 AM

Why not simply impose a fuel tank volume?! To easy for the F1 managers to think about it?!

That'd be the logical thing to do, wouldn't it - sounds like the usual overcomplicating what should be a simple issue.

On the whole I've nothing against 1.6-litre turbos, nothing against ground effects, nothing against the use of energy recovery systems, the plan sounds good, I just worry about the execution.

I hope to hell we don't get:

-Standard engines, standard blocks, any standardised physical parts of the motor, with only energy recovery peripherals free for development, and someone at the FIA rabbiting on about designated "performance differentiators" and so on when justifying the decision.

-Hybrid/recovery systems that can only be used for 6.78345671 seconds per lap or whatever, they should let them use whatever they can harness, if they are serious about promoting these sort of technologies.

09-04-2010, 01:03 AM	#2
YonkFiorc Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 425 Senior Member	Why not simply impose a fuel tank volume?! To easy for the F1 managers to think about it?! That'd be the logical thing to do, wouldn't it - sounds like the usual overcomplicating what should be a simple issue. On the whole I've nothing against 1.6-litre turbos, nothing against ground effects, nothing against the use of energy recovery systems, the plan sounds good, I just worry about the execution. I hope to hell we don't get: -Standard engines, standard blocks, any standardised physical parts of the motor, with only energy recovery peripherals free for development, and someone at the FIA rabbiting on about designated "performance differentiators" and so on when justifying the decision. -Hybrid/recovery systems that can only be used for 6.78345671 seconds per lap or whatever, they should let them use whatever they can harness, if they are serious about promoting these sort of technologies.
	Quote