[ATTILAGLIC]

From autosport.com :

Engine:
- the latest plan is for 1.6-litre four-cylinder turbo engines to become standard.
- numerous energy recovery systems
- power around 650bhp.
- possible limit of engines to 5/driver/season

- fuel flow rate limit is considered to ensure the engines are economical.

Williams technical director Sam Michael said: "Rather than dump as much fuel in as we can at the moment, there will be a fuel flow metre - so you won't be able to blow more than a certain amount of fuel. It is a good chunk less than we had at the moment." Why not simply impose a fuel tank volume?! To easy for the F1 managers to think about it?!

Chassis:
- ground effect being actively considered to improve overtaking

"They are talking about putting a greater proportion of down force to the diffuser, a ground effect car - like the early 1980's," added Michael. "They have been looking at that, as well as increasing crash protection at the front of the car by moving the sidepods further forwards." Not sure what he is talking about! How is that you can protect the front of the car with the sidepods unless these protrude in front of the front wing!

If they think like they express themselves F1 is doomed.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86341

[YonkFiorc]

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.

[dolaBeetCeage]

Ticks all of my boxes!

I'm looking forward to 2013.

[Edifsdubs]

The FIA et al are obviously expecting the recession to be over by then as it's going to be hugely expensive to develop all these sea changes.

[Siffidiolla]

Not sure what he is talking about! How is that you can protect the front of the car with the sidepods unless these protrude in front of the front wing!

If they think like they express themselves F1 is doomed.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86341

Take a look at the Ferrari 641 - how far forward the sidepods are.

Aside from protecting the driver, that is one b. e. a. utiful car!

[Creelaleps]

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

I could be wrong, but having a limited fuel capacity, but unlimited flow may offer a "push-to-pass" feature where a team could crank up the fuel flow for more power at the start or to open a gap, then back it off substantially later in the race to make it to the end. Webber had to back off in Turkey just before Vettel ran into him. Limiting the flow will serve to limit the overall consumption AND improve the competition amongst the cars by keeping them bunched up.

I'm excited about ground effects and how the close racing may be improved.

This is my first post here and I hope it makes sense. Thanks for the excellent discussions and info!

[ATTILAGLIC]

Take a look at the Ferrari 641 - how far forward the sidepods are.

Aside from protecting the driver, that is one b. e. a. utiful car!

Still the sidepods of the 641 do not protect the front of the car.

IMO they should be honest and say it loud that they need more surface under the car for the ground effects instead of this crap about protecting the front of he car.

[ATTILAGLIC]

I could be wrong, but having a limited fuel capacity, but unlimited flow may offer a "push-to-pass" feature where a team could crank up the fuel flow for more power at the start or to open a gap, then back it off substantially later in the race to make it to the end.

I do not see any problem with that, especially that they are talking about consuming less fuel for environmental reasons not for limiting overtaking opportunities.

PS: welcome to the board!

[Intory]

Chassis:
- ground effect being actively considered to improve overtaking

[sleepergun]

I hope that the "numerous energy recovery systems" will translate to some sort of power on demand systems. I'm assuming the weight regulations will be the same as now?

[Green_Monkey23]

Well we are sure as he'll gonna need those KERS systems to be a huge improvement on the current ones, otherwise just 650 ponies on tap is gonna be rather tame.

I welcome the ground effects debate, and turbo's but these cars need more power than grip so 1000bhp should be the target - fact. Pow!

[sleepergun]

Well we are sure as he'll gonna need those KERS systems to be a huge improvement on the current ones, otherwise just 650 ponies on tap is gonna be rather tame.

I welcome the ground effects debate, and turbo's but these cars need more power than grip so 1000bhp should be the target - fact. Pow!

+1

[Donlupedron]

The ground effects this time around will be nothing like we saw in the 1980's. Anyone witnessing what happened when there was problem was able to see how dangerous the cars were.

And the drivers hated the cars because there was no feel or balance and it significantly reduced the driver usefulness.

The most vivid memory I have was watching during practice at Sunset Bend at the old Kyalami track. One of the skirts got stuck on the Williams and it literally flung Carlos Reutemann like a slingshot towards the catch fencing - how he managed to control that and literally slide all opposite locked back onto the track and drive around to the pits was amazing!

So this time with all the knowledge available the ground effects will hopefully allow cars to become pretty again including reducing the godawful ugly front wing arrangements we have today.

As well as permit close running without turbulence to allow drivers the chance to overtake when they have made the opportunity - MAYBE even the better driver in the lesser car will once again be able to beat the lesser driver iin the better car.

[Poll Pitt]

650HP?! Awful!

That will be the equivalent of when formula 1 had those 1.5L engines in the 60's. Very unspectacular. And not as challenging for the drivers.

More power and less grip is needed. And while they're at it, they should ditch the engine freeze and the rev limiter.

Whats the point of these overtaking working groups when they reduce the car power, which means lower straight line speeds, which mean smaller and less frequent braking zones, which mean less overtaking?

I feel they should've made the slicks bigger to give a greater mechanical contact patch rather than dabble with ground effect, to be honest.

[werkeeque]

Ground effects?
650 horsepower?

I think I know what they are trying to make.

[dolaBeetCeage]

Ground effects?
650 horsepower?

I think I know what they are trying to make.

Get rid of it! Burn it! Send it to hell!

As long as F1 doesn't copy their dildo replacement car, then I shouldn't be too concerned.

[pipittujbk]

Yep 1000hp+ and no grip is what we want.

[Intory]

The ground effects this time around will be nothing like we saw in the 1980's. Anyone witnessing what happened when there was problem was able to see how dangerous the cars were.

Absolutely. Sticking skirts and rock hard suspension made for a bumpy and dangerous ride

[sleepergun]

Although in a heavier, less advanced chassis, 650 hp is about what the current IRL car has - and it's less than what the next IRL car will have (assuming it ever sees the light of day). And at roughly the same weight/dimensions of an F1 car, the current GP2 car has close to 600 hp. Hopefully there's more to the story and 650 hp is just some sort of base that will be added to by the energy recovery systems. I don't see the cars becoming substantially lighter than they are now. So surely there's more in the bag that's being missed by this story.

Hoop98 or one of the engineers could speak to this better than I can, but at 1.6 liters and 650 hp, this isn't going to be a highly pressurized turbo engine, is it? I mean, it won't be anything like the crazy turbo engines we saw in the 80's. Would these things have any sort of meaningful torque? I know a fellow who has a 2.0 liter turbo in a street car and he's making well over 400 hp... and has over 30K miles on the engine. I don't know, but I guess I've just come to expect F1 engines to be from another planet. This one sounds like the guy next door (so far).

[Donlupedron]

Well thats what the proposals state - the 650bhp is the basic engine with the KERS allowing up to another 180bhp.

But I doubt the 650 is going to be agreed to because as you note it will essentially place the f1 car at the GP2 level and that is ridiculous.

It would be better to allow turbo engines to reach 850 and then if we HAVE to be tortured by the goddam KERS allow another 150 to raise the level to 1000 bhp.

Make the cars somewhat too powerful for the chassis and THEN watch the good drivers come to the fore - I knew there was a reason why I have always like Tony Brooks's ideas on f1 :-]

And maybe a reasonable approach on ground effects will lead to less bits of aero on the above part of the car - even getting rid of the ugliest bloody front wings since the MARCH 701.