On the Diesel V Petrol debate...

But they aren't going to leave it at that just like they didn't with the 3L limit they are imposing that it must be a V10 at the moment that will drop to must be a V8 (2.4 V8 aren't they used in some other form of FIA motorsport? I guess that may cut costs for teams running in both but not necessarily for the ones just in F1)

the power outputs keep rising, the restrictions will continue, until they are 1cylinder 100cc, that can rev to 100,000rpm ( probably )

displacement

Well, IIRC, pretty much all engines were V10 before the FIA made the rule change to limit engines to only V10. It was a well known fact before the rule change that V10 engines were basically superior, only Ferrari hanging onto V12 longer than anyone else. Also, we had a Renault engine for a few years running up until the end of

2002 (again IIRC) with a very wide V-angle. I wasn't horizontally-opposed, but somewhere around the 110-degree department. It was abandoned because, frankly, it didn't have enough power. I don't suppose a horizontally-opposed engine would have enough power either. All that said, these latest rule changes are more to do with cutting speed than anything else. Switching to V8 will of course not reduce costs - two less cylinders and a slightly smaller block does NOT equal massive savings in the F1 world. It is, of course, a massive waste of time and I think it shows some level of fear from the FIA - every year they make the rule restrictions tighter, yet every year the cars go faster. They're panicking - the same way they panicked when Schumacher won the driver's championship in 2002 and started making unecessary and detrimental changes to the rules simply because they thought the sport was getting out of their control. The FIA wants to be able to dictate every aspect of the sport and every year, a few teams get the better of them. So, every year they come down harder on those teams that 'beat the system'. One of these days we'll end up watching F3000 instead because it'll be on the same level.

Chris.

Hmm - smoothness gets better with more cylinders - V12 being the most balanced for firing on a V engine - flat 4s can be good though. Although none of the ones you list are particularly pokey, the BMW made 160bhp IIRC the lexus makes 150. All are smooth and progressive, and higher output than mainstream 2.0s (zetec / ecotec etc) which need tuning to get to those levels - 2.2 ecotec makes 150bhp, same as the 2.0 lexus and rover.

Of course the larger moving mass etc means the sixes seem lazy and use more fuel than the fours.

Italy's 2.0 obsession was due to some tax break on engine size, not sure if it still applies - Steve Firth probably knows. I remember though one magazine reviewing the Ghibli and noting that on a congested M6 run it did over 40mpg (even though it's normal consumption was about 20...)

Five is a good comprimise - Fiat / Audi / Volvo all have produced interesting 5 cyl motors.

It was down on power but development was going well and the low COG of the engine provided dividends in the handling stakes of the car.

That Cosworth V8 did OK in 94 :)

Especially at Spain, IIRC. Doubt a V10 would have been driveable enough to come close to finishing 2nd with one gear left!

horizontally-opposed

No reason why not over time, once it was understood. Plus, it's incredibly good for chassis balance, and the mickey mouse tracks now mean a good chassis is probably more important than ever.

I don't think I can find a single thing to disagree with in that bit. Other than not enough profanity directed at the utter muppets running the show right now.

motorsport? I

IIRC, the 2.4 is used in GT racing, or whatever category Le Mans cars come under.

displacement

Totally agree. They're playing with the cars far too much as a reaction to one team and driver doing a good job. There are ways to maybe reduce costs, but redesigning the engines isn't one of them. Plus, if they want more interesting races and higher, they ought to consider doing something about the bloody tracks, IMO.

Wasn't it just a bit later than that when Schumacher finished 3rd in a Bentton with only 5th gear left? And that included a pitstop....

That was a V10 wannit?

Might have been 3rd, could've sworn it was 2nd, but it was a long time ago :)

Nope - The 94 Benneton had the Ford V8 in it, they got the Renault V10 in

1. Hence I said I doubted a V10 would've had the driveability.

IMO, some F1 engines that claim to have a great deal of power are probably a bit crap, as the peak might be in a *very* narrow range, even for an F1 car. It certainly does pay the teams to change the map for a lower power figure spread more across the revs at some tracks, mainly Monaco IIRC.

Just thought I'd add that to stir up the power v torque debate again :)

Noooooooooooooooo !!!!!!!!

I'd say the tracks are the main problem, followed by the aerodynamics as cars are now so reliant on them and they disturb it so much that the impact on the following car is massive. I would be looking at banning rear wings but allowing more ground effect down force.

Can't find fault with any of that. But like it's going to change while Max is in charge. Recently read he's looking at creating more overtaking, as it's what the fans want. This is the same guy as said the fans didn't want to see overtaking but preferred strategic races, when he brought refuelling back in ten years ago.

It was a good read last time round ;)