No, a small, boosted, efficient engine would whoop *** on a larger NA engine at all points of the track. Down the main straight .... BOOOST. Around turns, save gas. A turbo charged engine will run circles around an NA engine. Look at what Honda did in the late eighties. Using a 1.5L turbo charged engine, they were untouchable by their 3.5L NA counterpart(s).

Looking at what manufacturers were able to do in the late '80s (1.5L, 4+ bar boost, >900bhp), the FIA would have to put some fairly severe restrictions on the engines. I can only imagine what could be done with current technology. A 1.5L engine with direct injection could handle ridiculous amounts of boost or close to NA AFR at lower boost levels.

l8r)

 

I've never seen a failure like Buemi had in first practice today, absolutely amazing. Guy is lucky he wasn't seriously hurt.

 

McLaren introduced the F-duct in the beginning of the season and Sauber immediately copyed same but installed on the sidepod as opposed to cockpit due to rule restriction follwoing opening day and now Williams is following suit but was not able to install theirs due to Icelandic volcano grounding parts in England. Ferrari on the hand has just developed theirs but what is interesting is where it is mounted, on the side of the engine cowling. I wonder whether this is, in fact, a better method or Ferrari's desire to just be "different".

Later, Ken

 

Video of Buemi's crash. See if you can clearly spot the moment that "something" appears to fail.....


"Heading down the back straight at the Shanghai circuit, Buemi got on the brakes when something appeared to fail on the Swiss driver's front suspension.

From there the wishbone on his STR broke, sending both his front tyres flying off the car and putting the Swiss driver in to the barriers."


http://www.planetf1.com/news/18227/6...or-Buemi-crash

 

this is going to be a hard comparison, but look at any modern race class where turboed cars are allowed to compete with NA cars. there is never an absolute domination by one or the other, otherwise everyone would be running said better engine package. the reason turbo cars aren't smashing records everywhere is because its pretty easy to put some rules in place to keep the playing field equal... such as restrictors, displacement restrictions, component limitations etc...

the turbo era vs 3.5 was a huge difference primarily because the turbo cars were being banned, so teams were switching to the v8. now-a-days, the teams have so much money that if one team ran a turbo engine and won the race by a significant margin, all the other teams would have turbo engines the next race. just look at the results back then... the lead two cars lapped everyone. i don't think you'll ever see that again because the rules/restrictions are very good at equalizing the playing field.

modern teams would know which engine package will be best for FC long before they even begin making parts, based off the rules and some quick simulation.

admittedly, if they restricted the amount of fuel allowed it would make for some really boring racing. "look peter (windsor), the ferrari just got passed by the lotus on turn 3!..." peter - " but the ferrari is getting 9mpg! the lotus is in the 6mpg range, he will certainly have to concede the place later when he has to refill or runs out!"

 

Those 1.5 liter turbo engines didn't last too long on 4 Bar. Back in the days of Qualifying engines, exotic fuel. They were more reliable in 1988 on 2.5Bar? (if a Honda), but the Benetton-Ford V8 were typically lurking behind the MarMcHondas.

 

I don't care what they do as long as we can watch 6-8(or more!) evenly matched cars. I've heard of a few idea's like reverse starting grid but that's not really a solution is it? If they would just leave the rules alone for a few years and let some teams have a chance to do R&D then we might see some good racing.

I would love to see 1.5 direct injected turbo charged engines in F1. But write your rule book and leave it alone for at least 3 years. A few months ago Top Gear magazine had a thing about the old turbo charged cars of the 80's. 1100bhp, super sticky tires, and a lot less down force. I wish I was old enough to have watched that stuff.

 

You can still find it online. I watched the entire season where Prost and Senna were dueling at mclaren the whole season. It actually wasn't very exciting. McLaren was just walking away from everyone, wasn't even a fight. I think the rule makers, particularly Max, have made some pretty daft choices, but I think they're on the right track right now. Less downforce and stickier tires are definitely the key to more exciting races.

Once engine programs unfreeze would be the perfect time to implement a total redirect in engine design, i.e. turbo ethanol power plants. It makes the racing more exciting and makes up for the 'green' factor they lost with KERS. Plus it would advance technology in an arena more important to the current market. How much does continued aero R&D help road cars?

Speaking of aero R&D, how is Mclaren's duct still legal? These are the kind of innovations you're gonna see when you limit R&D. Ingenious, no doubt, but it doesn't help move the sport, or technology, forward.

 

I don't get the whole "green" racing thing. The fuel race cars use is not even a drop in the bucket looking at the big picture. I know its very easy for green activists to point a figure at racing, but I don't think many race fans care.

 

The point of racing at the highest level is always to move technology forward. The carbon footprint of racing is not large, but the impact it has on technology is huge.

 

Very true. But fuel efficiency tech is boring. Lets see pneumatic valves on production cars!

 

Yea it'd be awesome, but they leak. You have to keep repressurizing the nitrogen system, lest you progressively lose spring pressure and eventually your valves just fall down into the chamber. And once they fall down you've got to pull the head to get them back up. So you're talking a car that you can't leave unattended for 24hrs thanks to the valvetrain.

 

Well this race is quite a cluster****.

 

There is no better example of "snake bit" than Sauber at this point in time!...and one cannot blaim the drivers..this car is a slug and the Ferrari engine, in contrast to Renault that many were designating at unreliable, is in need of some serious attention!

Later, Ken

 

Well if it keeps raining on and off the rest or the season we might have a close championship. Just not how I want it to happen. Why did the safety car come out the second time? Speed never showed a crash and even the announcers were clueless.

That race just reinforced my dislike of Hamilton. I'm glad he got reprimanded. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/motor...04573252_x.htm