The second flap usually doesn't
The second flap usually doesn't
Via tweaking the fuel flow or cell mass slightly. He specifically stated those two.saviour stivala wrote: ↑16 Jul 2023, 22:33Horner was not talking about tweaking the fuel flow, he was talking about tweaking the two power split.Cs98 wrote: ↑16 Jul 2023, 20:46Cynicism to the point of looking past basic facts. There will be no delaying of the 2026 rules, all parties involved are clear on this and it has never been suggested in the first place. Horner is talking about tweaking fuel flow to make the 2026 ICEs slightly more powerful.
On the "trouble" part. These engines are not particularly complicated (at least compared to what we have now), they're just weak, and lacking in regeneration.
Can you be honest with yourself for one second? This is what you wrote "FIA to extend the rule set that's beneficial for them and delay the rule set that will undoubtedly cause them loads of trouble on PU side". No one is doing that, no one is asking for that. These current engines are gone in 2026. The only question is, will the 2026 engines be a 50/50 split, 55/45, 60/40. These things you can tweak with fuel flow without overhauling the entire regs.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑16 Jul 2023, 22:05What cynicism? Horner literally went all out with his first statement and urged for a rethink of the rules, as you said. What's wrong with understanding there's (always) an agenda behind that Wolff criticised 2017 and 2022 rules a lot, for the same reasonCs98 wrote: ↑16 Jul 2023, 20:46Cynicism to the point of looking past basic facts. There will be no delaying of the 2026 rules, all parties involved are clear on this and it has never been suggested in the first place. Horner is talking about tweaking fuel flow to make the 2026 ICEs slightly more powerful.
Undoubtedly. But the agenda isn't always hidden. The commercial hazard of really slow cars that fuel burn to regenerate energy is more than enough incentive for a non-car manufacturer to raise concerns. Not to mention the notion that it's for performance gain makes little to no sense when you actually analyze what he's asking for. A few percent in terms of power split is not going to make or break the RBPT engine. It doesn't change their task much at all. It's just a question of, do you want really slow cars, or a bit less slow cars?What's wrong with understanding there's (always) an agenda behind that
Can you please provide a link to that specific talk of him.Cs98 wrote: ↑17 Jul 2023, 11:10Via tweaking the fuel flow or cell mass slightly. He specifically stated those two.saviour stivala wrote: ↑16 Jul 2023, 22:33Horner was not talking about tweaking the fuel flow, he was talking about tweaking the two power split.Cs98 wrote: ↑16 Jul 2023, 20:46
Cynicism to the point of looking past basic facts. There will be no delaying of the 2026 rules, all parties involved are clear on this and it has never been suggested in the first place. Horner is talking about tweaking fuel flow to make the 2026 ICEs slightly more powerful.
On the "trouble" part. These engines are not particularly complicated (at least compared to what we have now), they're just weak, and lacking in regeneration.
“And it wouldn't take much. It's not like we're saying we have to rip everything up and start again. It's whether you do it on a fuel flow or the cell mass, you just need to change that ratio slightly to ensure that we get great racing.”saviour stivala wrote: ↑17 Jul 2023, 12:28Can you please provide a link to that specific talk of him.Cs98 wrote: ↑17 Jul 2023, 11:10Via tweaking the fuel flow or cell mass slightly. He specifically stated those two.saviour stivala wrote: ↑16 Jul 2023, 22:33
Horner was not talking about tweaking the fuel flow, he was talking about tweaking the two power split.
Also in the 90s, and 2000s for a while.JordanMugen wrote: ↑14 Jul 2023, 19:37I would be surprised if they make them any smaller than an F2 car, though a move to F2 dimensions (1.9m width and 5.2m length) and F2 tyres (i.e., the old 2016 sizes but with 725mm overall diameter) would be sensible and not make too much difference IMO.
In the 1980's with driver's feet in front of the front axle? This seems unrealistic when this is no longer allowed and when an F2 car is now 5.2m long and already looks much smaller than an F1 car.
The rule came in for 1988.mzso wrote: ↑18 Jul 2023, 19:31Also in the 90s, and 2000s for a while.JordanMugen wrote: ↑14 Jul 2023, 19:37I would be surprised if they make them any smaller than an F2 car, though a move to F2 dimensions (1.9m width and 5.2m length) and F2 tyres (i.e., the old 2016 sizes but with 725mm overall diameter) would be sensible and not make too much difference IMO.
In the 1980's with driver's feet in front of the front axle? This seems unrealistic when this is no longer allowed and when an F2 car is now 5.2m long and already looks much smaller than an F1 car.
Also possibly one of the most beautiful racing cars ever
I wonder why limousine-like wheelbase to increase floor area wasn't seen as advantageous at the time?
Good point. Please bare with me, as this is just throwing things up. What if the minimum weight were significantly reduced? Would constructors look at the length/weight dimension vs down-force and see that there was more time to be made with a shorter but lighter car? How about lowering the engine minimum weight and c.g. requirements? The engines are way heavier than they could be and a reduced weight and c.g. would help cornering. And how about removing the front/rear weight requirement? I've never understood the point of this rule; let the teams move weight around as suits them. Also, while I'm at it, how about single or double plane shorter front wings? How about two tire choices on a race weekend, have to run both? Or, a single tire choice, you can make pit stops or not (hardness varies by track)? That would save a lot of money and carbon stuff.JordanMugen wrote: ↑19 Jul 2023, 01:14I wonder why limousine-like wheelbase to increase floor area wasn't seen as advantageous at the time?
Perhaps partly due to the low minimum weight as opposed to strictly aerodynamic considerations?
They are currently in a power unit freeze, so the PUs cannot physically be altered.
This is a requirement from the tyre manufacturer. It makes it easier for them to design the tyres.
Currently reading Mr Barnards book I've had bought for me.
I’ve long thought this. If the minimum weight was allowed to be 600kg including driver, the cars MIGHT be lighter because they MIGHT choose to remove a metre from the middle of the car. It will however remain a contest measured by who made the right choices at the start of the design process. Get the jump at the start and continue to keep the lead.Rodak wrote: ↑19 Jul 2023, 02:11Good point. Please bare with me, as this is just throwing things up. What if the minimum weight were significantly reduced? Would constructors look at the length/weight dimension vs down-force and see that there was more time to be made with a shorter but lighter car? How about lowering the engine minimum weight and c.g. requirements? The engines are way heavier than they could be and a reduced weight and c.g. would help cornering. And how about removing the front/rear weight requirement? I've never understood the point of this rule; let the teams move weight around as suits them. Also, while I'm at it, how about single or double plane shorter front wings? How about two tire choices on a race weekend, have to run both? Or, a single tire choice, you can make pit stops or not (hardness varies by track)? That would save a lot of money and carbon stuff.JordanMugen wrote: ↑19 Jul 2023, 01:14I wonder why limousine-like wheelbase to increase floor area wasn't seen as advantageous at the time?
Perhaps partly due to the low minimum weight as opposed to strictly aerodynamic considerations?