2012 Season Preview

It does bother me that an F1 car will have fewer cc's than my motorcycle. Always thought a line should be drawn under that one.

If your bike has more than 1600 cc's then it has way more than anyone needs! Ever thought of giving some away to charity?

In any case anyone who drives, for instance, a twenty year old Jag could say the same of the current F1 cars in relation to theirs.

And as I have mentioned before, the Alfa Romeo 1750cc turbo petrol engine performs almost exactly equally to the 3.2 lire V6, but with better fuel economy and emission figures. I don't see why F1 engines shouldn't go the same way.
 
I thought I was being responsible not going for 2.2 litres!:) Seriously, as I think I said in another post quite some time ago now, at least it will bring back some degree of mechinal engineering challenge to the sport. It's been all aero and electronics for so long. It would have been nice to see them go a bit further (again as I think a few of us have said in other threads) and open the door to different engine configurations. What possibilities for the unfortunately named Wankel concept, for example, or a looned out VW/Subaru style flat four?
 
1600cc + seems ridiculous to me... I used to think the 1100cc Guzzi units were as big as would ever be needed on two wheels (I'll ignore HD fatboys for this).

My dad had (and gave away :givemestrength:) a BSA Goldstar 500 single and that was the dogs; lucas dyno electrics and all. 500cc bike racing is still, I think, the pinacle of two wheel racing and there's more than enough power in those 500cc's than anyone needs.

1600cc turbo's with KERS has huge potential for great racing but I wish they weren't going to rev limit them. Still, if they are going to limit the combustion stuff then they must free up KERS for open development... then there will be a genuine green intent on show that might even prove useful.

As for car engines... all the main manufacturers are down-sizing engines despite still increasing car size; as Chad has illustrated with Alfa and seen with Skoda / VW, Fiat, Ford et al.

As for the sound... well it will sound different but I'm sure it will still sound great.
 
I thought I was being responsible not going for 2.2 litres!:) ....

Yeah I think so to, it is all aero engineering and very little mechanical engineering these days.....If you can make a bigger capacity and performing engine that has 20+ kph on others then it should be allowed.
 
I'm with you there... but if people are worried about sounding wrong with small fours what will they think about the Wankel?
Considering the fact that one has to (or should) wear ear plugs at F1 events, I personally don't have a problem on that score. That said, wouldn't it be an added interest to hear different engine sounds rather than a uniform scream?
 
Blimey. I reckon it would be from 1966, after the switch to 3-litres. Let me have a look...

OK, Spa 1966 had:

3-litre Ferrari V12 (Ferrari)
3-litre Maserati V12 (Cooper)
1.9-litre BRM V8 (BRM, Lotus)
3-litre Repco V8 (Brabham)
2.4-litre Ferrari V6 (Ferrari)
2-litre Climax V8 (Lotus)
2.8-litre Climax L4 (Brabham, Eagle)
3-litre Serenissima V8 (McLaren)
3-litre BRM H16 (Lotus)

...I think that boils down to seven different configurations/capacities: 3 V8s and a V12, V6, L4 and H16.
 
Trying to get back on the subject: why don't they replace Valencia with Estoril? That circuit usually produced excellent races and its proximity to Spain could still placate (pander to?) FAs fans.
 
Another major change for the 2012 season is that rear exiting exhausts are now completely banned.
All exhausts will have to be periscopic or top exiting.

That's to avoid any form of blown diffuser.
 
Back
Top Bottom