1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

The place for speaking your mind on current goings-on in F1
User avatar
F1000X
Posts: 918
Joined: 09 Mar 2010, 12:10

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by F1000X »

dr-baker wrote:So the general consensus is that rotaries aren't suitable for F1. But what about diesel? They have been used to win shorter touring car races and the Le Mans 24 Hours. And they have more torque, with a greater density of energy per litre so would have to carry less fuel (the advantage at Le Mans).


Do you really want to see diesel F1 cars? Diesel in endurance racing makes sense because of its fuel efficiency. Diesel in sprint racing just doesn't excite me. The only reason it would make sense, is to use it as a play to encourage the public to buy more diesel cars, and that doesn't significantly help stop the fossil fuel dependence problem, it just slows it down, almost negligibly.

E85 is just bulls***. Ethanol isn't a real viable alternative fuel source, at least not ethanol derived from corn.

I could get behind diesel, but only if it was both more fuel efficient, and more powerful than the current engine spec.
"Sebastian Bourdais- he once was a champ, but now he's a chump." -Will Power
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8269
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by mario »

F1000X wrote:
dr-baker wrote:So the general consensus is that rotaries aren't suitable for F1. But what about diesel? They have been used to win shorter touring car races and the Le Mans 24 Hours. And they have more torque, with a greater density of energy per litre so would have to carry less fuel (the advantage at Le Mans).


Do you really want to see diesel F1 cars? Diesel in endurance racing makes sense because of its fuel efficiency. Diesel in sprint racing just doesn't excite me. The only reason it would make sense, is to use it as a play to encourage the public to buy more diesel cars, and that doesn't significantly help stop the fossil fuel dependence problem, it just slows it down, almost negligibly.

E85 is just bulls***. Ethanol isn't a real viable alternative fuel source, at least not ethanol derived from corn.

I could get behind diesel, but only if it was both more fuel efficient, and more powerful than the current engine spec.

Davidson made an interesting comment, having driven both diesel and petrol Le Mans cars (the Aston Martin - Lola entry in 2009 and the Peugeot 908 this year). To him, the really big difference was the much higher torque of the diesel cars (and Peugeot had been working quite hard on their engine). As a result, the diesel cars could run with much more downforce, especially at circuits like Le Mans, yet still remain competitive in the speed traps. On top of that, there is the inherent fuel efficiency advantage that the diesels have - even though Aston Martin have modified the fuel injectors in their cars (they made the changes just before the Le Mans 24h) to make their engine more fuel efficient, they still use more fuel per stint (both the Audi's, Peugeot's and Aston's did 13 lap stints at Le Mans this year - but the Aston Martin has a 90 litre fuel tank to the 81 litre tanks on the Audi and Peugeot cars).

That said, it is worth noting that the ACO has been a little lenient on the diesel powered entries in recent years (the fact that Peugeot are running a diesel car might have something to do with that) - there was photographic evidence that suggested that both the R15+ and the 908 were breaking the rules at Le Mans this year (the rules state that you should not be able to see soot coming from the exhausts when the throttle is applied, but both the 908 and R15+ were producing visible clouds of soot under heavy acceleration, which were caught on camera).

The only downside that Davidson mentioned was that the diesel cars were more difficult to drive in the rain, partially because the higher torque made it easier to spin the wheels, partially because of the slight lag in the turbos, and partially because traction control works less efficiently on a diesel engine (with a petrol engine, you can alter the spark timing to control the power output of the engine, but you can't for a diesel engine). Overall, though, at the moment the turbo diesel engines do have an advantage, although the regulations are changing for 2011 with a big cut in the capacity of all the engines - there is a good article on the effects of the engine size cut on the new Le Mans prototypes here http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/ ... udi-r18/P1 where they go through the pretty big changes that Audi have made to the R18.

However, as F1000X points out, in Endurance Racing there is a very strong incentive to save fuel, and there the regulations have traditionally pushed the teams quite hard in terms of fuel efficiency. Whilst the Group C cars were famous for their speed, the FIA also had a very effective way of controlling that speed, via the engine configurations and the permitted fuel allowance - cut the fuel allowance, and the teams would have to de-tune their engines or otherwise change their cars to cut down on fuel consumption, capping performance.
In Formula 1, though, the traditional emphasis has been on compact, lightweight engines which produce high amounts of power. Diesel engines have had the downside of traditionally being heavier compared to petrol engines, but the big disadvantage is the relatively low maximum rev limit on most engines. With forced induction traditionally banned, the only way to increase the power of a normally aspirated engine was to rev higher, as that would increase the air mass flow through the engine - which would be a lot easier on a petrol engine compared to a diesel engine.

Ironically, in some ways diesel would be a better fuel for the proposed 2013 regulations. If the boost pressure is unlimited, the very high knock resistance of diesel would allow you to use a higher boost pressure compared to petrol, where premature ignition would be a potential problem. On top of that, as diesel is a denser fuel, the fuel tank could be more compact, which would make packaging much easier.

However, the main problem would be the spectacle and presentation side - whilst the modern diesel Le Mans cars are probably some of the most impressive Prototype cars to ever hit the track, they lack the aural impact of the of the petrol cars which compete against them. The sound of the cars is an important aspect in terms of marketing the sport - there are those who call for the V10's or Ferrari V12 to be brought back, because of the legendary noise that those engines made. They have a point - without a dramatic sound track, the races could seem a lot duller, even if there was more action on track, because mentally you would be a bit underwhelmed by the site of almost silent cars whizzing around the track.

So, will diesel engines ever enter F1? For the short term, no, because the fuel efficiency side of racing is yet to really take off, as it were, and Formula 1 is still seen as a very wasteful sport. Perhaps, once the public image of the sport is changed to reflect a more environmentally friendly outlook, we might see diesel being proposed - but the current manufacturers would probably fight against it, probably in part because they would fear competition from outside groups (especially VW, as they would be in a prime position to enter the sport and take them by storm).
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
User avatar
JohnMLTX
Posts: 307
Joined: 15 May 2010, 03:40
Location: People's Republic of Texas

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by JohnMLTX »

F1000X wrote:E85 is just bulls***. Ethanol isn't a real viable alternative fuel source, at least not ethanol derived from corn.


I'm not so sure. I went to the indycar race at texas motor speedway this year (my friend invited me, i otherwise wouldn't have gone, i don't even watch indycar)
and those ethanol cars didn't sound bad at all, and the racing was pretty good.

and, champ car used methanol, during the majority of it's lifespan, and there was never a bad sounding champcar.

and both of those fuels are more renewable and less pollutant than diesel or petrol.
ibsey wrote:Things happen in my underwear, every time I hear those Ferrari's.
User avatar
F1000X
Posts: 918
Joined: 09 Mar 2010, 12:10

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by F1000X »

JohnMLTX wrote:
F1000X wrote:E85 is just bulls***. Ethanol isn't a real viable alternative fuel source, at least not ethanol derived from corn.


I'm not so sure. I went to the indycar race at texas motor speedway this year (my friend invited me, i otherwise wouldn't have gone, i don't even watch indycar)
and those ethanol cars didn't sound bad at all, and the racing was pretty good.

and, champ car used methanol, during the majority of it's lifespan, and there was never a bad sounding champcar.

and both of those fuels are more renewable and less pollutant than diesel or petrol.


You're misunderstanding me. Ethanol and Methanol are not bad fuels, not at all, in fact, they are quite good fuels. That is not the problem with them. The problem is, we will never be able to produce enough raw material to make Ethanol a real fuel source in the world. The only part of the corn plant that can be used to create ethanol is the kernels. Not the cob, not the stalk, not the leaves, just the kernels. And that is a very small part of the plant. Sure, we could power F1 with Ethanol or Methanol, but it would mean absolutely nothing in the real world. Ethanol is not real solution to the green problem, unless you just want F1 cars to be a little less carbon negative.
"Sebastian Bourdais- he once was a champ, but now he's a chump." -Will Power
User avatar
TomWazzleshaw
Posts: 14370
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 04:42
Location: Curva do lel
Contact:

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by TomWazzleshaw »

F1000X wrote:
JohnMLTX wrote:
F1000X wrote:E85 is just bulls***. Ethanol isn't a real viable alternative fuel source, at least not ethanol derived from corn.


I'm not so sure. I went to the indycar race at texas motor speedway this year (my friend invited me, i otherwise wouldn't have gone, i don't even watch indycar)
and those ethanol cars didn't sound bad at all, and the racing was pretty good.

and, champ car used methanol, during the majority of it's lifespan, and there was never a bad sounding champcar.

and both of those fuels are more renewable and less pollutant than diesel or petrol.


You're misunderstanding me. Ethanol and Methanol are not bad fuels, not at all, in fact, they are quite good fuels. That is not the problem with them. The problem is, we will never be able to produce enough raw material to make Ethanol a real fuel source in the world. The only part of the corn plant that can be used to create ethanol is the kernels. Not the cob, not the stalk, not the leaves, just the kernels. And that is a very small part of the plant. Sure, we could power F1 with Ethanol or Methanol, but it would mean absolutely nothing in the real world. Ethanol is not real solution to the green problem, unless you just want F1 cars to be a little less carbon negative.


What about using Sugarcane instead of corn? From what I've read (bear in mind I know nothing about this subject) it's easier to extract ethanol from sugarcane than corn and it has more (about 30% more if what I've read is correct)... Again bear in mind I know absolutely nothing about this.
Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
User avatar
thehemogoblin
Posts: 3684
Joined: 31 Mar 2009, 02:14
Location: The great Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by thehemogoblin »

F1000X, the fact that ethanol and methanol are partially renewable makes them still better than fossil fuels, which are not renewable at all.
User avatar
F1000X
Posts: 918
Joined: 09 Mar 2010, 12:10

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by F1000X »

thehemogoblin wrote:F1000X, the fact that ethanol and methanol are partially renewable makes them still better than fossil fuels, which are not renewable at all.

Of course it does, that's not point. The point is, Formula 1 can make the switch, but it won't have any bearing on the rest of the world, it will effectively be a switch to polish the sports reputation as being environmentally sensitive.
"Sebastian Bourdais- he once was a champ, but now he's a chump." -Will Power
User avatar
thehemogoblin
Posts: 3684
Joined: 31 Mar 2009, 02:14
Location: The great Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by thehemogoblin »

F1000X wrote:
thehemogoblin wrote:F1000X, the fact that ethanol and methanol are partially renewable makes them still better than fossil fuels, which are not renewable at all.

Of course it does, that's not point. The point is, Formula 1 can make the switch, but it won't have any bearing on the rest of the world, it will effectively be a switch to polish the sports reputation as being environmentally sensitive.


In that respect, nothing 12 teams are going to do is going to make a difference.
User avatar
F1000X
Posts: 918
Joined: 09 Mar 2010, 12:10

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by F1000X »

Wizzie wrote:What about using Sugarcane instead of corn? From what I've read (bear in mind I know nothing about this subject) it's easier to extract ethanol from sugarcane than corn and it has more (about 30% more if what I've read is correct)... Again bear in mind I know absolutely nothing about this.


You're on the right track. The problem is the American agricultural industry (much like the energy and automobile industries) is not interested and does not want to move away from their main crop, corn. And it doesn't make sense for America to import foreign produced Ethanol (we'd get killed at the pump.) I can't speak for the situation in Europe or other parts of the world. And even with sugarcane, you still have a volume problem to tackle.
"Sebastian Bourdais- he once was a champ, but now he's a chump." -Will Power
User avatar
F1000X
Posts: 918
Joined: 09 Mar 2010, 12:10

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by F1000X »

thehemogoblin wrote:
F1000X wrote:
thehemogoblin wrote:F1000X, the fact that ethanol and methanol are partially renewable makes them still better than fossil fuels, which are not renewable at all.

Of course it does, that's not point. The point is, Formula 1 can make the switch, but it won't have any bearing on the rest of the world, it will effectively be a switch to polish the sports reputation as being environmentally sensitive.


In that respect, nothing 12 teams are going to do is going to make a difference.


Exactly, so, why do it?
"Sebastian Bourdais- he once was a champ, but now he's a chump." -Will Power
User avatar
Mister Fungus
Posts: 351
Joined: 11 Sep 2009, 16:09

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by Mister Fungus »

What about the ECU for the new engines? Will it be standard? Who will make it?
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8269
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by mario »

With regards to the debate on ethanol, for the moment I shall just make a quick comment on it. Most of our current technology for producing bioethanol is, if we are honest, not always the most efficient or cleanest methods of creating ethanol. Moreover, there are the issues of how much energy goes into production of the ethanol in the first place, especially when you are using highly industrialised, and often high energy consuming, methods of growing crops.
For the moment, I have to agree with F1000X that ethanol is unlikely to become a major source of fuel, except in one or two localised situations (i.e. Brazil, where the technology for extracting ethanol for cars was perfected in the wake of the 1970's oil crisis, and limitations on the importation of refined crude oil products). Perhaps, in the longer term, ethanol might be more viable if what is termed "secondary production methods" take off (where we can produce ethanol from other sources which do not run the risk of interfering with human food production e.g. algae, or using food waste), but those methods require greater R&D, and are unlikely to come in for a number of years.

Back to the main thread of turbo engines:
Mister Fungus wrote:What about the ECU for the new engines? Will it be standard? Who will make it?

So far, we are yet to see the technical regulations for the new engine regulations, so we don't know if the ECU will be standardised. However, given that the current standardised ECU was introduced to save money, and to ensure that no particular team was manipulating the software to gain questionable or illegal advantages (traction control, launch control or other unusual engine mapping modes), I think that it is likely that we will see a standard ECU. Having a standard ECU has the additional bonus of enabling the FIA greater control over the engines, should they decide to, for example, impose a fuel flow rate limit to keep the power of the engines down.
As to who would make it, that is less clear. The current units are produced by Mclaren Electronic Systems (MES), an offshoot of the main Mclaren organisation dedicated to producing electronic equipment for F1 teams, but I believe that their current contract expires in 2012, as it is tied in with the current V8 engines. After that, it is unclear who would produce a standard ECU, if there is one (which is likely, as I outlined above, but it is possible that the FIA might allow the teams to compete for an advantage in this area), but I suppose that closer to the time, the FIA will offer a contract for a standard ECU to interested parties.

If it does come down to it, I guess that it would go to a specialist electronic manufacturer - Bosch, say - or possibly back to MES, since the FIA seem quite happy with the job that they are doing at the moment.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
User avatar
Dan B
Posts: 421
Joined: 09 May 2010, 21:18

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by Dan B »

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/ ... 11597.html

Dunno if this was posted, but here's the new engine rules. Doesn't say anything about the engines being turbocharged.
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15685
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by dr-baker »

A rather interesting debate on different fuels types since my last post. Realistically, I see F1 continuing with petrol for the foreseeable future. I can't see which way the road car industry is going (hydrogen, electricity, algae-sourced biofuel...) but I see F1 following the road car industry on this, not the other way round. After all, hybrid cars like the Toyota Pious, sorry Prius, has been around for longer than KERS-powered cars. And F1 has been extremely reluctant to try other fuel.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
Mister Fungus
Posts: 351
Joined: 11 Sep 2009, 16:09

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by Mister Fungus »

Dan B wrote:http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/12/11597.html

Dunno if this was posted, but here's the new engine rules. Doesn't say anything about the engines being turbocharged.

Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar

Now I'm not expert but "high pressure gasoline injection" could be another term for turbo?
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8269
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by mario »

Mister Fungus wrote:
Dan B wrote:http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/12/11597.html

Dunno if this was posted, but here's the new engine rules. Doesn't say anything about the engines being turbocharged.

Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar

Now I'm not expert but "high pressure gasoline injection" could be another term for turbo?

Well, it is true that the rules do not explicitly state that the engine must have some form of forced induction, but it would be surprising if they did not. It would follow the trend set by the FIA in other series to downsize the engine but compensate by allowing higher boost pressure, which reflects what is going on in the automotive world in general, and comments from the team principals had made it clear that turbo charging was on the agenda.

As for the comment about "high pressure gasoline injection", that probably refers to the fuel injection system, not to forced induction - a number of high performance companies, particularly Ferrari, have been investing in high pressure fuel injection systems. The idea is that the fuel droplets will be a lot smaller, and more evenly distributed throughout the cylinder, which leads to cleaner and more efficient combustion of the fuel. Ferrari's system has gone into production in the 458, and it is part of the reason why that particular car has the most efficient, and most powerful per unit volume, normally aspirated engine that Ferrari have produced to date.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
User avatar
Nessafox
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6314
Joined: 30 Nov 2009, 19:45
Location: Stupid, sexy Flanders.

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by Nessafox »

mario wrote: for the moment I shall just make a quick comment on it.

dit you honestly believed that when you wrote it? :D

i do not like ethanol, it gives me a slight headache. On the champcar gp in zolder i was standing right above the pits (above that of rsports i think, but that's not important)
i don't have that with petrol. And it smells weird, unlike petrol, petrol smells great:D
I don't know what i want and i want it now!
User avatar
Frentzen127
Posts: 415
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 17:32

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by Frentzen127 »

There was a report on IEEE spectrum that considered the option of replacing fossil fuels with cellulose based ethanol or biodiesel.
My memory isnt that great and I can't be bothered about quoting it literally, but in general terms, the issue that was found was the you couldnt produce enough ethanol to replace the current fossil fuel consuption, simply because, even if you were to plant the whole world with grass, there still wouldn't be enough vegetable mass to be converted to ethanol.
DEPORTIVO CA... pfft hahaha can't say that with a straight face!
Misses Minardi dearly. :(
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8269
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by mario »

This wrote:
mario wrote: for the moment I shall just make a quick comment on it.

dit you honestly believed that when you wrote it? :D

i do not like ethanol, it gives me a slight headache. On the champcar gp in zolder i was standing right above the pits (above that of rsports i think, but that's not important)
i don't have that with petrol. And it smells weird, unlike petrol, petrol smells great:D

By my usual standards, that was a relatively brief comment - and compared to the number of comments made before me on ethanol, it probably was.

That said, when mentioning cars running on ethanol, it reminds me of this particular clip where James May drives a Radical SR3 fuelled on extra strong whiskey (go to about 40 seconds in for that section).
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
User avatar
JohnMLTX
Posts: 307
Joined: 15 May 2010, 03:40
Location: People's Republic of Texas

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by JohnMLTX »

This wrote:
i do not like ethanol, it gives me a slight headache. On the champcar gp in zolder i was standing right above the pits (above that of rsports i think, but that's not important)
i don't have that with petrol. And it smells weird, unlike petrol, petrol smells great:D


champ car used methanol, not ethanol. and methanol is highly toxic. the headache is a fairly typical reaction to being exposed to it, one of it's down sides. that, and the smell.

ethanol is less toxic, and smells sweet. it's what indycar has used since 2007.
ibsey wrote:Things happen in my underwear, every time I hear those Ferrari's.
User avatar
DonTirri
Posts: 1177
Joined: 28 Apr 2009, 22:12
Location: Herttoniemi, Helsinki, Finland, Europe, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way.

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by DonTirri »

JohnMLTX wrote:
This wrote:
i do not like ethanol, it gives me a slight headache. On the champcar gp in zolder i was standing right above the pits (above that of rsports i think, but that's not important)
i don't have that with petrol. And it smells weird, unlike petrol, petrol smells great:D


champ car used methanol, not ethanol. and methanol is highly toxic. the headache is a fairly typical reaction to being exposed to it, one of it's down sides. that, and the smell.

ethanol is less toxic, and smells sweet. it's what indycar has used since 2007.


Also, Methanol is more dangerous than typical petrol, since it burns on an invisible flame. If I remember correctly, they atleast used to spray some sorta flame suppressant on cars after each refueling just in case there was a fire, since the first sign of a fire was usually the driver feeling the heat.
I got Pointed Opinions and I ain't afraid to use em!
F1rejects no.1Räikkönen and Vettel fan.
BTW, thats Räikkönen with two K's and two N's. Not Raikonnen (Raikkonen is fine if you have no umlauts though)
User avatar
thehemogoblin
Posts: 3684
Joined: 31 Mar 2009, 02:14
Location: The great Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by thehemogoblin »

DonTirri wrote:
JohnMLTX wrote:
This wrote:
i do not like ethanol, it gives me a slight headache. On the champcar gp in zolder i was standing right above the pits (above that of rsports i think, but that's not important)
i don't have that with petrol. And it smells weird, unlike petrol, petrol smells great:D


champ car used methanol, not ethanol. and methanol is highly toxic. the headache is a fairly typical reaction to being exposed to it, one of it's down sides. that, and the smell.

ethanol is less toxic, and smells sweet. it's what indycar has used since 2007.


Also, Methanol is more dangerous than typical petrol, since it burns on an invisible flame. If I remember correctly, they atleast used to spray some sorta flame suppressant on cars after each refueling just in case there was a fire, since the first sign of a fire was usually the driver feeling the heat.


They add a little bit of gasoline to the ethanol for IndyCar now, and it gives it a little bit of color when it burns (while also rendering it undrinkable).
User avatar
Cynon
Posts: 3518
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 00:33
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Contact:

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by Cynon »

thehemogoblin wrote:They add a little bit of gasoline to the ethanol for IndyCar now, and it gives it a little bit of color when it burns (while also rendering it undrinkable).


Something tells me you tested the "drinkability" of ethanol with the way you phrased that last bit... :lol:

Methanol fires caused a lot of problems in CART, to the point where each of the tracks in CART would have so many hoses available that if a fire did occur, the pitlane could literally be flooded. But in CART, as with most American motorsport, there was an actual pit wall to separate the crews and the cars, something I'm amazed F1 hasn't done on the basis of safety grounds!
Check out the TM Master Cup Series on Youtube...
...or check out my random retro IndyCar clips.

Dr. Helmut Marko wrote: Finally we have an Australian in the team who can start a race well and challenge Vettel.
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15685
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by dr-baker »

DonTirri wrote:Also, Methanol is more dangerous than typical petrol, since it burns on an invisible flame. If I remember correctly, they atleast used to spray some sorta flame suppressant on cars after each refueling just in case there was a fire, since the first sign of a fire was usually the driver feeling the heat.

I believe it was called "water." Can anyone confirm?
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
Faustus
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2073
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 20:23
Location: UK

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by Faustus »

dr-baker wrote:
DonTirri wrote:Also, Methanol is more dangerous than typical petrol, since it burns on an invisible flame. If I remember correctly, they atleast used to spray some sorta flame suppressant on cars after each refueling just in case there was a fire, since the first sign of a fire was usually the driver feeling the heat.

I believe it was called "water." Can anyone confirm?


Dihydrogen monoxide, I believe it was.
Following Formula 1 since 1984.
Avid collector of Formula 1 season guides and reviews.
Collector of reject merchandise and 1/43rd scale reject model cars.
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8269
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by mario »

thehemogoblin wrote:They add a little bit of gasoline to the ethanol for IndyCar now, and it gives it a little bit of color when it burns (while also rendering it undrinkable).

Technically, pure ethanol would be toxic (most of the side effects of drunkenness are a consequence of mild ethanol poisoning), so you probably wouldn't want to try it even if they took the petrol out. Besides, given that the energy density of ethanol is lower compared to petrol, and the FIA is planning a strict total fuel allowance, measured in kilograms, even if ethanol was allowed, the regulations would not favour its use.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
User avatar
Frentzen127
Posts: 415
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 17:32

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by Frentzen127 »

It should totally be banned, the Dihydrogen monoxide.
DEPORTIVO CA... pfft hahaha can't say that with a straight face!
Misses Minardi dearly. :(
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15685
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by dr-baker »

Frentzen127 wrote:It should totally be banned, the Dihydrogen monoxide.

What should we use instead? Hydrogen hydroxide?
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
Frentzen127
Posts: 415
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 17:32

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by Frentzen127 »

mario wrote:
thehemogoblin wrote:They add a little bit of gasoline to the ethanol for IndyCar now, and it gives it a little bit of color when it burns (while also rendering it undrinkable).

Technically, pure ethanol would be toxic (most of the side effects of drunkenness are a consequence of mild ethanol poisoning), so you probably wouldn't want to try it even if they took the petrol out.

Ethanol poisoning has more to do with the amount one has taken rather than concentration.
I know from experience that is is possible to drink pure ethanol, whether its a pleasant experience or not however, thats debatable and highly subjective, really.
It also makes for an amusing moment, when you/your victim is caught off guard from its scorching qualities.
You guys didn't read that here, ok? :mrgreen:

dr-baker wrote:
Frentzen127 wrote:It should totally be banned, the Dihydrogen monoxide.

What should we use instead? Hydrogen hydroxide?


Hydroxilic acid. ;)
DEPORTIVO CA... pfft hahaha can't say that with a straight face!
Misses Minardi dearly. :(
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15685
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by dr-baker »

The Dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide

I felt it was necessary to educate F1 Reject readers about Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO). Proper knowledge is important. DHMO is known by many other names such as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Although DHMO has many inherent dangers and kills thousands each year, it can be highly beneficial in moderated amounts for detoxification purposes.

You have at least 20 products in your home right now with large or trace amounts of DHMO. You need to be aware of this lurking chemical. Please pass this vital information along to all who need to know.

from http://www.DHMO.org

Q: Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)?

A: Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S.Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents,environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful. Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary. A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States.

Q: Why haven't I heard about Dihydrogen Monoxide before?

A: Good question. Historically, the dangers of DHMO, for the most part, have been considered minor and manageable. While the more significant dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are currently addressed by a number of agencies including FDA, FEMA and CDC, public awareness of the real and daily dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide is lower than some think it should be.

Q: What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?

A: Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

Q: What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

A: Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide. Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
* as an industrial solvent and coolant,
* in nuclear power plants,
* by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
* by elite athletes to improve performance,
* in the production of Styrofoam,
* in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
* in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals,
* as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
* in so-called "family planning" or "reproductive health" clinics,
* as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
* as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and airconditioning compressor operation,
* in cult rituals,
* by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
* by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
* by members of Congress who are under investigation for financial corruption and inappropriate IM behavior,
* by the clientele at a number of bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,
* historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
* in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China,for various forms of torture,
* during many recent religious and ethnic wars in the Middle East,
* by many terrorist organizations including al Quaeda,
* in community swimming pools to maintain chemical balance,
* in day care centers, purportedly for sanitary purposes,
* by software engineers, including those producing DICOM programmer APIs and other DICOM software tools,
* by popular computer science professors,
* by the semi-divine King Bhumibol of Thailand and his many devoted young working girls in Bangkok,
* by the British Chiropractic Association and the purveyors of the bogus treatments that the BCA promotes,
* by commodities giant Trafigura in their well-publicized and widely-known toxic-waste dumping activities in Ivory Coast,
* in animal research laboratories, and
* in pesticide production and distribution.

What you may find surprising are some of the products and places where DHMO is used, but which for one reason or another, are not normally made part of public presentations on the dangers to the lives of our family members and friends. Among these startling uses are:
* as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices
* in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals,
* in spray-on oven cleaners,
* in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products,
* in bathtub bubble products marketed to children,
* as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections,
* in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors,
* in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad,
* in Formula One race cars, although its use is regulated by the Formula One Racing Commission, and
* as a target of ongoing NASA planetary and stellar research.

One of the most surprising facts recently revealed about Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination is in its use as a food and produce "decontaminant." Studies have shown that even after careful washing, food and produce that has been contaminated by DHMO remains tainted by DHMO.

Q: What is the link between Dihydrogen Monoxide and school violence?

A: A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence in our country's schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved. In fact, DHMO is often very available to students of all ages within the assumed safe confines of school buildings. None of the school administrators with which we spoke could say for certain how much of the substance is in use within their very hallways.

Q: How does Dihydrogen Monoxide toxicity affect kidney dialysis patients?

A: Unfortunately, DHMO overdose is not unheard of in patients undergoing dialysis treatments for kidney failure. Dihydrogen Monoxide overdose in these patients can result in congestive heart failure, pulmonary edema and hypertension. In spite of the danger of accidental overdose and the inherent toxicity of DHMO in large quantities for this group, there is a portion of the dialysis treated population that continues to use DHMO on a regular basis.

Q: Are there groups that oppose a ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide?

A: In spite of overwhelming evidence, there is one group in California that opposes a ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide. The Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide is a group that believes that the dangers of DHMO have been exaggerated. Members claim that Dihydrogen Monoxide, or the less emotionally charged and more chemically accurate term they advocate for it, "Hydrogen Hydroxide," is beneficial, environmentally safe, benign and naturally occurring. They argue that efforts to ban DHMO are misguided. Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide is supported by the Scorched Earth Party, a radical and loosely-organized California-based group. Sources close to the Scorched Earth Party deny any outside funding from government, industry or pro-industry PACs.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
Klon
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 7244
Joined: 28 Mar 2009, 17:07
Location: Schleswig-Holstein, FRG
Contact:

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by Klon »

That is very clever, baker, I was taken in by it. :D
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15685
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by dr-baker »

Klon wrote:That is very clever, baker, I was taken in by it. :D

:lol:

Not originally mine, I'm afraid. Originally sent to me via an email from www.MountainWings.com. But it took me in as well.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
nome66
Posts: 1580
Joined: 18 Dec 2010, 22:42
Location: Central Marlyland, USA

Re: 1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

Post by nome66 »

my theory/opinion on engine size(unrelated to the hydroxide)::
the pet-sitting service i have in my neighborhood would have a huge inflow of new customers who'll say "all max/fido/rover wants to do is watch F1 @ your house"
the note from the 1.5's will be so high, that the FIA will have to start selling tickets to stray dogs for the Turkish GP.
I believe in German BARawnda-Tyrrell-Simca(and it's working)

the only difference between the roman gladiators and racing drivers is that racing drivers sit inside the lion that is trying to kill them.
Post Reply