+1

Yawns

been awake for 36 hours, f1 never fails to put me to sleep sometimes!

Well four or six cylinders will make the engines pretty much the same. Personally since Formula One is the experimental tech allow any number of cylinders but cap the engine capacity, at 1800 cc. Then that might allow rotary engines or any number of cylinders up to 12. Far more interesting.


Easy make the teams travel by ship. So that they are not hoping all over the world backwards and forwards. Obviously ban private jets as well, so that the teams are all on the same handicap.

Don't think you can compare 4 to 6 cylinders. You get a better balance the more cylinders you add its a simple rule of thumb. If you can get more energy being applied throughout the 4 stroke cycle the better balance, power output and efficiency you'll achieve.

Rotary is more efficient naturally put its a sod to keep running efficiently and the oil it burns imo is nearly 2 stroke comparable.

They could improve things by organising things better, so the teams spent a certain amount of time on each continent and didn't zigzag back and forth all the time. Do all the races in europe, then all the races in South america, then the far east and so on. Of course Bernie wanting to have races in every rich-but-miles-from-anywhere backwater is doing much more environmental harm than anything.

Jon

I was not saying that they should have any specific number of cylinders. Leave that to the teams to develop, just set the max cc and leave each team to work out its own solution. Some might opt for rotary if it meant fewer pitstops, and better range. Some might stick with 8 or 10 or 12 cylinders.

Hmm, I've always been told that engines with 6 or 12 cylinders are better balanced than 4 or 8 cylinder cars. They have a natural balance in their firing.
As for rotaries - the RX8 is about as thirsty as my 5.7 litre V8.

Rotary - Where a 1litre engine has the power of a 2litre and consumption of a 3litre.

Engine development was restricted for cost savings and I don't think giving engine makers a free rein would help the sport much in that respect. If there were different engine types then no doubt we would have seasons where you might as well have two formulas running. Several seasons back Ferrari had a V12 which gave them more power, but it was so thirsty compared to the equal displacement V10s of the other engines they were actually at a disadvantage, and moved to V10s pretty quickly. IIRC there was one team that used a gas turbine, Youtube isn't helping this evening.

Lotus 56B ?

Can't find any real footage, but here's an in-game view!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL0VT3Ajrdk

I can understand the cost savings but maybe a better distribution of funds, or efficincies that do not require huge logistics costs. Though for cost savings make the engines last the season. Or only allow one engine changes per season.

A lot of press and media talk today about F1 becoming boring with Vettel winning all the time, brings back memories…….

Really I blame the other teams and drivers for letting Red Bull and Vettal run away with it, it’s a team sport so someone needs to decide to take him out of the equation for a race or two and knock his confidence some more. The bloke is on a massive heigh atm so much so Webber can’t touch him in the same car.

Same car? Really?

Media nonsense. Even with Vettel winning the majority there has been some cracking action and a [LIFTED] load of overtaking. Even Monaco wasn't the usual bore fest. So one boring race (expected to be fair, I'd be happy to see it dropped from the calendar) and the whole season is a dud. Rubbish!

Snipers?