Official 2011 Formula 1 Pre-Season Thread

A formula 1 engine weighs 95kg, it could weigh 80kg if it were not for the engine regs. An lmp diesel engine weighs 180-200kg, while the Judd v10 weighs 140kg. Lets just assume that a diesel f1 engine would weigh 20-40kg heavier than a petrol engine. A best case scenario is that it weighs 20% more for a 10% gain in fuel economy.

Plus, if you add turbo to that petrol engine (both are 5.5L V10s) it will have much more power. No way diesel will be better.
 
It doesn't matter how much it weighs, If it weighs more than 10% more than there is no fuel saving advantage to it.

I just showed you the maths of how in theory an ideal diesel engine is only 1 kg heavier than a petrol engine. I still think it'd be interesting.

Plus, if you add turbo to that petrol engine (both are 5.5L V10s) it will have much more power. No way diesel will be better.

I bet this speech was heard just before Diesels were introduced in LeMans
 
Last edited:
I bet this speech was heard just before Diesels were introduced in LeMans

What's your point? I gave you a proof (based on LMP1 cars) that the only way to make diesel competitive is to ban turbo on a petrol engine and allow it on a diesel. Which, like I said earlier, is artificial and made only to promote diesels. If you'll make an equal rules for both types of engines - petrol will be better.
 
What's your point? I gave you a proof (based on LMP1 cars) that the only way to make diesel competitive is to ban turbo on a petrol engine and allow it on a diesel. Which, like I said earlier, is artificial and made only to promote diesels. If you'll make an equal rules for both types of engines - petrol will be better.

A non turbo petrol engine already consumes more fuel in LMP1 than a turbo Diesel, do you know how much it would guzzle if it was turbo'd? They'd spend half the day in the pits and end up 50 laps down.

IT doesn't matter, anyway, it's not gonna happen, I just said it as a bit of an interesting "what if" scenario.
 
Last edited:
A non turbo petrol engine already consumes more fuel in LMP1 than a turbo Diesel, do you know how much it would guzzle if it was turbo'd? They'd spend half the day in the pits and end up 50 laps down.

IT doesn't matter, anyway, it's not gonna happen, I just said it as a bit of an interesting "what if" scenario.

Depends on size, the engine size/air restrictor sliding scale is (theoretically) set up for equivalency, that's why petrol engines go only to 4 liters when turbocharged compared to 6 for NA engines. However... the only turbocharged petrol engine built to the up-to-2010 LMP1 regs was the AER V8, and that has a propensity towards blowing up. Someone tried putting the engine from the old Audi R8(another turbo V8) in a LMP1 Lola as well, but the electrics kept going haywire.
 
Last edited:
A non turbo petrol engine already consumes more fuel in LMP1 than a turbo Diesel, do you know how much it would guzzle if it was turbo'd? They'd spend half the day in the pits and end up 50 laps down.

So you're saying that if you'll add turbo to a petrol engine it will be slower? :lol:

If 5.5 petrol and 5.5 twin turbo diesel have similar performance (with some diesel advantage), when you'll add twin turbo to that petrol, I'm sure it will be faster, even with more stops and more fuel on board.
 
So you're saying that if you'll add turbo to a petrol engine it will be slower? :lol:

If 5.5 petrol and 5.5 twin turbo diesel have similar performance (with some diesel advantage), when you'll add twin turbo to that petrol, I'm sure it will be faster, even with more stops and more fuel on board.

Oh my, if you're sure, then there's no arguing with that!!
 
Oh my, if you're sure, then there's no arguing with that!!

Mate, if turbo is slower why petrol turbo is limited to 4L and non-turbo to 6L? Maybe Audi should get rid of turbos on their diesels too? It will make it faster!

Sorry for sarcasm, but claiming that turbo slows a race car is something new for me.
 
I'd like you to show me where the F did I say adding a turbo would make an engine slower?
That was your conclusion for misinterpreting my statement that it will overall be slower because it'd have such high consumption that it'd spend half the time in the pits refuelling.
 
I'd like you to show me where the F did I say adding a turbo would make an engine slower?
That was your conclusion for misinterpreting my statement that it will overall be slower because it'd have such high consumption that it'd spend half the time in the pits refuelling.

I haven't misinterpreted. I'm also talking about overall time. To end this discussion just tell me why in LeMans petrol turbo engine is limited to 4L and diesel turbo to 5.5L? Or in WTCC petrol turbo to 1.6L and diesel turbo to 2.0L? If in your opinion the same rules for both types still will make diesel a better option.
 
Supposedly Tony Fernandes has been told that there's still strings attatched to JPS (cigarettes being sold) in Europe and Lotus-Renault might be in trouble with it if they stick with it.
 
I haven't misinterpreted. I'm also talking about overall time. To end this discussion just tell me why in LeMans petrol turbo engine is limited to 4L and diesel turbo to 5.5L? Or in WTCC petrol turbo to 1.6L and diesel turbo to 2.0L? If in your opinion the same rules for both types still will make diesel a better option.

Le Mans 2010
1st place: Audi R15 TDI plus Engine: 5.5 L Turbo V10(Diesel) ~~600bhp 774 ft lbs
Best petrol: 4th place: Oreca 01 AIM YS 5.5 L V10 ~~ 650 bhp 553 ft lbs
Other petrols: retired : Lola-Aston Martin 6.0 L NA V12 ~~650 bhp 516 ft lbs

Ok any surprises thus far? Petrols have more horsepower and diesels have more torque.
The winning Diesel engine finished a whole 30 laps ahead of the best placed natural aspirated petrol here. We can assume a big deal out of the frequent refuels. Turbos increase the consumption even more.
Do you really think adding a couple of turbos to those petrol engined cars would make up for 30 laps of difference?
It's obvious right now LeMans is unbalanced, but I doubt you'd find balance by adding turbos to the petrols. If anything, they need to make the diesel's tanks smaller.
Also because the petrols are already developing 650 bhp and running at around 340 km/h on the straights, and they don't wanna see more cars flying. Increasing their power is not the answer.

Lastly I'll say again. This was just a what if scenario in which I think it'd be interesting to see who comes on top. And by that I mean I'd like to see what engineers would do with this concept, not debate endlessly who would theoretically come on top, because we cannot just guess what the designers would come up with.
 
And in 2009, the laptime average was as follows:

908: 3 mins 46
915: 3 mins 49
AMR: 3 mins 51

So despite having to fuel more often, The leading petrol car was a mere 5 seconds slower than the leading Diesel and 3 seconds a lap slower than the leading Audi. If you look at the qualifying times, The AMR car was 4.2 seconds slower than the 908 and 3 seconds slower than the R15. Doesn't really look like the diesels are really gaining much due to their efficiency over petrol. I'm sure if Audi or Peugeot decided to a petrol engine, that they would still win Le mans and be the same distances they are winning by now with the diesels.
 
It's obvious right now LeMans is unbalanced, but I doubt you'd find balance by adding turbos to the petrols. If anything, they need to make the diesel's tanks smaller.
Also because the petrols are already developing 650 bhp and running at around 340 km/h on the straights, and they don't wanna see more cars flying. Increasing their power is not the answer.

Yes, every series with diesels is the same. First they allow turbo diesel against non-turbo petrol. Than diesel is dominant and they start thinking of stupid rules to level that (size of the turbo, size of the tank). But my point is, there is no wining diesel in a series where petrol and diesel have the same rules.

Also at the beginning of this you said that petrol turbo will be slower than diesel turbo - without refuelling. So look at WTCC, now (after some more rule changes) petrol naturally-aspirated 2L won with turbo diesel 2L. Since you admitted that (without refuelling at least) adding turbo to a petrol engine will make car even faster it means petrol turbo will be easily faster than turbo diesel. That's why petrol turbo will be introduced next year with a 1.6L limit.
 
This is gathering momentum:

Legard exit and replacement to be confirmed by BBC


The BBC is set to confirm that Jonathan Legard will no longer form part of its F1 commentary team next year, and that he is to be replaced alongside Martin Brundle by David Coulthard.

We have learned from a source close to Legard that the former Radio 5 Live man's contract will not be renewed into 2011, following two seasons in the F1 commentary box during which the 49-year-old failed to hit it off with Brundle and committed a number of well-publicised gaffes.

Crash.net understands that Brundle ? a favourite both amongst F1 fans and inside the corporation ? has successfully persuaded the BBC to replace Legard with his fellow former grand prix ace Coulthard, a driver who triumphed 13 times in the top flight between 1995 and 2003. The Scot will dovetail his new commentating duties with his ongoing punditry role alongside ex-team owner Eddie Jordan and the Beeb's anchorman Jake Humphrey.

Whilst a BBC spokesman told us that 'we're still looking at our line-up for next year's F1 coverage', Crash.net has been reliably informed that Legard's replacement by Coulthard is a done-deal, with the lack of chemistry and personality clash with Brundle a key factor in the decision. MotoGP commentator Charlie Cox had previously been mooted as the most likely candidate to take over the reins.

http://crash.net/f1/news/165559/1/legard_exit_and_replacement_to_be_confirmed_by_bbc.html
 
..dovetail his new commentating duties with his ongoing punditry role alongside ex-team owner Eddie Jordan and the Beeb's anchorman Jake Humphrey.

Oh god...da pundit is in da haus, motahafocka... :S :D
 
Top