PCFormat Forum Archive

I just realised that we have a a Skidmarks section and we do not have a Formula 1 thread

How can we call ourselves petrol heads with a thread dedicated to such an awesome sport.

So first thing up for discussion; what were your thoughts on the first ever night race yesterday.

I think it adds some more excitement to the sport, and a new element that drivers have to contend with.

The race itself was exciting, with Massa having his little incident (I am sure heads will roll over that one)

Hats off to Alonso for his win, what a victory. Coming from 15th he takes the checkered flag. Well done!

I enjoyed the race, though I'm sure the organisers are going to have to do a fair number of modifications to the course.

All in all it was an enjoyable one, even though I missed the last 8 laps.

I agree about the modifications to the course. The chicane on the outside of turn 7 was taking a hammering and was coming lose, not exactly what you want to ride over at 200+ KM/H

It was awesome!

(I am sure heads will roll over that one)

The guys head nearly did roll when that pipe hit him.

OMW I watched the highlights. I was pretty drugged up this weekend so I didn't get to watch the race live.

Loved the bottomouts when the cars hit the tarmac and sparks went everywhere! Turn 7 was what every race needs.

Frozenfireside wrote: I was pretty drugged up this weekend so I didn't get to watch the race live.

Family forum? Yes? No?

I've just been in an op so don't get your CSI hopes up too high.
painkillers made me sleepy so I slept.

Frozenfireside wrote:I've just been in an op so don't get your CSI hopes up too high.
painkillers made me sleepy so I slept.

Just checking Morphine FTW?

/OT: Synap Forte
Sorry I snapped. I was in a lot of pain when I wrote that.

Just saw CNN world Sport and the replay: Damn guy went flying.

UrBaN wrote:

Frozenfireside wrote:I've just been in an op so don't get your CSI hopes up too high.
painkillers made me sleepy so I slept.

Just checking Morphine FTW?

Yeah
- CH3OH
Methanol rulez.....

Frozenfireside wrote:/OT: Synap Forte
Sorry I snapped. I was in a lot of pain when I wrote that.

Just saw CNN world Sport and the replay: Damn guy went flying.

No problemo at all *twitch*

Well done Jenson !!
Every F1 drivers dream is to win at Monaco, he must be over-the-moon at the moment.

Hats off to the the Brawn GP team, looks like their cars were just to strong once again.
Nice to see Ferrari looking relatively competitive.
Lewis, better luck next time, trying to get a good result from starting at the back of the grid at Monaco is neigh on impossible. Hopefully he'll have a better race in Turkey.

Someone ought to shoot Maclarens Management. They have gone from being a brilliant team to utter retards. This is coming from a Maclaren Fan

Man, i miss the Days and the Hakkinen and Coultard

Well, there is Mclaren drivetrain and Mercedes power in the Brawn Cars... so you have something to cheer about!
It really goes to show though, that the most important element of an F1 car is the chassis and aero setup.

F1 has become so boring and the rules so crap I'd rather watch paint dry nowadays... And I used to be a huge fan! The big names are also threatening to pull out unless they change the rules back, and then F1 will truly be dead.

Anybody else think the new cars also look hideously ugly compared to the previous models?

Moto GP, now that's where it's at!

ryanrich wrote:Moto GP, now that's where it's at!

Sadly, that isn't as great as it used to be. WTCC and SBK is where it's at

MotoGP still rocks! Anything with Valentino in it cannot be boring

SBK is great though. Mind you the races at Kyalami were about of a procession. The 'cats had the legs on everything else on the track. Still i'm glad Nori won, he needs to win the world championship. Ben Spies looking very good for a rookie though.

is it true that a F1 car's engine idles at 9K RPM ?

And what kind of engine is it ? 4t or 2t ?

SBSP wrote:is it true that a F1 car's engine idles at 9K RPM ?

And what kind of engine is it ? 4t or 2t ?

Don't think that's true, they Idle at about 4000-5000 rpm and are 4 Stroke engines.

But still it must be one hectic engine then cus.

a 4 stroke's ability to rev is limited to the inlet and out let valve's springs.

The harder the cams hit the springs they weaker they become and the more they lag.

And by the sound of a F1 car going down a straight line it must be hitting probably up to 25K RPM's ?
Even if the cams are sloped to open the valves quicker, still amazing unless they have like 12 valves per piston.
What are these engines V10's ? 120 valves ?


2 strokes revs easily cus they have no valves so its limitations comes down to the crank bigends and small ends on the conrod.

Edit:

This awnsers it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_car

V8's V10's not allowed any more (I thought its V10's cus V12's is not allowed)
and no more than 4 valves per piston and limited to 18Krpm and no exotic metals is allowed.
So its jut a standard 2.4 litre engine so much form my brainstorming

V8, 2.4L. 19K RPM redline.

Edit: It is not JUST an ordinary 2.4L engine. Have a look at this. That was still in the V10 era, but pulling 900 horses from 3L (correct me if I'm wrong) is quite an art.

SBSP: F1 engines have pneumatic valves, not traditional spring valves.

Scavenger wrote:SBSP: F1 engines have pneumatic valves, not traditional spring valves.

Whats pneumatic valves ?

amazing!

Grand Prix cars and the cutting edge technology that constitute them produce an unprecedented combination of outright speed and quickness for the drivers. Every F1 car on the grid is capable of going from 0 to 160 km/h (100 mph) and back to 0 in less than five seconds. During a demonstration at the Silverstone circuit in Britain, an F1 McLaren-Mercedes car driven by David Coulthard gave a pair of Mercedes-Benz street cars a head start of seventy seconds, and was able to beat the cars to the finish line from a standing start.

and

Forward acceleration

The 2006 F1 cars have a power-to-weight ratio of 1,250 hp (932 kW)/tonne (0.9 kW/kg). Theoretically this would allow the car to reach 100 km/h (62 mph) in less than 1 second. However the massive power cannot be converted to motion at low speeds due to traction loss, and the usual figure is 2 seconds to reach 100 km/h (62 mph). After about 130 km/h (81 mph) traction loss is minimal due to the combined effect of the car moving faster and the downforce, hence the car continues accelerating at a very high rate. The figures are (for the 2006 Renault R26):

0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds
0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds
0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds*

Scavenger wrote:SBSP: F1 engines have pneumatic valves, not traditional spring valves.

I always thought that they were hydraulic valves?

Monty wrote:

Scavenger wrote:SBSP: F1 engines have pneumatic valves, not traditional spring valves.

I always thought that they were hydraulic valves?

according to wiki it is.

SBSP wrote:

Monty wrote:

Scavenger wrote:SBSP: F1 engines have pneumatic valves, not traditional spring valves.

I always thought that they were hydraulic valves?

according to wiki it is.

According to wiki it is which one? Hydraulic or pneumatic?

Lemme check... I was sure they used airsprings...

edit: Ja, they are pneumatic.