Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I've been saying that since the mid 90's and here we are lol.....

my new formula would be:

3.0 Litre DOHC 5 valve per cylinder max twin turbo V10.

Or upto 8 Litre naturally aspirated, any configuration.

Free aero, apart from front and rear wing wake and air disturbance massively reduced.

Full ground effects floor, tunnel and diffuser allowed.

No kers or any other device of this nature.

alcohol based fuel.

minimum two tyre manufacturers.

cockpit equalised so that no driver is held back by weight or size.

Larger tyres, much different profiles, probably 18"

If full ground effects were allowed back (sliding skirts, tunnes... etc) the cars would have tiny wings anyway, regardless of rules.

I think the old 1.5 turbo or 3.5 na is the way to go, but leave the piston count and layout free. The turbo tech that would come out of low capasity engines would be great

by the looks of the rule changes...i dont think i'll be watching after 2013 anyways. so they can all do what they like

good point. I figure if I up my alchol consumption by about 30% I will soon forget all the WDC results from 1985 to 2000 and I can then just re-warch those 15 years of F1 over and over again...

If full ground effects were allowed back (sliding skirts, tunnes... etc) the cars would have tiny wings anyway, regardless of rules.

I think the old 1.5 turbo or 3.5 na is the way to go, but leave the piston count and layout free. The turbo tech that would come out of low capasity engines would be great

yeah agreed. 3l turbo and 8L na is waaay too big. get them to make a max 1.5L turbo or 3L na as the maximums. they can easily get 800hp-1000hp from either 1.5L turbo or a 3L v10 NA so then they get to chose reliability (800hp) or power (1000hp). or spend more and have both!

if really generous up it to 2L turbo and 3.5L NA. that is plenty.

I like the idea of cockpit rules though and perhaps raise min weights so that fat drviers aren't penalised! lol. i'm sure there's some talented fatties out there... would surely help webber to be on an even keel weight wise with vettel. he is giving away probably half a tenth per lap in body weight penalty alone.

....actually the way Raikonnen is going on the tooth he might need an extra widebody F1 car if he makes a come back.

I wonder what mods they made to get Tony Stewart in the MP4-23 did they graft the A to B pillars from a BA Falcon with a seat located in the middle to fit him in? It would have left room for space to sit a pizza, a couple of burgers and cupholders for a big gulp.

I would love to see more taller/bigger drivers have a shot at F1 but realistically it is a sport for rich midgets.

I've been saying that since the mid 90's and here we are lol.....

my new formula would be:

3.0 Litre DOHC 5 valve per cylinder max twin turbo V10.

Or upto 8 Litre naturally aspirated, any configuration.

Free aero, apart from front and rear wing wake and air disturbance massively reduced.

Full ground effects floor, tunnel and diffuser allowed.

No kers or any other device of this nature.

alcohol based fuel.

minimum two tyre manufacturers.

cockpit equalised so that no driver is held back by weight or size.

Larger tyres, much different profiles, probably 18"

then i'd def be watching. :)

sadly.....very unlikely

I'd be happy to keep the current capacity, what is it 2.4L? They can make plenty of power from that capacity these days. But allow whatever configuration they want to run as far as how many cylinders etc, and have no rev limit.

It could give some more variety in the field, the way its going it will be a common pretty much everything ala V8 Supertaxi's in a few years.

No rev limit could potentially reward teams willing to push the limits of engine reliability if they can hold them together. I don't see the problem with that because they already get penalised for using too many engines anyway, so why not let them push the envelope of reliability?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Even with the piston at TDC there was room for it to drop, but I don't think it can drop fully into the cylinder, the problem you have is that you need something pushing against the valve to hold it up so you have enough room to put the new stem seal on and the spring etc.  I used compressed air only because putting rope in the cylinder seemed a bit risky to me, I know people have done it countless times before like this. Overall it's a pain in the ass job. Honestly you'd probably be better off taking the head off because the risk of dropping something in the engine and the finicky-ness of it all is very stressful. If you are going to attempt it though i 10000% recommend a 36050 valve spring/keeper tool. I had both the traditional lever type and after doing 1 cylinder it was absolute pain to get those valve keepers in place, even with 2 people. That 36050 is amazing, you do have to push hard to get them in place but it works perfectly almost every time. Back to my actual issue I think my engine is just tired and old and the rings have gone bad. The comp numbers (cold, no oil) were: Cyl 1 -129psi Cyl 2 - 133psi Cyl 3 - 138psi Cyl 4 - 137psi Cyl 5 - 157psi Cyl 6 - 142psi   Cylinder 5 and 6 having the most carbon on them.
    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
×
×
  • Create New...