3 ms·
The way you write it, it almost reads as if it comes as a revelation that smaller, turbocharged engines can compete with larger, naturally aspirated ones in ter
by YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
The way you write it, it almost reads as if it comes as a revelation that smaller, turbocharged engines can compete with larger, naturally aspirated ones in terms of power output. How can that be: F1 cars already boasted much more powerful small turbo engines 30 years ago than what has since been fitted into them.
In any case, that lap records were beaten this year tells an altogether different story: the engines used don't matter that much for the lap times after a point. After all, they were running almost the same engines last year, a little development notwithstanding, and were much slower: what has changed, and what dominates the gains in lap times, is aerodynamics – which are severely restricted by the rules. That was also the case a dozen years ago when we had the similarly powerful, larger but lighter N/A V10 engines (no hybrid part to lug around back then), accompanied with a narrower track and grooved tyres to reduce the cornering speeds. Thus the comparison is moot: everything around the engine dominates the equation anyway, but that is hardly news.
- TallGuyShort 9y agoNo I think gains this year are dominated by tyres, but that's neither here nor there - my point is that painting F1 as this anti-climate-change group is odd. As others have pointed out F1 car emissions are ridiculously low on the list of causes of climate change, but my point is more that F1 has pushed efficiency and alternate technology at the expense of a lot of pushback from fans. Of the criticisms one can make of F1 in particular, it's a pretty silly one.