Changing the Formula

Author

admin

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Sir,

The 1-1/2-litre Formula, if it survives the execration which has been heaped upon it from almost every side, is likely to encourage a high-revving, complicated and temperamental type of engine. It is not likely to “improve the breed” in a way which is of interest to anyone except racing specialists. But is the sensible line of action just to stick to the 2-1/2-litre Formula? Might we not do better to look in another direction altogether, instead of staying in “so-many-litre” blinkers?

Any capacity formula tends to lead to wasteful use of fuel in order to get artificially high power from a given type of engine, and so to produce a rather unnatural design. Although some lessons are learnt in the process, it is probably not the best way of encouraging the design and development of good engines.

Maximum weight limitations tend to produce extremely expensive designs from stables which can afford them, and flimsy “hope for the best” construction from the others. The “heroic period” of the. 750 Kg. Formula was only made possible by heavy governmental support for prestige reasons; it is hardly likely to recur. Minimum weight can only work in conjunction with other limitations, and tend to reduce the opportunities for intelligent design.

The most sensible limitation would appear to be some form of limit on the quantity of fuel a car can use; a concentration of effort on going fast without using so much fuel would certainly improve the breed in a way which every motorist could appreciate, while an intelligently-planned limitation of fuel supplies could also keep speeds and weights within reasonable bounds. It would have to be done carefully, if we want interesting racing; a straight-forward ration would probably produce a dreary procession of cars trying to spin out their fuel allowances. The scrutineering difficulties in limiting fuel-feed rate are also clear. But why not limit the size of the fuel tank, which ought to be fairly easy to check, and which would indirectly limit the size and power of the whole car?

The fuel-tank limitation would offer designers and drivers the option of going fast, and stopping relatively often for fuel, or of keeping going longer at lower speeds. It would also be easy to put different engine types (petrol, diesel, turbine, etc.) on an eqtuitable basis, by allowing different sizes for different fuels. We would not have to recruit senior wranglers as scrutineers for Wankel’s epitrochoidal engines. We could hope to see an interesting variety of types on the circuits, with very different characteristics, appearances and sounds.

Changes of formula, to encourage a neglected type of engine or to discourage a type which is enjoying an undue dominance, need not produce the upheavals that we now have. The emphasis of the formula could be shifted gradually from year to year, by relatively small changes in tank sizes. It would then be fairly simple for constructors to make the necessary changes in their designs each winter, anti to adapt existing cars, so that they would not have to scrap almost everything at an arbitrary date and start again. We would not have flat periods when obsolescent designs were kept going for the fag-end of a formula period and other periods when races were spoilt by heavy crops of teething troubles.

To give a basis for discussion, what about the following scale:—

Free fuel … … 5 gallons

100-octane petrol … … 6 gallons

80-octane petrol … … 7 gallons

Diesel fuel … … 8 gallons

Paraffin-type fuels … … 10 gallons

This scale would give a limited opening for alcohol and nitro-methane users, a chance for the current high-revving, high-compression G.P. engines, a chance for larger-capacity lower-revving engines, and a chance for diesels designed for performance, rather than adapted commercial vehicle engines. Superchargers would be able to find their true level, instead of being given an arbitrary value by the formula. The gas turbine would have an opportunity as soon as its fuel consumption became at all reasonable.

I expect that the racing of a variety of types of car, of comparable overall performance but different characteristics, would be more interesting than the present concentration of effort on to relatively similar types. Overtaking would be less dangerous, as the types would have their best performances, under different conditions. The consequence of accidents would be less serious, if fuel loads were kept down; the Le Mans disaster was made-worse by a large quantity of fuel. Smart pit-work when refuelling would also add to the interest. We might even see some accurate fuel-gauges developed, which would be a useful, if minor, gain.

I am, Yours, etc.,

Sheffield. – J. Seager.

[Ingenious. – Ed.]

Sheffield.

You may also like

Related products