Simplicity rules OK

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,

How I agree with Paul Frere’s splendid letter in February’s MOTOR SPORT. Changes in the technical regulations are urgently needed for greater spectacle, closer competition, substantially reduced cost, and safety for drivers and spectators, as well as directing the attention of the world’s finest car designers to evolving machines which push forward the frontiers of fuel economy and engine efficiency and lowered pollution emission levels.

Frere’s concept revolves around just two principles. Firstly, there’s the reduced width of the F1 car. For no good reason F1’s girth has spread from 5ft in the early 1960s to over 7ft in the early ’90s. Wide cars make overtaking much more difficult, and passing usually takes place at the approach to a corner or a chicane where space is often limited. Wide cars also allow much higher levels of mechanical grip and much greater downforce to be generated. Thinning cars down to 5ft 9in, the average width of a road car, would solve a whole lot of problems at a stroke and would be simple to police.

Secondly, Frere advocates power reduction by means of restricting fuel allocation, from a typical 220 litres down to just 100 (48 gallons down to 22). At present, F1 cars achieve less than 5mpg; even if this was increased to 10 mpg, you could hardly call them frugal, but it would be a step in the right direction.

However, rather than allowing a maximum of 100 litres, which might produce that boring late-race touring which we saw last time we had such a fuel allowance, why not adopt as mandatory that very clever fuel-flow restrictor which Keith Duckworth designed nearly a decade ago. That would only pass 0.8 litres of fuel per minute, irrespective of fuel line pressure. Thus engine designers would have to work on efficiency to gain a power advantage over their rivals, and hence we’d have lower pollution from standard pump fuel.

These are straightforward changes, and could easily be monitored. They would address the present problems by producing a more exciting spectacle and necessitating research which is more relevant to passenger vehicles.

Richard Hinton, Ware, Herts.

Related articles

Related products