Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Del Boy on 10 December 2010, 21:41:00
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9275796.stm
Oh dear, I'm not an F1 fan really, but even I know that's pathetic.
-
It's a few cars buzzing around a few tracks for a few months of the year. When you consider there are around 750MILLION motor vehicles in the world today, its not exactly saving the planet by making these few dozen burn fuel a bit more efficiently, is it?
I'm in agreement, pathetic.
Actually, I want to see F1 cars burn fuel LESS efficiently, loads of blue smoke, slightly-iffy tuned carbs spitting fuel, dodgy cross-ply tyres losing grip and blowing out, huge explosions!
-
4 cylinder, 1.6 litre turbo charged engines, producing 750 horse power. Plus the average F1 car weighs around half a ton...
-
Last time they had turbo engines they were 1500cc and pushing out 1500bhp in qualifying trim. ;)
Im sure the sport will be worse forthe new set of regs. though. It always is. They make it more contrived and less sectactular and sporting every time they have a fiddle with the rules.
-
4 cylinder, 1.6 litre turbo charged engines, producing 750 horse power. Plus the average F1 car weighs around half a ton...
One of those 1.6 Turbo's sitting in a Miggy could be a nice bit of fun... ::)
-
Yep, can't see what's so bad about it myself.. back to the 80's era turbo cars, almost.
Let's face it, they don't need tons of torque - they already spend the entire race using a tiiiiiiny narrow power-band that's all at the top of their rev range (the only way you can get 700bhp from a 2.8ltr engine) so in reality there'll be very little difference in speed or acceleration.
Bet the engines will be a lot more highly stressed, though, so reliability will prove an interesting challenge.
Engine size isn't everything ;) My 1.8l car is considerably faster than my 3.2l Omega....
-
Does this mean that races will take longer now so I can sleep even longer when its on :-? ;D ;D
-
Yep, can't see what's so bad about it myself.. back to the 80's era turbo cars, almost.
Let's face it, they don't need tons of torque - they already spend the entire race using a tiiiiiiny narrow power-band that's all at the top of their rev range (the only way you can get 700bhp from a 2.8ltr engine) so in reality there'll be very little difference in speed or acceleration.
Bet the engines will be a lot more highly stressed, though, so reliability will prove an interesting challenge.
Engine size isn't everything ;) My 1.8l car is considerably faster than my 3.2l Omega....
What he said. :y Never pooh pooh an engine on capacity without asking what it revs to and how much boost it's running. ;)
Kevin
-
Having said that, it's absurd for what is supposed to be the world's premier motor racing series to be pandering to the sandal-wearers and worrying about fuel economy, IMHO.
Motorsport is all about how fast you can burn fuel, surely?
What next? Les 24 secondes du Mans? ;)
Kevin
-
Yep, can't see what's so bad about it myself.. back to the 80's era turbo cars, almost.
Let's face it, they don't need tons of torque - they already spend the entire race using a tiiiiiiny narrow power-band that's all at the top of their rev range (the only way you can get 700bhp from a 2.8ltr engine) so in reality there'll be very little difference in speed or acceleration.
Bet the engines will be a lot more highly stressed, though, so reliability will prove an interesting challenge.
Engine size isn't everything ;) My 1.8l car is considerably faster than my 3.2l Omega....
As has been proven....MX5 V 3.0L Omega, MX5 wins....York Meet 2009........ :D :D :D
-
Yep, can't see what's so bad about it myself.. back to the 80's era turbo cars, almost.
Let's face it, they don't need tons of torque - they already spend the entire race using a tiiiiiiny narrow power-band that's all at the top of their rev range (the only way you can get 700bhp from a 2.8ltr engine) so in reality there'll be very little difference in speed or acceleration.
Bet the engines will be a lot more highly stressed, though, so reliability will prove an interesting challenge.
Engine size isn't everything ;) My 1.8l car is considerably faster than my 3.2l Omega....
As has been proven....MX5 V 3.0L Omega, MX5 wins....York Meet 2009........ :D :D :D
Lets hope this was an error of judgement on the omegas drivers part or did he just let him win ::) :-/
-
Yep, can't see what's so bad about it myself.. back to the 80's era turbo cars, almost.
Let's face it, they don't need tons of torque - they already spend the entire race using a tiiiiiiny narrow power-band that's all at the top of their rev range (the only way you can get 700bhp from a 2.8ltr engine) so in reality there'll be very little difference in speed or acceleration.
Bet the engines will be a lot more highly stressed, though, so reliability will prove an interesting challenge.
Engine size isn't everything ;) My 1.8l car is considerably faster than my 3.2l Omega....
As has been proven....MX5 V 3.0L Omega, MX5 wins....York Meet 2009........ :D :D :D
Lets hope this was an error of judgement on the omegas drivers part or did he just let him win ::) :-/
No, MX5 won, no doubt, I was there, it caused a stir shall we say.... ::) ::) ::)
-
No, MX5 won, no doubt, I was there, it caused a stir shall we say.... ::) ::) ::)
Not hard to see why. MX5 1.8 = 140 odd BHP in 1 tonne car = 140BHP/tonne
Omega 3.2 = 217 BHP in 1.8 tonne car = 120 BHP/tonne.
Not to mention the MX5 has much better gearing given that it's not designed for towing burger vans, etc.
The Omega would have clawed it back in the end though - had the run been longer. ;)
Kevin
-
I still
think know a 3 litre omega, manual, or in this case automatic will destroy an mx5 in in gear acceleration, as the poor mx5 driver found out when trying to show off to his girlfriend with the roof down. Never under estimate the power of the omega!
-
Only at speeds above the motorway limit imo. ;)
-
I still think know a 3 litre omega, manual, or in this case automatic will destroy an mx5 in in gear acceleration, as the poor mx5 driver found out when trying to show off to his girlfriend with the roof down. Never under estimate the power of the omega!
No it doesn't mate, it was proved and not just once I was there too laughin my ass off. . .
The race was the shortish runway at York . Had the runway been a bit longer yes the Omega would have won but it wasn't. . Fair and square the MX5 won ;D
-
mid 60's to mid 80's (in most peoples minds the golden era of F1), half the field ran around in turbo charged 1500's...it's not the size, its what you do with it that counts ;D
-
I still think know a 3 litre omega, manual, or in this case automatic will destroy an mx5 in in gear acceleration, as the poor mx5 driver found out when trying to show off to his girlfriend with the roof down. Never under estimate the power of the omega!
Err no it won't, the MX5 was not trying.
Any decent MX5 will leave the lardy-ass Omega behind, seen done at York, against one of the best 3.2 Omega's around ;)
-
I still think know a 3 litre omega, manual, or in this case automatic will destroy an mx5 in in gear acceleration, as the poor mx5 driver found out when trying to show off to his girlfriend with the roof down. Never under estimate the power of the omega!
Err no it won't, the MX5 was not trying.
Any decent MX5 will leave the lardy-ass Omega behind, seen done at York, against one of the best 3.2 Omega's around ;)
wife had a 1.8 mx5 and it was great fun, handled beautifully and was definitely far nippier than the elite - theres still nothing better for cruising the motorways than an mig tho - horses for courses :y