>>16526
>That is a stupid reason to do anything and with that reasoning we should still be using a 1950's formula.
Formula 1 is that 3 liter NA/1.5 liter forced induction formula, that is what this formula is. Just as formula 5000 was 5 liter stockblocks. It's in the fucking name.
>In other words the heavier the cars are forced to use be less reason they will have to sacrifice a skilled driver to gain ballast for balancing.
Except the exact opposite is true historically. At the same time Colin Chapman was trying to get the FIA approve doped cardboard as a firewall (as an extreme weight saving measure because there was no minimum weight until 1970), he had Graham hill who by all estimates was in the 6 foot tall range driving for him. Innes Ireland who won lotus' first race was by no means a short, wiry man. Jack Brabham was a big guy.
When there was a minimum weight, most of the time, it was a theoretical safety measure that would prevent shortcuts in construction (this is now irrelevant as crash testing is mandated). The minimum weight for a good amount of F1 history was not reachable by all or most of the teams. Drivers like Alan Jones and Denny Hulme drove in this era. Ronnie Peterson was 5 foot ten inches and lotus engineered his car to accommodate him as Mario Andretti was a good deal shorter. Yet you don't see a consistent qualifying or race pace deficit on from Peterson to Andretti. Jody Scheckter (5 foot 10.5 inches) was substantially taller than Patrick Depailler, yet Jody Scheckter strongly outpaced him.
Moreover if the FIA cared about fuel economy, they would do away with minimum weight.
Champcars (which were made substantially heavier as they had to handle the stresses of driving on ovals and which were often made from aluminum not carbon fiber) weighed 789 kg. F1 cars of today weigh 702 kg, which is enormous for cars that are carbon fiber and ostensibly at the top level of motorsport.
If the cars were free to weigh less, the value of a lighter driver would be less (as the driver is currently the only way permissible to reduce the weight of the car). A lighter car is often worth more than a lower center of gravity on a heavier car because lightness makes a car faster everywhere, not just in cornering.
A piston on a common crank is not an arbitrary system. The pistons share a block, crank, and most importantly, a harmonic balance. 2 two cylinder engines connected to the rear axle together will operate much differently in harmonics than a single four cylinder engine, even if that four cylinder engine is not inline in configuration.
A turbocharger is a heat engine.
A turbocharger takes high pressure and high temperature exhaust, and uses that pressure to drive an impeller, which in a separate compressor connected by a shaft, compresses cold intake air.
The hot exhaust gasses expand, and drive that impeller. The work done on the impeller, to drive the compressor cools the exhaust temperature. Generally a turbocharged engine has colder final exhaust temperature than a naturally aspirated one, as the exhaust energy is used to drive the turbocharger.
Pressure and temperature drop for the exhaust after it has passed through the turbocharger.
You can even work this out with the ideal gas law PV=N RT .
To humor your retarded logic and truly unwarranted aggressiveness (we can always tell it's you TorFag because you're always an angry cunt for no reason) a piston and another piston would be at least the same kind of engine. a turbocharger is not a reciprocating engine, and thus is not remotely the same thing as a piston, so even if you had your way, a set of pistons and a turbocharger would be considered a hybrid engine, because it operates with two different kinds of mechanisms to drive two different heat processes.