Have to disagree on that one J. If:
1. Aero rules were changed to minimise drag while maintaining current DF.
2. No limit on energy recovery and release

2009 lap times would be achieved with 100kW engines within 3 years. So there is a lot hybrid technology could for F1.

Its not too difficult to design a device that will limit volumetric flow rate to a preset maximum. Mass flow is then easily limited by setting a minimum temperature at the inlet to the device.

This can be overcome by defining a single flow point between the tank and the "loop" and cooling the loop with a heat exchanger.

It is if the temperature is limited as above and the fuel formulation is the same for all teams.

A good thing. One of the big benefits of the fuel limit concept is the refocussing of F1 development onto technologies that can make a difference in the real world.

A good thing?

I think the race and practice limits would have to be seperate to avoid distortions. (Save up lots of fuel to enable higher power to be used throughout the race.)

But is limiting power at the wheels avoidable?

Thanks, gruntguru. Responding to your points in order:

1. Agreed, but would imply fixed fuels unless each fuel type was calibrated separately.
2. Agreed.
3. Agreed, but see above.
4. Agreed.
5. Aka cheating. Teams became adept at it under previous regulations.
6. A very sensible suggestion.
7. Unsure of your meaning. My flip answer would be yes, assuming available energy is limited overall. KERS helps some teams now (in a curiously restricted way).

I just meant in the sense that unlimited power allows unsafe speeds.

And those FV and FF races up to the 80's where they all had the same power yet maybe lead changes of 5 or so cars every lap was because of........

And did you actually watch F1 pre '78?

1] Yes it will. 20 years from now EV and hybrids will dominate sales. The pure ICE cars will become a thing of the past.
Just look what the automakers are bringing at the auto shows.

This is not a temporary "green" fad, the shift is happening.


2] That a garagiste-racertainment mentality, the kind that destroyed motorsport.
I am not british/anglo-saxon, not a garagiste type and I don't like that mentality.

If motorsport is to have a future, it needs to return to its roots partially, and start to have a direct link to production cars even if it means that racecars will need to be radically altered.

You're dreaming really.

Those '78 slipstream tracks are gone, those cars with shitty reliability and great gaps them and/or drivers are gone too, and in F1 you even had drivers like Icks and Rindt who would not only let the faster car behind pass but talk to each other and inform themselves what would do are also gone.

On street circuits, in F1, the Cosworth era Monaco races where the most boring ever; with Monaco 69 being probably the most boring GP ever.

As for more current racecars witch are closely matched, Champcar was only fun on road courses/street course once the updated the push to pass to 100 horses, and that was it.

Lack of experience, power/weight & power/drag.... BTW why did Ralph's cars always (well, usually) win?


I hate to say it, but I (royal I) designed, built & then supported an on-board digital measurement system for Team Lotus in 1976. I helped them, sporadically, until 1988. I admit that I've never actually paid to see an F1 race & have only been to a few..... There have been others since.

Thats the second time this thread you haven't understood what I said in it's context.

Well I'm sorry, mea culpa, but english is not my native language, and I have a bad time with "in context".

Many FV and FF drivers stay in for years often it's the only class they can afford.

You hate to say it? Then why did you when the last sentence would have surficed?
You hate to say it because you the reason they went downhill maybe?

You made a statement that equates to equal power = processional racing, your wrong and 70's all Cosworth (almost) racing is an example as is older classes of spec racing. On the drivers side, some one make series sedan racing has been some of the best racing I've ever seen and as someone mentioned above about NASCAR at some track recently, I couldn't give a toss how slow they were.




Rather than using the word "discuss", appropriate being a forum and all, you should have just mentioned "only post if you agree with me".

NASCAR isn't equal power, unless you talk plate racing.

The Cosworth F1 era was pretty boring if you discount the slipstream tracks and/or the wet races.

Actually, Ralph Firmin was (one time) owner of van Dieman. He designed & built cars of that ilk & also ran his own race team. In case you still miss the point, I was suggesting that some may have been more equal than others, but it was said in jest (& was a small test...).


Perhaps. Sorry to have offended you.


Actually, I thought it worth acknowledging that (in my small mind, perhaps) it was a positive contribution to the debate I had tried to stimulate. If you bother to look, you might discover that I didn't actually agree with everything J. wrote.

1. Evenly matched cars
2. Narrow cars/wide tracks = more than one fast line
3. "Chuckable" cars
4. Sane speeds.
5. No DF?

From Autosport The current Weekly Grapevine

Ironically, then, F1 seems to have provided the Ministry with the required ammunition to shoot down a grand prix...

That said, somehow one cannot imagine the International Olympic Committee mandating changes of shoes to softer soles during prescribed refreshment halts simply to 'spice' the marathon.

That says so much about the current views of F1 rules making and marketing

I don't think there are any major problems with fuel flow measurement any longer. Today there are for instance ultrasonic flow measuring sensors that are designed for race environments. Fuel systems with return flow will be forced to use two sensors, temperature corrected. As for c, the fuel is already homologated and checked during the race weekend to make sure it's of the same kind that is homologated. To measure net heating value during homologation shouldn't be a problem. Another option is a standard fuel from a single supplier. Intermediate storage devices have to be banned by the regs (much like air tanks to go around the air restrictors was banned in WRC) and with a fuel limit for the race it would be difficult to use hybrids to increase the useful power of the engine.



The typical FIA approach have been to increase drag, lowering the L/D while also restricting the engine output. FIA have only studied the possebility to use a lower drag body with a weaker engine. I think it was a 300 kW engine that was discussed for that.

There are many problems if you plan to use an electric tranmissions. But the use of an electric tranmission in place of a conventional mechanical transmission is hardly a new idea. It have long been used in ships and locomotives and there are also wheeled vehicles using the same approach. There are for instance military armoured vehicles using such a system, although not yet in production, (BAE Systems Hägglunds SEP is one example) and with a 6 wheeled off road vehicle using all wheel drive I can see the packaging advantages. But in a F1 car? To begin with, an electric transmission have much higher losses than a conventional racing gearbox; I would guess around 20% vs. 5% for the conventional gearbox (if we direct the power over a battery this can increase to 40%). Aside from the loss of power this means more cooling which add drag. To fit the motors in the wheels would also be an issue; increased unsprung mass and packaging of the conventional friction brake (which can't be replaced) would cause troubles. The motors would also need cooling, so we probably need to provide cooling fluid to each wheel, in addition to that we have heavy electrical wiring. If an electrical tranmission was on the table for a F1 car it would probably be better to use one electric motor per axle placed in the chassi and connected to a reduction gearbox with an eLSD. But in the end I think it would be difficult to overcome the power loss and increased weight of the system. If we assume the motors can provide 10 hp per kg of motor weight 750 hp means 75 kg just for the in wheel motors. Then there's the 750 hp alternator and power controller. What is the weight of one of the current transmissions, 40 kg or so?



You can't minimize drag and weight of the car to the levels required to use that little power, and most hybrid technolgy wouldn't really be useful, aside for kinetic energy recovery how do you plan to use the hybrid technology to your advantage?

I would expect current cars run with L/D ratios that peak around 3:1, which a low drag setup we can perhaps reach 6:1 but we can't decrease the mass of the vehicle much more than 10% in order to improve acceleration and 60 kg are easily taken away by a more powerful hybrid system.

The current KERS boost of 80 hp for 25 kg extra weight are about on the limit what a battery based system can provide.



[1] What is your definition of 'hybrid'?

In 20 years most cars will use some sort of hybrid technology, but 'hybrid' is a very wide definition. Infact, you don't need a heavy or complex hybrid system to get some (and most) of the advantages offered by a hybrid system. A motor/generator and a more powerful battery that replaces the conventional alternator/starter motor and car battery will get you a long way. As for EV's, they won't have a major influence the coming 20 years. There are studies regarding plug in hybrid and EV market share for the near future. Don't be blinded by various concepts shown by car manufacturers at auto shows, so far the market share of electric vehicles is pretty much as close to zero as you can come and the market share in the near future is just a few percent.

[2] It's not a mentality, it's just one of those things you can't get around. When you make cars for several million dollars each where the only goal is to be as fast as possible around a racing circuit while conforming to a specific set of regulations the cars are not going to be anything like the average $30,000 passenger car.

For those interested in electric single seaters: http://www.greencarsite.co.uk/econews/elec...-hill-climb.htm
A very interesting design, I suspect it would be competitive in hillclimbs, unfortunatley it hasn't appeared. If anyone has a spare fortune to develop it I am sure Martin would be pleased to hear from you!

I will admit I plucked the "100kW in 3 years" number from the air (or somewhere) but in round terms its not far off. The current cars need an average 250kW so an engine running at approx 250kW continuously and an efficient storage system would do. Reduce the drag and that drops to 175 kW. Recover braking losses and you're down to 100 kW. Continuous operation at peak efficiency means the 100kW engine uses even less fuel. Sure the hybrid system is heavy - at today's state of the art, the extra 300kW needed might weigh 150kg. Some of this is offset by the engine (about 1/4 to 1/3 the weight) and the lower fuel load (race total consumption about 1/3 of current). Three years F1 development will see the hybrid system even lighter than the above numbers.

1] Don't be fooled in believing these are just concepts.
Nissan spent billions on EV and will have the LEAF ready for 2010, and let's not forget Mitsubishi’s IMiev and Chevy's Volt, and BMW are now repositioning themselves a joy of driving with "green" responsibility.
The shift is happening, so forget those "studies".
And motorsport should be it's spearhead, or else it will be one of its corpses.



2] I'm sorry you just don't get. It is just a stupid garagiste mentality.
A link between production and racing machines can and must exist, despite their differences.



You may disagree with me and it's that's OK, but I pity you as you're completely out of touch with the automotive business.
I know, not from auto show concept cars, but from people who work for the auto companies, that right know the changes that are coming are the most radical in the last 90s or so for the automotive industry.

AT the beginning of the century of cars, racing to improve the breed made a lot of sense. Cars, at the time were slow and unreliable, and experimenting with them in all forms made sense. Going faster made them more useful and meant that they could compete with trains, the dominant form of long distance travel of the day.

Over the century all manner of things changed. Traffic density meant that rules on road behaviour became more numerous. Air travel made speed of cars less important. Energy and emission issues came to the fore. The simple problems that could be attacked by an amateur with imagination were solved. This left more complex problems that required teams of trained specialists and equipment, look at the explosion of windtunnels and massive computer installations.

In the 40 years that I have been following racing we have reached and broken the 1 g barrier and reached WWII fighter levels and moved far beyond tires, brakes and other components that are relevant to road usage.

For some time I have spoken of the rise and fall of air racing peaking in the 30's when speeds were reaching 300mph. Post war the speeds went supersonic, and despite interest, air racing drifted into the purview of the hard core fans.

I see auto racing going the same way because electric cars will be no fun to watch. What cars will be raced will fall into the historic category or that of horse racing. Without gambling being added, I don;t see that model being very prosperous either.

The world has changed, racing was fun, let's enjoy our memories and get on with life.

J. (specifically, but to other contributors as well), Thanks again for your thoughtful & considered analysis.

I know that electric drive is not a novel idea. I was involved in a minor way in a study of a concept road vehicle over 20 years ago with a layout similar to the one I described. I reviewed it in this thread to illustrate the options, both layout & control, that such a system might offer in an F1 vehicle. I was not seeking to promote the idea specifically (though I think it is seductive), but to illustrate the kind of solution that my suggested regulation changes should be capable of accommodating.

The fuel flow discussion is a bit of a red herring, I think, because I have become convinced that the solution to "processional" races is for a driver to be able call on excess thrust/drag as and when it is required. There are problems with the idea unless there is a deterrent against excessive use. Currently, race series that allow excess thrust/drag have fairly arbitrary restrictions (so many "pushes" or so many "seconds" of a restricted power increase or, in the case of lowering drag, only so many configuration changes per lap, etc.) In my view all such arbitrary regulations are open to abuse (potentially, nobody actually abuses them, of course), simply because they are arbitrary.

To put it more generally, the F1 community excels at finding ways around arbitrary and targeted regulations. It also excels at fast problem solving and exploring, developing and adopting novel ideas that may (or may not) bring an advantage. Relatively recent "spin offs" from motor racing have included improved engines (particularly engine management and control), improved and more capable transmissions, better road vehicle tyres, and the wider application of composites in aircraft (for example). Sadly (in my view), rafts of more recent regulations have resulted in much of that potential being focused almost exclusively on aerodynamic innovation and refinement, diffuser developments being the latest (I think).

I would like to think it is possible to move the focus back towards innovation that would be more "useful" to the world at large. I guess the current "hot topic" (rightly) is increased energy efficiency, and that resulted in the idea of a more "holistic" restriction such as a limit on overall energy available for a race. That idea isn't new, of course, although I don't think it has been proposed seriously in quite that way. I guess that sports cars is an example where narrow fuel regulations have unintentionally handed a significant advantage to diesel power. I'm not against diesel power, even though its lack of noise might not appeal to all, but I do think the choice should be even handed (& should include kerosine, alcohol, palm oil, peanut butter, etc.).

Now, given a limit on available energy, what would happen if all other regulations were removed (apart from the few I listed). I was aware of the (potential) issue with ground effect aerodynamics, and where that might lead. My suggestion for solving the aero problem was to limit ground effect by imposing a contoured under-surface, which would mean that increased down force (& hence cornering speeds) would be accompanied by an increase in drag, & that could be controlled simply by revising the energy limit - not directly, I know, but because there would be no point in carrying the penalty when an option could be used only sparingly. The alternative option (which would actually be more efficient) would require an explicit power limitation, I think, & this would move back towards the current "procession" syndrome.

The opening up of many possible solutions raises the issue of cost. Having stated that, in my experience, the cost of developing a novel solution is actually much lower than the cost of finding the ultimate refinement (the 80-20 rule), there is no doubt that costs have to be contained, especially if new teams must be encouraged to join the Club for one reason or another. As I stated earlier, I believe that FOTA have already accepted the concept of a cost limit, & have an acceptable solution to the problem of policing it, apparently.

However, I wasn't sure about other issues & possibilities, which is why I launched the concept to be torn apart on this forum. So far, I have received some good ideas to refine it, & have learned things I didn't know, but nothing (I think) has emerged that would be a show stopper.

p.s. I have some experience of an F1 approach to development compared with that of an OE company. I am convinced that an innovation project in the hands of the F1 community has, by a large margin, the greater chance of success. (Apologies if anyone is offended by that observation).

Racing can't claim any meaningful contributions in those areas. Techonology is passed down from the OEs and other commercial industries to racing, not the other way around. Engine controls are a perfect example.

Hope springs eternal that racing could somehow serve as a development theater for production-intent hardware, but unfortunately, the sport is totally unsuited for that purpose.

Ahh got the nail on the head.

So lets make it fun again, thats where I'm going.




Sure but maybe tyres have a bit to thank racing for.

Apologies, but I think that is a very moot point McGuire. The was a reason for Ford's acquisition of Pi Research, & it was not because they were interested in on-board measurement systems. I believe it had something to do with diesel engine management.

My background is aeronautical, & I know that the aerospace industry had been researching carbon composites for years, but F1 picked up the technology & ran with it, & BAe had to form a technical partnership with Williams GP in order to keep up. Whether you consider it good idea or otherwise (Skydrol appears to be something of an issue), without question the amount of carbon in the latest generation of civil aircraft has been affected profoundly by the F1 community. The technology is now filtering through to road vehicles (albeit slowly).

Whilst I can't discuss tyre (tire, if you will) technology in detail, the observable change in road vehicle tyre properties over the last 30 years has, I suspect, been helped significantly by construction & compound developments driven by motor racing.

Very recently (& right now, I suspect) the F1 community has forced (is forcing) the rapid development of battery technology for KERS. Whilst KERS itself might not be relevant to road vehicles, I'm sure that the battery technology will be.

I was responsible for developing the Lotus active suspension system. Rightly or wrongly, there was a window of opportunity for the technology to reach production & I spent much time with GM trying to help them take it on board whilst they commenced a "technology demonstration" build of 200 Corvettes. Sadly or otherwise, the project failed because GM was unable make sensible technical decisions. An oft repeated issue was "We can't use that part. It is not on our approved parts list" & "We do not use screened cable". At one point they had three perfectly acceptable vehicles produced by Lotus & a similar number that didn't work produced by GM. The project was canceled (inexplicably, to my mind), & the world moved on. The fact that the technology was banned by F1 mitigated against another opportunity.

The point is, OE's work in a mature & methodical manner, just like the aerospace industry. Both, for one reason or another, treat novelty with deep suspicion (partly NIH syndrome, hiding behind procedural practices, I suspect). The racing community is quite the opposite. It will grab technology by the neck & is happy to take risk when trying to understand & run with it.

The "F1 approach" is certainly not without fault. An early example (for me) was the "discovery" by Lotus of Ti. Within a remarkably short time they had a whole vehicle assembled with the steel parts replaced by fabricated Ti equivalents. Unfortunately, they forgot to heat treat welded parts post manufacture, & the Ti components unzipped themselves as soon as they saw a circuit. Lotus dropped the idea & went back to steel (again, that was an inexplicable decision for me, because the reason for, & solution to, their difficulty was known).

In my view, both approaches should have (& have had) a part to play in the life cycle of a technology, & that is one reason that OE's should retain an interest in motor racing. But that is more likely to happen consistently if motor racing makes sure that it is treading paths that will, or might, be relevant for production road vehicles.

Not surprising that you disagree with McGuire on this one Dave. Your experience in European "development categories" would be quite different to the US where low-tech racing dominates.

Not a moot point at all. Racing is a horribly inefficient venue for development. Every dollar spent on hardware must be matched by another dollar in travel and logistics. Not very cost-effective, hauling your kit twice around the globe over the course of a season just to be operated in near-identical conditions. Nor terribly effective, working out of a trailer and briefcase instead of in qualified facilities. Then those two dollars must be matched by another two dollars in marketing, since marketing is paying for the exercise, there being no quantifiable engineering benefit, not least of which because motor racing and highway driving are such dissimilar activities.

As motor racing enthusiasts, we have a fantasy image of the relevance of racing cars to road cars. In an objective analysis, there is no useful relevance and even the resemblance is superficial at best. That's the basic problem -- trying to steer racing in a new and different direction so it can become more relevant to production car technology. That's what this thread is about and here we are.

There is a lot that general industry could learn from the get it done quickly (and properly) ethos from the motorsport industry. Honda used to claim they used their involvement in motorsport to train their young engineers. Motorsport companies could (do?) make money from development work for industry who could benifit from quick, innovative and effective solutions that are needed for success in motorsport.

There is a lot of truth in that... and some basic problems. The great thing about racing is it's really fun. It's not difficult to motivate people to work 14-hour days. In the OE industry it burns out and uses up people. (In racing it does too, but that's not racing's problem. There's another herd of 22 year-olds at the door.) So the entire ethos of racing is not portable to the industry, only parts of it. Take the parts that small, successful companies enjoy over large corporations and there you have it. What racing teaches is that there are always only so many dollars and hours in a day, and there is always a due date: race day. But really, operating a small business teaches the same thing.

Exactly.

If you want another example that racing is not needed to improve the breed, let us remember the amount of testing done by teams. I would argue that the race is a distraction from the development, especially now with all the impound rules etc.

Pi also is another example. Ford most likely bought them because Pi had a group of really bright people working in areas generally of interest to Ford.

For some time, (25-35 years?) racing has been about attracting a crowd to be exposed to a sponsors product either in person or on TV. Whether we wish it to be it is a sport/entertainment on par with hockey/football/golf and needs no further justification other than being entertaining.

Well said.

Theres seems to be a misunderstanding about the current status of things, F1 has in modern times developed to the point of it's amazing reliability throughout all systems from the input of road car R&D departments not vice versa.





Very true (maybe not the Ford case), many companies buy out smaller companies to pick the bright sparks and put them into their programs that may have a similar base.

Now this I do not follow, or not completely. The racing is proof of progress made during testing. With testing only, you know that you are progressing, but not how you are progressing in relation to others. A non DDD F1 team would have been reasonably happy and optimistic untill the first race of 2009, when their bubble burst.

The race adds nothing to the team but is for the fans. It is the only time you have to show the others all the cards you hold plus you have to be ready at the appointed hour, although again with impound races its not such a big deal.

We seem to be confusing two different companies with similar names, both started by Tony Purnell: 1) Pi Research, the aftermarket racing supplier of data acquisition systems etc, and 2) Pi Technology, the OE supplier launched on a development deal with Detroit Diesel, at that time owned by Roger Penske.

Eventually, of course, the Pi companies were purchased by Ford Motor Co and absorbed into the Premier Automotive Group. Aside from requiring basic competence in vehicle electronics, diesel control systems and race car data logging don't have much in common. Not surprisingly, Pi Technology and Pi Research were spun off in opposite directions as Ford unwound PAG. Pi Research was picked up by Kevin Kalkhoven and Gerald Forsythe along with Cosworth, while Pi Technology was purchased by Control Instruments in South Africa and merged with a sister company, Shurlock.

Not broadly advertised but Tony was a Kennedy scholar at MIT, which is a pretty big deal I think.

Nonsense. F1 already consumes the travel, logistic and marketing dollars you are speaking of. Any dollars spent on worthwhile (real-world relevant) R and D would not need to be matched by additional costs. In addition, much of the "worthwhile R&D" dollars could be diverted from R&D money currently wasted on aero and such.

Sure it might not need to further justify itself by providing real benefits to society but must it not?

Well, I still don't agree. If there was no racing there would be no testing, at least of the kind that F1 teams used to do, and would do given the chance.

Why won't it be fun ?!
What we have today is fun ?!

Considering the last epic slipstream Grand Prix race in the dry was Austria 1976, and the comeback from behind races are a thing of the past too, I don't see how it could make things worse.

The current GP racecars are retarded like crap, look like crap, sound like crap, drive like crap (I hate this year's sliding ) and can't really pass each other on most tracks.

There nothing let to lose and I personally didn't find the TT (electric motos) boring.

Nope, your wrong on this stance - you cant possibly justify wasting time dragging 80 people and 2 cars around the world to run in a confined time and space against time at a good test facility that you can bolt on on your monitoring equipment and run when and how you want.

Not even close to a comparison.

Its a stupid notion for sure and a catch 22 but George is right, races are a huge inconvenience in the development schedule.

My point is only that they are already doing just that. It is not an additional expense that would be incurred if F1 R&D was re-focused in a more useful direction.

(I have edited my original quote to read "F1" instead of "racing" in case that is the point of confusion)

Yes, and that's what makes racing such a hilariously inefficient venue for development. Why should companies spend their development $$$ in racing when they can get far greater bang for their buck elsewhere? Because you would like them to?

What I am telling you is that there are a lot more problems with racing as an R&D environment than simply the equipment rules. That's not even the half of it. For one thing, the contest itself is a very poor match with how real cars are used in the real world. Minimum elapsed time over a prescribed course or distance, big deal. Child's play. A game. Now make it meet emissions standards for 100,00 miles. Racing is inherently irrelevant to road car development in a number of ways.

Inefficient sure - but the wastage is already there. Any additional R&D funds could go straight to R&D - very efficient.


Nobody said anything about attracting more R&D dollars from the car makers or others. What's needed is some intelligent rule changes to re-focus the existing R&D expenditure.

LOL why go racing in the first place? Why not bypass all the waste altogether and spend the R&D budget where it is most economical and effective?

You are aware, then, that the use of a novel technology in a passenger aircraft application is a big deal due to the FAA certification requirements. On the one hand I have a proven set of materials and contruction techniques that I know will work (think Boeing "fuselage factory") and this newfangled carbon laminate stuff.

You are also aware of the structural problems that are besetting the 787 at the moment, yes?



Now I think you make a good point, big companies have problems with largesse where they tend to settle on proven methods and eschew novel approaches ... I agree this is bad, however IMO this is more of a corporate culture problem than a technology issue. My perception of the auto OEMs is that they rely on the excuse of "ROI" on their production tooling to preclude the introduction of innovative technologies, methods, etc.



Wouldn't this be a good example of road technology filtering to racing?



IMO an example of beancounters and/or contract officers running a company. Not suggesting an engineer at the helm would automatically be better, but my thought is that there are many business executives who lack any technical knowledge which results in poor technical management.



Haha, didn't know about that, although in the early to mid 90s it seemed that some teams were "randomly" using materials in odd applications. I recall Ferrari using Ti gearsets and having all sorts of gearbox troubles.

Your example is also interesting, as it reinforces my personal thought that there is/has been quite a bit of technical "stovepiping" within F1. I remember when Jacque Villeneuve went to F1 and was surprised that there were no jackscrews in the forward wings to facilitate rapid downforce adjustments during a pitstop. "Not invented here" syndrome.

Well, there you go. F1 is predominantly a driver's championship. Always has been really, at least in the postwar era. There is a constructor's championship, of course, but it pales in importance and prestige compared to the driver's title. Even the constructors openly acknowledge this. That is the purpose of team orders -- to advance one driver at the expense of another so the constructor and sponsors can bask in his reflected glory.

It would be interesting to perform an analysis of the difference in commercial exposure value of a driver's championship vs. a constructor's title. It might be an order of magnitude. Compare the traffic on the Racing Comments forum vs. the Technical Forum here on Atlas. Not much of a contest: thousands of fans vs. maybe two dozen. I believe that is a fairly accurate indicator of the focus of interest among racing fans. By far the vast majority of fans are far more interested in driver personalities, race strategy, on-track action, etc, than in the hardware. And even when old race engineers and mechanics get together to reminisce, it's interesting how little of their time is spent discussing the equipment or the technical issues. Instead, the stories revolve around all the personalities and common experiences they have shared. On a really good day a Cosworth-turbo era Indy car might be worth $60,000. But if you can prove it was driven by Mario Andretti or Emerson Fittipaldi, suddenly it's worth four times that.

There is a very simple reason for all this, really. People identify with people, not with machines. There were a lot of kids who wanted to be Jim Clark, and some smaller number who wanted to grow up to be Colin Chapman. But I doubt if any sane person ever wanted to grow up to be a Lotus 49.

The planted assumption here is that the system was worthy of production. For starters, the unit cost was $35,000 per vehicle.

Well then what about the impact f Ferrari?

There is a bigger contingent to Ferrarista at almost all races regardless of who is driving.

I have it on pretty good information from people who have been involved that the Constructors championship is more significant to the teams.

Much of this has to do with the payout of Bernie Bucks for travel etc.

If Max was serious he would have changed the payout rules to drivers points but asking for rational thinking is F1 is a fantasy.

That has been my experience.

There are a lot of threads on 'Racing Comments' about the different cars ,
mostly it must be said laughable , even more so pre season , It's amazing the performance predictions based on a few pictures

When it comes to the Nissan, Mitsibishis iMiEV and Chevrolets Volt they have one thing in common; none of them will have a significant impact on the auto market. The pure electrics will suffer in price and performance and the plug in hybrid will suffer in price. Without subsidies the Volt will have a consumer price over 40,000 dollar/euro. Around here the iMiEV will cost around 35,000 euro or so when it's introduced next year, two to three times the price of a similar gasoline or diesel powered car. For the average consumer it will be cheaper to buy a more conventional vehicle, and that's what most people will do. The cars you speak of, the plug in and the pure battery car will have a total shared market share of no more than 3% by 2020 under the assumption we keep subsidizing these vehicles. The big trouble for these cars is the cost of the battery and in the past ten years or so lithium batteries haven't become cheaper. High battery costs are somewhat easier to tackle for hybrids than electrics and plug in vehicles, but the cost of the new technology must match the saving in fuel consumption and currently there are other technologies which are better from a cost/benefit perspective, large scale adoption of downsizing/turbocharging/direct injection for instance.

The people who work for auto companies you say you know, do they by any chance work in the PR department? They can't work in R&D, since these guys usually knows what is going to happen the next 5-10 years.



Have too agree on that.



If we look at carbon composites, it was an aerospace company, Hercules Aerospace, that did the first carbon fibre tub for McLaren. Civilian airplanes use more and more carbon fibre these days, but I don't think that has that much to do with F1. After all, most fourth generation fighter jets have used carbon composites quite extensively and these companies are usually involved in civilian aircraft too. But in order to use carbon composites successfully in road cars the costs must go down and today a large portion (around half) of the cost of a carbon composite part is caused by labor costs. Putting parts together by hand, as is done for F1, can't be used for car production. I know that large producers of carbon fibre like Toray are looking into means of mass production for the car industry, but I don't think the small scale production in F1, which is done by hand, is the key.

I also don't think KERS will have any significant impact on battery development. Most F1 teams seems to have bought battery cells from a large battery supplier, Renault bought their batteries from Saft for instance. The requirement for F1 and for a road car are also very different from each other. In F1 it's all about power density at any cost while road cars are all about costs and battery life, car manufacturers want a cheap battery with a long life so they can put a ten year warranty on it. If something, the technology transfer is going to go in the opposite direction. Car manufacturers have R&D budgets that are larger than the R&D budgets of racing teams and a cheap battery with a high power density suitable for a hybrid might also be useful for KERS with some small modifications. When it comes to electronics and engine management technology usually transfers from road cars to race cars, well, I think this can be said for much of the technology used in racing. If we take a few examples of late; in F1 they use high pressure fuel injectors to atomize the fuel better, these injectors are based on the injectors originally developed for direct injection in road car engines. Perhaps they use a bit more expensive materials to handle higher operating temperatures or to reduce the weight/size of the component, but they still originate from road cars. Bosch has also begun using hybrid chips in the ECU for racing cars (this makes the ECU compact and heat/vibration resistant), also here the technolgy comes from road cars. Infact the whole unit is taken from the road car side of business and fitted with a new software that is more suitable for racing purposes. In general you need a simpler ECU for racing puposes, there's no need for advanced emissions diagnostics and you don't need a mathematical model that calculates the exhaust temperature and the fuel enrichment requirement, if you want to know the exhaust temperature you can simply add a thermocouple in the exhaust system and a normal load/speed map will do fine for fuel enrichment. Then it's also much easier to make changes to the ECU so you can spend more time on the parts that actually counts.

The Lotus active suspension, didn't that use expensive electronic servovalves? I know that much of the servovalves currently used in F1 are based on MOOG series 30, a series of servovalves originally designed for aerospace applications like missiles. Lotus also use these valves in their electrohydraulic valve system and they are not exactly cheap.