Jump to content


Photo

2013 Rules


  • Please log in to reply
370 replies to this topic

#1 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,239 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 22 October 2009 - 05:52

http://www.jamesalle...uture/#comments

Hopefully they will allow unlimited ways to carry the energy at the start (diesel, petrol, hydrogen, electric (coal, jet fuel, rocket grains!?) in any proportions etc) and unlimited types and combinations of motive systems. :)

What does it all mean?

Or will it end up as some watered down restrictive regulations, as usual FIA regs do? :well:

Advertisement

#2 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,719 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 22 October 2009 - 05:58

If true, about ****ing time.

#3 scolbourne

scolbourne
  • Member

  • 210 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 October 2009 - 02:34

Is this going to be by simply volume of fuel or assuming multiple fuel types are allowed by calorific value.
Otherwise we might be seeing diesel F1 cars. A horrible thought.

I am generally in favour of these rules if they can provide a level playing field for all types of power sources.
I wonder if we will see gas turbines being used again.


#4 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,239 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 26 October 2009 - 05:23

I wonder if we will see gas turbines being used again.

That sounds good. Sorry for my ignorance, so they used these in F1 as well as Indycar?

http://www.f1fanatic...urbine-engines/

On small turbine engines, is the delay (?) in changing the power output now overcome? :confused:

It doesn't seem that unsafe, it would be good if FIA allowed such non conventional engines for extra excitement and publicity in the grand prix arena :)

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 26 October 2009 - 05:24.


#5 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,041 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 October 2009 - 10:13

I wonder if we will see gas turbines being used again.

Not likely if fuel is limited.

#6 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 26 October 2009 - 14:19

It doesn't seem that unsafe, it would be good if FIA allowed such non conventional engines for extra excitement and publicity in the grand prix arena :)

It might get publicity, but there ain't much excitment in an F1 car when the loudest noise as it passes is tyre roar... although the flames that came out of the Lotus were quite pretty...

#7 scolbourne

scolbourne
  • Member

  • 210 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 27 October 2009 - 00:49

That sounds good. Sorry for my ignorance, so they used these in F1 as well as Indycar?

http://www.f1fanatic...urbine-engines/

On small turbine engines, is the delay (?) in changing the power output now overcome? :confused:

It doesn't seem that unsafe, it would be good if FIA allowed such non conventional engines for extra excitement and publicity in the grand prix arena :)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_56

The Lotus 56 was powered by a gas turbine as well as being 4WD . Not very successful due to high weight with best position being 8th in Italy, but could be developed.

As a hybrid it makes sense as the engine weight is kept low, and the electric motors could allow more flexible power delivery. I am not sure how bad they are for economy but they are used in power stations so cant be too bad especially if heat is extracted from the exhaust for extra power.

Edited by scolbourne, 27 October 2009 - 00:50.


#8 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,293 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 27 October 2009 - 17:23

As a hybrid it makes sense as the engine weight is kept low, and the electric motors could allow more flexible power delivery. I am not sure how bad they are for economy but they are used in power stations so cant be too bad especially if heat is extracted from the exhaust for extra power.


Hybrid = high weight

Small lightweight gas turbine engines have a low efficiency. Typically 20-30% at optimum load. At low load it gets worse, a lot worse.

Extract heat from the exhaust = high weight and volume.

#9 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 31 October 2009 - 13:41

Hybrid = high weight

Small lightweight gas turbine engines have a low efficiency. Typically 20-30% at optimum load. At low load it gets worse, a lot worse.

Extract heat from the exhaust = high weight and volume.




The early 90 Group C prototypes where 300 kilos heavier then the F1s, and were still very fast, with only the top F1 cars barely beating them.

A ground effects aerodynamics with a lot more downforce and a lot less drag, active electronic stuff, extra usable torque would allow the F1 cars to be just as fast despite being heavier.

Edited by DOF_power, 31 October 2009 - 13:42.


#10 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,293 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 31 October 2009 - 22:07

The early 90 Group C prototypes where 300 kilos heavier then the F1s, and were still very fast, with only the top F1 cars barely beating them.

A ground effects aerodynamics with a lot more downforce and a lot less drag, active electronic stuff, extra usable torque would allow the F1 cars to be just as fast despite being heavier.


150 kg heavier, they had a 750 kg minimum weight. They also had the advantage of enclosed wheels and under body tunnels. They were also a bit slower than F1 cars.

Hybrid technology aside from KERS wouldn't offer any significant advantage to a racing car, but significant disadvantages. So I don't see the point.

#11 scolbourne

scolbourne
  • Member

  • 210 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 November 2009 - 02:17

150 kg heavier, they had a 750 kg minimum weight. They also had the advantage of enclosed wheels and under body tunnels. They were also a bit slower than F1 cars.

Hybrid technology aside from KERS wouldn't offer any significant advantage to a racing car, but significant disadvantages. So I don't see the point.


I diagree.

I can see that hybrid could be an advantage. All the time that you are not at full power you charge the batteries. When you need extra power it is available.

It all depends on the rules of course.

Assuming current engine rules but no limit on batteries or electric motor power. If you are traction limited half the lap , you can charge the batteries then. The rest of the lap you use the saved power.

#12 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,293 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 02 November 2009 - 17:53

I diagree.

I can see that hybrid could be an advantage. All the time that you are not at full power you charge the batteries. When you need extra power it is available.

It all depends on the rules of course.

Assuming current engine rules but no limit on batteries or electric motor power. If you are traction limited half the lap , you can charge the batteries then. The rest of the lap you use the saved power.


With a fuel limit that sort of strategy is counter productive.

Under the current regulations, it's also not allowed.

#13 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,041 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 November 2009 - 23:03

With a fuel limit that sort of strategy is counter productive.

Under the current regulations, it's also not allowed.

I think we are also discussing what should be allowed. The strategy is not counterproductive if the IC engine can be run at its efficiency peak during charging although probably unnecessary if a large percentage of braking energy could be harvested.

#14 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,293 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 03 November 2009 - 23:38

I think we are also discussing what should be allowed. The strategy is not counterproductive if the IC engine can be run at its efficiency peak during charging although probably unnecessary if a large percentage of braking energy could be harvested.


Even if the engine can be run at its efficiency peak during charging there is still going to be significant energy losses between the engine and the wheels, probably about 40%. This increase fuel consumption, weight and drag due to cooling of the hybrid system. It's much simpler to boost the power by temporary increase the charging pressure and/or engine speed instead. Of course, that will still result in increased fuel consumption, but at least we get rid of the weight and cooling requirement of the hybrid system.

KERS on the other hand increase power without increasing the fuel consumption, which makes it interresting when there's a limited fuel supply.

#15 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 04 November 2009 - 13:39

150 kg heavier, they had a 750 kg minimum weight. They also had the advantage of enclosed wheels and under body tunnels. They were also a bit slower than F1 cars.

Hybrid technology aside from KERS wouldn't offer any significant advantage to a racing car, but significant disadvantages. So I don't see the point.



And minimum weight limit was 550 kg in F1 I believe.
I have no problem with underbody tunnels, enclosed wheel or enclosed cockpits.

And they weren't really a bit slower.

Edited by DOF_power, 04 November 2009 - 13:39.


#16 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,293 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 04 November 2009 - 20:20

And minimum weight limit was 550 kg in F1 I believe.
I have no problem with underbody tunnels, enclosed wheel or enclosed cockpits.

And they weren't really a bit slower.


The mimum weight in F1 in the early nineties was 505 kg I believe, but that is without the driver.

Long ago I saw a lap time comparison, and yes, they were a bit slower.

#17 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 04 November 2009 - 23:36

The mimum weight in F1 in the early nineties was 505 kg I believe, but that is without the driver.

Long ago I saw a lap time comparison, and yes, they were a bit slower.




Was that before the Williams FW14B or after ?!
In 89/1990 the gaps where quite small, and the prototypes where quite heavier.

#18 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 5,336 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 20 December 2009 - 03:12

http://www.jamesalle...uture/#comments

Fail.

"In order to enable the public to easily understand this efficiency concept applied to motor sport,
it is also necessary to limit the amount of fuel/energy consumed by a competitor during a race."


A fuel volume limit will lead to fuel efficiency races - yawn. What they need is desmo as F1 supremo. He had the right idea years ago with a fuel flow rate limit.

This is all that's needed;
  • Spec fuel + Spec fuel flow rate (to limit overall speeds and therefore control safety).
  • Spec tires (narrow all-weather tires that will last the race, for high straight-line speed and low cornering speeds).
  • Body dimensions that are impossible restrictive to the generation of downforce (also to encourage high straight speeds and low cornering speeds).
  • Spec ECU (to remove any interference with the driver's control over changes in acceleration, and to allow race control to remotely 'pace' the cars in yellow zones).
That's it. Turbines, KERS, CVTs, active suspension, dual chassis, six wheelers, suction cars, active aero, driverless cars... anything goes.

Actualy, move over desmo this is a job for i6!

Edited by imaginesix, 20 December 2009 - 03:16.


#19 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,041 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 03:43

A fuel volume limit will lead to fuel efficiency races - yawn. What they need is desmo as F1 supremo. He had the right idea years ago with a fuel flow rate limit.


A fuel flow rate limit would also lead to a fuel efficiency race (a good thing in my opinion)

Advertisement

#20 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 5,336 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:18

A fuel flow rate limit would also lead to a fuel efficiency race (a good thing in my opinion)

Not if they have an unlimited supply of fuel for the race, I don't think? The focus would be on running the engine at full output as much as possible and converting any excess amount to storage via KERS or some other system. But they would have no reason to run anything less than full-out that I can see.

#21 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,041 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 December 2009 - 10:45

Not if they have an unlimited supply of fuel for the race, I don't think? The focus would be on running the engine at full output as much as possible and converting any excess amount to storage via KERS or some other system. But they would have no reason to run anything less than full-out that I can see.


Ah - but thermal efficiency would determine what power output results from the regulated fuel flow.

#22 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 5,336 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 20 December 2009 - 13:31

Ah - but thermal efficiency would determine what power output results from the regulated fuel flow.

OK, so they'd be more inclined to run the engine around peak torque than peak power (in those instances where energy recovery mode is 'on' and the system is not already running at full capacity). But that's not fuel efficiency racing in the way I have seen it ruin the show. It ruins the show when team run their cars at less than 100% potential for any period of time, only pushing max engine output as a strategy rather than as a rule.

#23 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 390 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 24 December 2009 - 11:55

What's boring about the 'fuel efficiency races'? Back in the mid-1980s Formula 1's fuel economy runs were far more interesting than today's races. At least, races weren't decided despite having a driver with a 20 seconds lead and only three laps to go.

Any way, I seriously doubt energy limits will create fuel economy runs. In MotoGP the fuel tank capacity is limited too and the on-board computers prevent the rider from running out of fuel.

Edited by Pingguest, 24 December 2009 - 11:57.


#24 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,041 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 December 2009 - 00:01

In MotoGP the fuel tank capacity is limited too and the on-board computers prevent the rider from running out of fuel.


I think that is the point exactly. If the rules encourage teams to innovate and optimise green technologies, the sport increases in relevance.

#25 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 1,935 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 25 December 2009 - 00:27

Liked this part:

"Also announced today confirmation that the next engine formula for all FIA championships, including F1, is to be based on gaining power from a fixed volume of fuel rather than from the capacity of the engine, as it is at present."

4L V8s 6L V6 3L V12 all is possible. heck even to-strokers and wankel could be inn on that rule, good fun this propose.

This part i simply hate:

"Finally each Grand Prix event must be carbon neutral and the FIA proposes offsetting. This will be quite some undertaking if you consider the number of people who fly all over the world in commercial jets to work in F1."

Not because they want it greener but because they say that it must. I find that stupid! cars will never be CO2 friendly. lets face it. walking is the only way. its ok to allow us selv polute a little bit, as its only 22-24cars of these in the world.

#26 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,396 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 December 2009 - 08:56


Yeah its relevance will increase from 1% to 2%. The racetrack is a terrible place to research new technologies for roadcars.

#27 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 25 December 2009 - 10:09

This quest for fuel efficiency in F1 or motoGP type racing series is severely misguided. It is not as if teams intentionally make energy inefficient racing vehicles, the 'need for speed' ensures that they choose a balanced solution. As for road vehicles, the manufacturers are already motivated by need for emission compliance on one hand, and competitive pressure on another to make their vehicles the most efficient in their respective segment.

Restricting fuel or energy consumption in racing cars is a bit like restricting the volume at a rock concert to 75dB: it misses the point of the show entirely. Let us accept that all human activities have big or small effect on our environment, and focus on those few areas which will make a meaningful difference rather than this cheap showmanship.

Ooooh, Jorge won a motoGP race with 20 lt fuel instead of 25 lt. What an achievement, mother earth loves you. :rolleyes:

#28 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,719 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 25 December 2009 - 16:45

It's not that it would turn racing into a research bounty, it's that it is a more- probably the only really- logical way to regulate engine outputs in a non-spec series. That plus it provides a useful green veneer for a sport that is uniquely placed to become a politically incorrect whipping boy when one is required.

#29 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 25 December 2009 - 23:16

This quest for fuel efficiency in F1 or motoGP type racing series is severely misguided. It is not as if teams intentionally make energy inefficient racing vehicles, the 'need for speed' ensures that they choose a balanced solution. As for road vehicles, the manufacturers are already motivated by need for emission compliance on one hand, and competitive pressure on another to make their vehicles the most efficient in their respective segment.

Restricting fuel or energy consumption in racing cars is a bit like restricting the volume at a rock concert to 75dB: it misses the point of the show entirely. Let us accept that all human activities have big or small effect on our environment, and focus on those few areas which will make a meaningful difference rather than this cheap showmanship.

Ooooh, Jorge won a motoGP race with 20 lt fuel instead of 25 lt. What an achievement, mother earth loves you. :rolleyes:

This post - as far as I am concerned - is the best argument against the stupid and irrational attack on 'wasteful' and 'destructive' motor sport. In various threads I have maintained that very little motor sport has anything to do with improving production car technology, if you are lucky there is occasional trickle-down, countered by a deal of trickle-up. If frugality is your bag, there is the ultimate fuel-consumption competition, with the record somewhere at 6,000 miles per gallon (that may be wrong), and that has nothing to do with production cars or saving the planet either.

Surely, making a race engine that is 5% more fuel-efficient than your competitors for the same power output and driveability give you a handsome advantage in starting wheight, tank size and/or refuelling strategy, so why not do it if you can?

I thank you... Having been abstemious all day due to the need to drive, I'm off for a tipple!

#30 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 1,935 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 25 December 2009 - 23:21

I think as long as FIA gives them fuel enough to get 800HP++ tru the entire race it will be good.

Someone mentioned the energi in the fuel to be regulated instead of the fuel amount. i think thats an ok idea if FIA also consider how green the fuel production is and add a + or - value.

Lets say fuel made of chicken fat/ or alkohol out of corn is greener than oilfield diesel that gives a + letting the chicken fuel/corn alcohol cars carry more or diesels less.

as long as they produce 800HP+ they will make a lot of noise and that's why some here fear diesel in F1.

Me too but it doesnt mean all diesels are bound to go at low rpms the main reason is because of the restrictors used in all classes now, making it best to tune engine to work at low revs. same with WRC petrols they go down to 3000rpms and produce 800nm +- they too sounds a bit gay compared to a NA engine but thats because of the restrictor.

No restrictor and up the revs go and woila! lots of loud and funny noises :D lots of cylinders will also add some more revy sound to the engine. same with more valves.

just thinking/dreaming
doesnt detroit diesels have a god efficiency?

two stroke diesels sound a bit cool.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


give the F1 engineers option to run Detroit diesels and they make a higher revving V12 that screams a lot more.

but of course i want F1 to stay on petrol. Idealistically i would prefer them on alcohol. that stuff is louder.

I think perhaps a diesel producing 900hp will be too heavy against a petrol producing 900HP.
perhaps we sould not worry.

Edit: ohh and perhaps water injection gets legal, since you get to save some fuel on it.

Edited by MatsNorway, 25 December 2009 - 23:32.


#31 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,274 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 26 December 2009 - 00:00

Fail.

"In order to enable the public to easily understand this efficiency concept applied to motor sport,
it is also necessary to limit the amount of fuel/energy consumed by a competitor during a race."


A fuel volume limit will lead to fuel efficiency races - yawn. What they need is desmo as F1 supremo. He had the right idea years ago with a fuel flow rate limit.

This is all that's needed;
  • Spec fuel + Spec fuel flow rate (to limit overall speeds and therefore control safety).
  • Spec tires (narrow all-weather tires that will last the race, for high straight-line speed and low cornering speeds).
  • Body dimensions that are impossible restrictive to the generation of downforce (also to encourage high straight speeds and low cornering speeds).
  • Spec ECU (to remove any interference with the driver's control over changes in acceleration, and to allow race control to remotely 'pace' the cars in yellow zones).
That's it. Turbines, KERS, CVTs, active suspension, dual chassis, six wheelers, suction cars, active aero, driverless cars... anything goes.

Actualy, move over desmo this is a job for i6!


I'd be quite fine with that. Only two observations:

- Driverless cars. No, never ever. Make a separate competition for that if necessary, it's not F1.
- Fuel-saving races, 80s style, can be fun too.

#32 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 390 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 December 2009 - 19:14

This post - as far as I am concerned - is the best argument against the stupid and irrational attack on 'wasteful' and 'destructive' motor sport. In various threads I have maintained that very little motor sport has anything to do with improving production car technology, if you are lucky there is occasional trickle-down, countered by a deal of trickle-up. If frugality is your bag, there is the ultimate fuel-consumption competition, with the record somewhere at 6,000 miles per gallon (that may be wrong), and that has nothing to do with production cars or saving the planet either.

Surely, making a race engine that is 5% more fuel-efficient than your competitors for the same power output and driveability give you a handsome advantage in starting wheight, tank size and/or refuelling strategy, so why not do it if you can?

I thank you... Having been abstemious all day due to the need to drive, I'm off for a tipple!


Currently, motor sport is not very relevant for road car technology. But with a proper set of rules, motor sport could well contribute to the development of road car technologies. If the regulations enforce the development of fuel efficient technologies, I don't see why that knowledge can't be used for other purposes.

#33 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 26 December 2009 - 19:24

Currently, motor sport is not very relevant for road car technology. But with a proper set of rules, motor sport could well contribute to the development of road car technologies. If the regulations enforce the development of fuel efficient technologies, I don't see why that knowledge can't be used for other purposes.

Well, read primer's post again. Why does mortor sport have to have anything to do with improving road cars? Most top-end road cars are more sophisticated than an F1 car in the areas that matter.

#34 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 5,336 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 27 December 2009 - 06:38

I'd be quite fine with that. Only two observations:

- Driverless cars. No, never ever. Make a separate competition for that if necessary, it's not F1.
- Fuel-saving races, 80s style, can be fun too.

I kinda agree on both counts.

In the first case, I'd wait until driverless cars start to win races, and then ban them ;)

On the question of fuel economy ruining or improving the show, there is a case to be made on both sides and I need to give it some more thoughtful analysis before I can explain exactly what it is I'm against.

One thing I neglected to add to my short list, is that the spec ECUs would make all datastreams publicly available. This would significantly curtail the motivation for some teams to go in with a massive budget and just crush the competition with money, plus it would provide significant additional interest for the fans.

Edited by imaginesix, 27 December 2009 - 06:42.


#35 Grumbles

Grumbles
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 27 December 2009 - 07:45

just thinking/dreaming
doesnt detroit diesels have a god efficiency?

two stroke diesels sound a bit cool.


No, they definitely don't have good efficiency.
But I agree that they do sound rather nice.
You'll probably enjoy this one too:youtube 12v:71
YeeHah!!! Doesn't appear to be carbon neutral though..

#36 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 390 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 27 December 2009 - 11:22

Well, read primer's post again. Why does mortor sport have to have anything to do with improving road cars? Most top-end road cars are more sophisticated than an F1 car in the areas that matter.


In areas like electronic driver aids, Formula 1 cars are indeed not very sophisticated. And they shouldn't be, because the series should be the ultimate drivers' championship. But in the engine area Formula 1 could contribute to the development of future technologies.

#37 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 27 December 2009 - 12:10

But in the engine area Formula 1 could contribute to the development of future technologies.

Why?

#38 DaveW

DaveW
  • Member

  • 393 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 27 December 2009 - 15:08

The racetrack is a terrible place to research new technologies for roadcars.

It certainly is when innovation in F1 is serially banned by ever more regulation.... Doesn't have to be that way though.

It is over 20 years since I sat down at Hethel to discuss a hybrid drive project. It was felt then that something novel was required for future road vehicles, and the objective of the project was primary electric "in-wheel" drive with a gas turbine energy source (more accurately, power converter).

What is the current state of play in road vehicles? To my knowledge, it is confined to few stuttering attempts at electric "secondary" drive, one serious (but non-production) attempt using primary electric drive, & a few inflexible attempts using pure battery power.

What the technology needed then (& now) was (is) a heavy dose of "racing" innovation & development "pace" to establish a viable way forward (assuming, of course, that hybrid drive does have a future - but multiple racing projects would probably make that clear too). The result probably wouldn't have direct application in road vehicles, but it would stimulate component development, would provide hard evidence to replace what is currently confined largely to "thought experiments" &, perhaps, would help to stimulate more serious road vehicle applications.

Edited by DaveW, 27 December 2009 - 15:10.


#39 DaveW

DaveW
  • Member

  • 393 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 27 December 2009 - 15:37

Why?

Forgive me, Tony, but I think your response reflects a somewhat blinkered view. It is surprising how often doing something novel reveals the unexpected. The unexpected isn't always beneficial, of course, but where better to attempt the automotive "impossible" than in motor racing?

Advertisement

#40 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 27 December 2009 - 16:19

Forgive me, Tony, but I think your response reflects a somewhat blinkered view. It is surprising how often doing something novel reveals the unexpected. The unexpected isn't always beneficial, of course, but where better to attempt the automotive "impossible" than in motor racing?

I'm not as 'blinkered' as my response suggests, Dave, it was an off-the-cuff knee-jerk response to the constantly presented view that somehow motor racing, especially F1, needs to justify its existence by giving to society, via production cars, a return. You said...

It certainly is when innovation in F1 is serially banned by ever more regulation.... Doesn't have to be that way though.


and I agree. I agree that F1 is regulated to the point that true innovation is stifled, and I agree that it doesn't have to be. But it is, and I base my views on the current situation. When F1 allows four-wheel drive, four-wheel steer, turbos, active suspension, active aerodynamics, i.e systems that can be found on some production cars, I think it might start to contribute, but as it is, and looks to remain, I see it as just a competition between engineers working in an intensly regulated and constricting envelope. If I'm wrong, tell me! I still don't think that engine designers disregard fuel consumption, I don't have the numbers, but I would be surprised if a 2.4litre V8 could be easily produced that would perform the way it has to/is allowed to by the regulations and is much more fuel-efficient.

No other sport is told that it has to improve society in some way other than enthusing the masses, allowing individuals to blossom or setting more speed and distance records. Many sports contribute more to fossil-fuel use and air pollution than motor racing, simply through fan-miles.

Two brief points:- Open-wheelers look great, and distinctive, but they are not relevant to production cars, and if technology is allowed that reduces the spectacle - and I'm talking about sound more than anything - it will result in a smaller following, and will lose revenue. That wouldn't please team principles or the governing body!



#41 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 December 2009 - 18:45

Well, read primer's post again. Why does mortor sport have to have anything to do with improving road cars? Most top-end road cars are more sophisticated than an F1 car in the areas that matter.




Because it's call motorsport not driver personality fanboys sport.

But I doubt british garagistes/fans will ever understand the need for relevancy.


#42 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 December 2009 - 18:50

In areas like electronic driver aids, Formula 1 cars are indeed not very sophisticated. And they shouldn't be, because the series should be the ultimate drivers' championship. But in the engine area Formula 1 could contribute to the development of future technologies.




Ultimate drivers championship my a**.

Ferenc Szisz didn't the win first official Grand Prix in 1906 because he was the ultimate driver, it's because his car was reliable and more advanced, and he could do pit stops in 2-3 minutes (detachable wheel rims) when others need 15 minutes.
The others lost the same way Massa lost the WDC in 2008, at the pits.

Edited by DOF_power, 27 December 2009 - 19:20.


#43 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,719 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 27 December 2009 - 19:04

I actually agree that those who promote or buy into the primacy of the drivers' competition as opposed to the technical competition are probably not really qualified or entitled to be called motorsports fans. It seems they would be far better served following say track and field where cars are of no importance at all rather than bemoaning equipment inequalities in a sport where they are not only inevitable but integral and central to the sport.

#44 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 27 December 2009 - 19:22

I actually agree that those who promote or buy into the primacy of the drivers' competition as opposed to the technical competition are probably not really qualified or entitled to be called motorsports fans. It seems they would be far better served following say track and field where cars are of no importance at all rather than bemoaning equipment inequalities in a sport where they are not only inevitable but integral and central to the sport.

I have never really liked the term 'fan', coming as it does from 'fanatic'. I have always been an enthusiast for the cars, engineers and teams. Drivers I either admire or have no real opinion on, like or ignore, think are brave and skilled or not. I wouldn't go as far as Bernie with his 'light bulb' comment, and some are exceptional and become National Treasures! However, the teams invariably, in my limited experience, treasure the Constructor's Championship more highly. Perhaps it is because the cars are to all intents similar that hardly any media recognition is given to the teams and personnel who design and build the things. I think the emphasis on the drivers has shifted the interest away from the engineering, and it's not helped by the regulations.

#45 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 December 2009 - 19:25

I have never really liked the term 'fan', coming as it does from 'fanatic'. I have always been an enthusiast for the cars, engineers and teams. Drivers I either admire or have no real opinion on, like or ignore, think are brave and skilled or not. I wouldn't go as far as Bernie with his 'light bulb' comment, and some are exceptional and become National Treasures! However, the teams invariably, in my limited experience, treasure the Constructor's Championship more highly. Perhaps it is because the cars are to all intents similar that hardly any media recognition is given to the teams and personnel who design and build the things. I think the emphasis on the drivers has shifted the interest away from the engineering, and it's not helped by the regulations.




Mosley killed engineering and creativity in late 1993.

#46 DaveW

DaveW
  • Member

  • 393 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 27 December 2009 - 22:29

I'm not as 'blinkered' as my response suggests, Dave, it was an off-the-cuff knee-jerk response to the constantly presented view that somehow motor racing, especially F1, needs to justify its existence by giving to society, via production cars, a return.

Touche, though I was careful not to ascribe the blinkers to you...

Mosley killed engineering and creativity in late 1993.

Mosley certainly did nothing to help the cause, but I think the slide away from innovation began before 1993. In my limited experience, the team principal "fear factor" started seriously in 1981 with the Lotus 88. They had, & continue to have, a valid argument, I suppose, but the incestuous nature of F1 means that an innovation will seldom confer an advantage for more than one season, at best. In any case, recent history suggests that the sport doesn't really suffer just because (for various reasons) one team is dominant for several seasons.

p.s. I suppose FOTA could have a genuine role to play in the present cost-conscious climate by opening up specific areas where innovation is to be permitted. The FIA attempted to do that with KERS, of course, although they (largely) failed because they imposed a solution, rather than defining an objective.


Edited by DaveW, 27 December 2009 - 22:47.


#47 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 27 December 2009 - 22:49

Touche, though I was careful not to ascribe the blinkers to you...

No offence taken, anyway!

#48 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 28 December 2009 - 15:59

Touche, though I was careful not to ascribe the blinkers to you...


Mosley certainly did nothing to help the cause, but I think the slide away from innovation began before 1993. In my limited experience, the team principal "fear factor" started seriously in 1981 with the Lotus 88. They had, & continue to have, a valid argument, I suppose, but the incestuous nature of F1 means that an innovation will seldom confer an advantage for more than one season, at best. In any case, recent history suggests that the sport doesn't really suffer just because (for various reasons) one team is dominant for several seasons.

p.s. I suppose FOTA could have a genuine role to play in the present cost-conscious climate by opening up specific areas where innovation is to be permitted. The FIA attempted to do that with KERS, of course, although they (largely) failed because they imposed a solution, rather than defining an objective.




The Fan Car in 1978 ?!

#49 DaveW

DaveW
  • Member

  • 393 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 28 December 2009 - 16:16

The Fan Car in 1978 ?!

Of course.. though that was allowed to race, I believe; I recall that the technology was banned when a car appeared a short time later with two fans...

#50 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 1,935 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 28 December 2009 - 17:44

No, they definitely don't have good efficiency.
But I agree that they do sound rather nice.
You'll probably enjoy this one too:youtube 12v:71
YeeHah!!! Doesn't appear to be carbon neutral though..


I checked out the http://www.detroitdi...15/default.aspx

they are still being made and is claimed to make the emission demands.

im not into trucks but 14,8L and 560hp sounds to me to be up there with the ordinary trucks.


If football had as a secondary objective, like teaching kids to be nice to each other it would be banned.

Kinda the same as making the F1 circus CO2 neutral (Its impossible)

Edited by MatsNorway, 28 December 2009 - 17:55.