Jump to content


Photo

FIA scrap 2014 bodywork changes [split]


  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

#101 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 December 2012 - 01:05

I'm not sure I'm that comfortable with slower laptimes, if it's a second or two fine no big deal, if it's several seconds they'd better phone Dallara and tell them to make a shittier GP2, and don't forget telling the IRL too.

I do know meeting and improving on the record 2004 times is lunacy, because of cost G-forces safety overtaking etc etc, but there's a sweet spot somewhere.


And what about Formula Nippon, who were close to backmarker F1 times at Suzuka? Is it possible that a small national series could have the fastest racing cars in the world?

Advertisement

#102 BetaVersion

BetaVersion
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 08 December 2012 - 01:17

Cars won't be 7 sec slower unless they get rid of diffuser. These changes will decrease lap times by 3-4 sec at most, which will be regained in the next 2-3 years of development.


a diffuser-less car would make it like 15s slower, I would say, as diffusers bring almost half of the entire car's downforce

Development also is very much limited these days. You can only gain significant downforce by circumventing the rules with "little tricks"(shall we call it)

The aero rules, as it seems, won't be the major effect. The FW apparently won't lose a thing as it will be shortened but, as far as I could understand, maintain it's area of flaps. The current ones have a gap of 50cm in the center section. What will happen to RW and diffuser?

By Brenson's article, the drag will increase a bit because the FW won't cover the last 7cm of the tires to deviate airflow from it.

I guess what will most impact laptimes, by looks of it, is the 600HP and heavier cars. :well:

Edited by BetaVersion, 08 December 2012 - 01:18.


#103 Deluxx

Deluxx
  • Member

  • 2,095 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 08 December 2012 - 03:06

I don't understand F1 fans sometimes.

(now this only applies to some people.......but)People complain about how one car is dominating and the little teams have no chance to catch up, but then when they introduce Regs. to re-stimulate the competition everyone freaks out because the cars are slower. Well no crap.

#104 SPBHM

SPBHM
  • Member

  • 806 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 December 2012 - 03:46

what about the tyres?

#105 Woody3says

Woody3says
  • Member

  • 423 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:11

Is it possible that a small national series could have the fastest racing cars in the world?

They already have the better looking chassis, might as well be faster too :rotfl:

#106 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:37

With such short track, I can see why times will drop as it will lose quite some performance in corners. But I guess this is good as it will balance the reduction in engine power

The max car width won't change, the FW will just be narrower.

Cars won't be 7 sec slower unless they get rid of diffuser. These changes will decrease lap times by 3-4 sec at most, which will be regained in the next 2-3 years of development.

It won't because the FIA will constantly change the rules and slow the cars down as they were doing in the last few years.

By Brenson's article, the drag will increase a bit because the FW won't cover the last 7cm of the tires to deviate airflow from it.

It's hilarious given that they want to drop the beam wing because it's "draggy".
Why not allow some bodywork to aid the flow around the wheels and active bodywork to optimize cooling vs drag? Rhetorical question, we can't expect logic, can we?:)

People complain about how one car is dominating and the little teams have no chance to catch up, but then when they introduce Regs. to re-stimulate the competition everyone freaks out because the cars are slower. Well no crap.

I guess it's because the rules can be changed in ways that provide opportunities for all teams* without causing a ridiculous drop of pace.

* - whatever the changes will be, the teams with best designers, engineers, wind tunnels, CFD software and biggest budgets will prevail. It's a bit naive to think otherwise.

Edited by DrProzac, 08 December 2012 - 10:44.


#107 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,258 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 08 December 2012 - 16:07

Yeah, I guess the loss of power is really the biggest problem.

#108 Puhoon

Puhoon
  • Member

  • 236 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 08 December 2012 - 18:18

I can't believe this. Another horrible decision from the FIA.


An idiotic decision by FIA shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Especially if the teams have had their say.

#109 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 17,964 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 08 December 2012 - 18:26

Glad to see the lower nose and bulkhead is being retained.

Ideally we'd have cars with 1000bhp and far less downforce. Make these cars difficult to drive.

#110 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,258 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 08 December 2012 - 18:29

Exactly. It's just a shame that the whole cost savings and greenness thing clashes with that.

#111 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 17,964 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 08 December 2012 - 18:45

Exactly. It's just a shame that the whole cost savings and greenness thing clashes with that.


I don't see how 1000bhp clashes with cost savings.

#112 BetaVersion

BetaVersion
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 08 December 2012 - 19:33

I don't see how 1000bhp clashes with cost savings.

it doesn't.

FIA is just knee-jerk when it comes to "safety".

AFAIR, they ditched 900HP V10's because they wanted to "slow the cars for safety"

This green stuff in F1, and in motorsport in general, is a big BS, too.

Motorsport energy comsuption is nothing on the whole scheme of humanity.

Edited by BetaVersion, 08 December 2012 - 19:37.


#113 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 5,951 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 08 December 2012 - 20:27

This green stuff in F1, and in motorsport in general, is a big BS, too.

Motorsport energy comsuption is nothing on the whole scheme of humanity.


You're missing the point. It's not about the actual energy usage, it's about Formula One's image in the world. Using modern efficient, more greener engines gives a better image than the current frozen, old ones.

I don't see why an arbitrary amount of horsepower is necessary either. The engines need to be powerful enough to give us good racing at a high enough speed. No more, no less.

#114 Peter Perfect

Peter Perfect
  • Member

  • 4,826 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 08 December 2012 - 20:39

Andrew Benson's done a bit of digging: http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/20640255


Equally, the overall efficiency targets will remain the same - whereas now use of fuel is free, it will be metered from 2014. Currently, cars use about 150kg of fuel (about 195 litres) in a Grand Prix; in 2014, they will be allowed to consume no more than 100kg (130l).


I must admit that was one change that had totally passed me by.

#115 Eff One 2002

Eff One 2002
  • Member

  • 863 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:21

The cars don't need to be slowed down by 5 seconds per ****ing lap. :rolleyes: F1 is heading for just more and more pussification sadly.... :( :mad: 600BHP? Please! That's just pathetic. I thought that if we were gonna be stuck with wussy 1.6 litre 6 cyls, we'd at least have a decent amount of horsepower given the engines are going to be turbocharged but of course, no can't have that can we? :rolleyes: More people will switch off if this bullshit goes through. I probably won't be one of them, but many fans will lose interest because of what a lame, sanitised joke F1 is becoming....

Edited by Eff One 2002, 09 December 2012 - 01:22.


#116 mtknot

mtknot
  • Member

  • 631 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:54

I think these new engines could still be much more efficient, even if they're run at 1000 hp than the V10s or V8s... (with the electric motor running too) so I don't understand their decision.

However making the front and rear wings back to their original shapes will bring us back to the overtaking levels pre-2009... especially with cars being balanced up. The diffuser hasnt even been removed so it just seems even more stupid.

Heck, with the aero/power improvements of GP2/WSR, doesn't this make F1 slower than GP2 or WSR?


I guess we'll have to wait for a certain drinks company to make a 'formula zero' or something.

EDIT: if they want to have efficiency, get rid of wings, make wheels shielded, and have fancars like the red bull X1. MPG will shoot up.

Edited by mtknot, 09 December 2012 - 01:55.


#117 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:47

You're missing the point. It's not about the actual energy usage, it's about Formula One's image in the world. Using modern efficient, more greener engines gives a better image than the current frozen, old ones.

This image can be acieved in various ways, including those which don't make the cars 5 seconds slower and ridiculously underpowered. They want to cut drag? Use active aerodynamics! And increase ground effects, for that matter. More efficient engines with more "eco" technology? Sure, but why does this has to imply low power? Want more eco PR? Use "alternative fuels of the future"!

I don't see why an arbitrary amount of horsepower is necessary either. The engines need to be powerful enough to give us good racing at a high enough speed. No more, no less.

F1 cars must be fast. Being powerful it also and asset, because it makes the cars more exciting for the fans. It's important, because good viewer ratings and filled grandstands are beneficial to the sport. Good racing is more important, of course. But high horse power doesn't contradict it - on the contrary actually, because it makes the drivers more prone to error (i.e. it produces more overtaking opportunities).
Reducing F1 power to GP2 levels is a very bad move. They will BS that the cars have more power (adding the KERS value) than in reality but fans will know the difference (and the laptimes will show it).
Soon we will get a "new, more F1 relevant" lower formulas with a lot less power and slower laptimes :) I wonder if IRL or LMPs will size the opportunity and get a few seconds quicker.. :p

The diffuser hasnt even been removed so it just seems even more stupid.

Removing diffusers is not a good idea.

Edited by DrProzac, 09 December 2012 - 10:48.


#118 Snic

Snic
  • Member

  • 562 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:09

I might be completely wrong here but in 2010 didn't Renault threaten to drop out of F1 unless V6 engines were introduced which would be more relevant in terms of their own road cars.

Edited by Snic, 09 December 2012 - 11:17.


#119 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 09 December 2012 - 13:13

Hmm the first idea was to introduce L4 turbo engines, in line with FIA's one engine formula for all motrosports idea, I don't remember how particualr teams were involved.

Than Ferrari (I think) and Ecclestone more or less forced a change to a V6 formula.

I wish they just allowed any configuration, like in the old days. I think that the only limits they would need is a max capacity limit and a reasonable fuel flow limit. Limiting the amount of fuel for the race is a bad idea because it will probably cause the drivers to save fuel instead of racing. Fuel flow limit should be set to allow engine power on a similar level to the current engines (or higher and without KERS).
Limiting max revs or boost pressure is not needed. Rev limit also hampers overtaking a bit. Max capacity is also not needed, but I think it's a good way to cut costs.

This all is assuming that we really need the ecology BS. If not, than a boost limit instead of the fuel flow limit would be desired to keep the power levels around late v10 era..

Edited by DrProzac, 09 December 2012 - 13:23.


Advertisement

#120 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,117 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 December 2012 - 13:41

I might be completely wrong here but in 2010 didn't Renault threaten to drop out of F1 unless V6 engines were introduced which would be more relevant in terms of their own road cars.


Think it was Renault who actually proposed the 4 cylinder turbo engine. Their threat to pull out was when it looked liked the new formula might be cancelled all together.

#121 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 09 December 2012 - 13:56

Again:

1,000 bhp

More displacement and torque than a road car

Big tires/frictional grip, greater acceleration. Too much braking? Make the expensive brake discs smaller.

Let them run whatever exhaust and variable geometry intake they want, so the cars sound different.




It is about entertainment.


Mediocrity is not entertaining, nor is it F1. You've got to put on a show. Weak engines, non-banshee sounding, sluggish acceleration - WTF? Who is in charge?


#122 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,099 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 09 December 2012 - 14:46

Heck, with the aero/power improvements of GP2/WSR, doesn't this make F1 slower than GP2 or WSR?

Not at the moment, but that might change soon if those series continue to make faster cars and F1 continues to slow down.

I must say that it concerns me a bit. I'm not one to say that F1 cars need to be going round at a thousand miles per hour for me to be happy because I frankly cant tell the difference visually between a lap of 1:25 and 1:30 in most instances, nor a car going 190mph and a car going 210mph. But F1 will inevitably lose a fair bit of its prestige if its not THE fastest road racing sport on the planet anymore.

#123 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,117 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 December 2012 - 14:56

Not at the moment, but that might change soon if those series continue to make faster cars and F1 continues to slow down.

I must say that it concerns me a bit. I'm not one to say that F1 cars need to be going round at a thousand miles per hour for me to be happy because I frankly cant tell the difference visually between a lap of 1:25 and 1:30 in most instances, nor a car going 190mph and a car going 210mph. But F1 will inevitably lose a fair bit of its prestige if its not THE fastest road racing sport on the planet anymore.


Agree with that, but where I can see the difference is in the cornering. Corners that were once a challenge are now becoming an easy full-throttle blast. Better tyres and aero account for some of that, but IMHO the biggest problem is the limits put upon the engine.

#124 Kucki

Kucki
  • Member

  • 1,237 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 09 December 2012 - 15:36

Not at the moment, but that might change soon if those series continue to make faster cars and F1 continues to slow down.

I must say that it concerns me a bit. I'm not one to say that F1 cars need to be going round at a thousand miles per hour for me to be happy because I frankly cant tell the difference visually between a lap of 1:25 and 1:30 in most instances, nor a car going 190mph and a car going 210mph. But F1 will inevitably lose a fair bit of its prestige if its not THE fastest road racing sport on the planet anymore.



Its not only about prestige. The cars have become looking very boring visually, that has got to make at least unconciously bored. Look at old generations of cars flying through the corner rockets on the straight, a single car by itself looked impressive. They used to run 370km/h not too long ago, nowadays they reach 300km/h early on the straight and then hit a wall were they just crawling up to 310 km/h the whole rest of the straight. Add to that the extremely wide tracks with asphalt run off and an F1 cars top speed looks like 100km/h on TV.






Edited by Kucki, 09 December 2012 - 15:38.


#125 mtknot

mtknot
  • Member

  • 631 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 09 December 2012 - 15:40

Agree with that, but where I can see the difference is in the cornering. Corners that were once a challenge are now becoming an easy full-throttle blast. Better tyres and aero account for some of that, but IMHO the biggest problem is the limits put upon the engine.


I agree. F1 engines at 750bhp do not overwhelm the mechanical and aero grip of the car; theres too much grip. We need to see cars at 1000bhp, like in the early 00's, but without traction control. I begin to wonder if those 1000 horsepower monsters of the early 00's were even driveable without traction control.

I do get the feeling despite the FIA's attempts to curb downforce levels, of the 2014 regs, a certain Adrian Newey will easy reclaim the lost downforce.... full throttle all the way through every corner! Although at that point, power levels could easily be adjusted. I wouldn't be surprised if the engines could easily produce 1000hp (with KERS) if they needed it to.


#126 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 09 December 2012 - 15:44

Agree with that, but where I can see the difference is in the cornering. Corners that were once a challenge are now becoming an easy full-throttle blast. Better tyres and aero account for some of that, but IMHO the biggest problem is the limits put upon the engine.

Also, braking makes a big impression when seen live.

#127 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 09 December 2012 - 20:46

Its not only about prestige. The cars have become looking very boring visually, that has got to make at least unconciously bored. Look at old generations of cars flying through the corner rockets on the straight, a single car by itself looked impressive. They used to run 370km/h not too long ago, nowadays they reach 300km/h early on the straight and then hit a wall were they just crawling up to 310 km/h the whole rest of the straight. Add to that the extremely wide tracks with asphalt run off and an F1 cars top speed looks like 100km/h on TV.






+1

It used to be a joy to watch the drivers struggle to contain those beastly cars.

Now it's like they are barely breaking a sweat, no challenge for the drivers, no entertainment for the fans.

#128 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,444 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 09 December 2012 - 22:17

I agree. F1 engines at 750bhp do not overwhelm the mechanical and aero grip of the car; theres too much grip. We need to see cars at 1000bhp, like in the early 00's, but without traction control. I begin to wonder if those 1000 horsepower monsters of the early 00's were even driveable without traction control.

I do get the feeling despite the FIA's attempts to curb downforce levels, of the 2014 regs, a certain Adrian Newey will easy reclaim the lost downforce.... full throttle all the way through every corner! Although at that point, power levels could easily be adjusted. I wouldn't be surprised if the engines could easily produce 1000hp (with KERS) if they needed it to.

An overpowered car with low grip will be slow because:
-You don't need 1000 HP to go fast around a corner. In fact it's useless. For that you need grip (aerodynamic, mechanical, chemical (tyres) grip).
-Low grip means less traction and thus slower acceleration.
-Someone also said smaller brakes. Well, less braking capacity means longer brake distances, lower top speeds, thus slower cars.
If you increase power, you need to increase grip so that you can make use of the power.

#129 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,117 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 December 2012 - 23:36

An overpowered car with low grip will be slow because:
-You don't need 1000 HP to go fast around a corner. In fact it's useless. For that you need grip (aerodynamic, mechanical, chemical (tyres) grip).
-Low grip means less traction and thus slower acceleration.
-Someone also said smaller brakes. Well, less braking capacity means longer brake distances, lower top speeds, thus slower cars.
If you increase power, you need to increase grip so that you can make use of the power.


I think you have missed the point.

An overpowered car requires more skill and control to get the best out of it. You don't need to increase grip, there should be an excess of power, but that is sadly lacking these days.

Increasing the braking distance might give a slightly slower laptime, but visually you wouldn't be able tell, and has the benefit of improving the chances for an overtake into the braking zone.



#130 akshay380

akshay380
  • Member

  • 503 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:38

This might be off topic here but anyone know if FIA is going to do anything to have exciting wet races again? Like ride height change etc. The present parc ferme rules are ridiculous.

#131 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:52

I think you have missed the point.

An overpowered car requires more skill and control to get the best out of it. You don't need to increase grip, there should be an excess of power, but that is sadly lacking these days.

Increasing the braking distance might give a slightly slower laptime, but visually you wouldn't be able tell, and has the benefit of improving the chances for an overtake into the braking zone.



You should look at overtaking moves this year...

Having an overpowered is imho as stupid as an underpowered. You have to have a good power/grip ratio to force braking and make re(acceleration a difficulty, but an overpowered one will just require more braking and allows for more mistakes in racing lines.

This is a well known problem in kart where shifter karts corner slower than non shifter karts yet have faster lap times because they can reaccelerate faster out of corners even if you do a mistake.



#132 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,117 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:56

You should look at overtaking moves this year...

Having an overpowered is imho as stupid as an underpowered. You have to have a good power/grip ratio to force braking and make re(acceleration a difficulty, but an overpowered one will just require more braking and allows for more mistakes in racing lines.

This is a well known problem in kart where shifter karts corner slower than non shifter karts yet have faster lap times because they can reaccelerate faster out of corners even if you do a mistake.


Sounds good to me. The better drivers will make less of those mistakes.

#133 mtknot

mtknot
  • Member

  • 631 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 December 2012 - 13:24

Whoa! This is for 2014 but very significant:

So the lower front bulkhead and nose, removal of the beam wing, changes to the front and rear wing have been binned.


2009 regulations with DDD + 2008 Regulations, V6 Hybrids 1500 bhp monsters :smoking:

#134 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 December 2012 - 15:40

Sounds good to me. The better drivers will make less of those mistakes.

You missed my point:
An overpowered car lets you make mistakes in racing lines and still not lose time because you have a spare power to re-accelerate.



#135 sosidge

sosidge
  • Member

  • 1,616 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 10 December 2012 - 15:46

You missed my point:
An overpowered car lets you make mistakes in racing lines and still not lose time because you have a spare power to re-accelerate.


No. Mistakes cost time regardless of power.

#136 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 10 December 2012 - 15:48

All cars being equally overpowered, the one that does a mistake on the racing line will lose time, because even if it will be able to accelerate fast, the car that did negotiate the turn properly will also accelerate fast and still have the in corner advantage.

Your comparing of two different machines over the same track makes no sense at all.

#137 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 December 2012 - 16:14

All cars being equally overpowered, the one that does a mistake on the racing line will lose time, because even if it will be able to accelerate fast, the car that did negotiate the turn properly will also accelerate fast and still have the in corner advantage.

Your comparing of two different machines over the same track makes no sense at all.


In karts, The shifter karts enjoy much more available power than non shifter karts due to the gear box. Their max power is much more than what they can apply at the exit of a turn thus you have spare power available, so if you do a small mistake you can cover it up by re-aligning a putting on more power than when you exit the turn properly.

This is one of the reasons why in shifter karts heavier pilots can still make it in contrary to other series.

This is very akin to two cars with one having more power available.




#138 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 2,935 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 10 December 2012 - 16:17


can there be absolute definition for overpowered/underpowered?

Current cars are "quite" different from 08 cars and "very" different from 05 cars, and "massively" different from cars in 90s and 80s. If cars are different you have different kind of races/driving.

Main problem for modern F1 cars/regs is that windows for every aspects are getting narrower and narrower (so narrow now that they need gimmicks like DRS and KERS as push-to-pass), rather than balance. I for one am all for wider window. Why not if new regs (different aero eg ground effect, new engine, etc) can make window wider.

Of course considering balance/ratio is important tho, that's the difficult part. But they are too afraid to take risks and make changes.


#139 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 10 December 2012 - 18:39

In karts, The shifter karts enjoy much more available power than non shifter karts due to the gear box. Their max power is much more than what they can apply at the exit of a turn thus you have spare power available, so if you do a small mistake you can cover it up by re-aligning a putting on more power than when you exit the turn properly.

This is one of the reasons why in shifter karts heavier pilots can still make it in contrary to other series.

This is very akin to two cars with one having more power available.



Shifter karts are faster because, like you said, they have much more available power. The engine works on a higher power speed range, delivers more energy to the kart. It will be faster because it reaches higher average speeds from accelerating faster. Period.

You can't extrapolate that to a field of equally powered or overpowered f1 cars. Because if one is overpowered all of them will be, and the one that makes a mistake will always lose time.

Advertisement

#140 ForzaGTR

ForzaGTR
  • Member

  • 2,927 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 10 December 2012 - 19:04

At this rate Lewis will be back at Mclaren by 2014.

#141 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 December 2012 - 19:46

Shifter karts are faster because, like you said, they have much more available power. The engine works on a higher power speed range, delivers more energy to the kart. It will be faster because it reaches higher average speeds from accelerating faster. Period.

You can't extrapolate that to a field of equally powered or overpowered f1 cars. Because if one is overpowered all of them will be, and the one that makes a mistake will always lose time.


You do not get my point:

Two shifter karts, one driver does a small mistakes, because it has more power than needed to reaccelerate it can re align to make a straighter reacceleration, making for the lost time.

When you increase the power and not the grip you can cover some of the mistakes you do in corners.

#142 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 10 December 2012 - 20:12

You can't make for the lost time, that's the point. Every mistake he does costs time, the driver who runs a clean lap will be always faster, because he didn't lose time and has the same power available.

And then there is the whole lot of new mistake opportunities with an overpowered car, breaking traction and power sliding out of turns.



#143 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 December 2012 - 20:52

You can't make for the lost time, that's the point. Every mistake he does costs time, the driver who runs a clean lap will be always faster, because he didn't lose time and has the same power available.


No. When you exit a turn you have to trade lateral and longitudinal acceleration. When you have spare power (because you can't apply full power due to the traction circle) you can line up and then apply that full power.

And then there is the whole lot of new mistake opportunities with an overpowered car, breaking traction and power sliding out of turns.


Break traction yes, power slide with a formula car no....



#144 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,871 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 19:25

I'll join the group of people saying you're wrong with your re-acceleration(?) theory :)

#145 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,140 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 11 December 2012 - 19:31

It's a commonly accepted fact in motorcycle racing that smaller-displacement bikes with less power will punish bad lines and errors more, because the rider can't use the torque available at their right hand to accelerate hard out of a corner. Where there's a lot more power than available traction, the emphasis tends to shift from carrying corner speed to getting your vehicle stood up/straightened out to apply the power as quickly as possible.

Aside from aerodynamic grip screwing up the mechanical side of the handling, there's no reason why this shouldn't be true in cars as well. So I'm with Ogami-san on this one.

#146 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,429 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 11 December 2012 - 20:42

Remember why Mosely introduced grooved tyres?
Didn't work.

#147 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,444 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 11 December 2012 - 21:02

Updated 2014 Tech regs:
http://www.fia.com/s...IONS-111212.pdf

#148 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 11 December 2012 - 21:23

It's a commonly accepted fact in motorcycle racing that smaller-displacement bikes with less power will punish bad lines and errors more, because the rider can't use the torque available at their right hand to accelerate hard out of a corner. Where there's a lot more power than available traction, the emphasis tends to shift from carrying corner speed to getting your vehicle stood up/straightened out to apply the power as quickly as possible.

Aside from aerodynamic grip screwing up the mechanical side of the handling, there's no reason why this shouldn't be true in cars as well. So I'm with Ogami-san on this one.



I can go with something beeing more forgiving. That's ok. A more powerfull engine can be mor forgiving on a missed line, ant it will also be less forgiving if the driver goes too early or too deep into the pedal, breaking traction and screwing the turn exit.

But this...

...because it has more power than needed to reaccelerate it can re align to make a straighter reacceleration, making for the lost time.


and this...

... Their max power is much more than what they can apply at the exit of a turn thus you have spare power available, so if you do a small mistake you can cover it up by re-aligning a putting on more power than when you exit the turn properly.


... are wrong. He's saying that the more powerfull engine will fix any mistakes the driver does. Just park the car pointing into the straight and floor it. You lost no time. That's not true, you might lose 0.2s instead of 0.5s, but there will be a penalty.

That's my point.

Edited by saudoso, 11 December 2012 - 21:25.


#149 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,140 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 11 December 2012 - 22:08

Gotcha. I don't think he's suggesting that drivers of powerful cars are totally immune from the consequences of their mistakes though, just that small mistakes are made negligible. There's also the possibility that with a great deal of power relative to traction, the "ideal" line through a corner is much less clear-cut. You can carry the most corner speed, but if that comes at the expense of getting straightened up and gassing away, then the guy who's made a "mistake" with his line may still be faster.

#150 showtime

showtime
  • Member

  • 2,585 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 12 December 2012 - 00:15

I was looking for the article from the 2013 Sporting Regulations that defines the restrictions on the use of DRS but I can't find it. Anyone could help?