61 replies to this topic

[RDV]

It should be...

David Richards, chief executive of Prodrive and chairman of Aston Martin, believes that motor racing has lost its relevance.

The regulators have also never quite got it right. The balance between making the competition fair while still making it exciting is a difficult one to strike. And an emphasis on making it relevant to society has been lost along the way.

Lord Drayson said: ‘The automotive industry needs help pushing ahead with green tech, and the government needs help in persuading people to change what they drive – because the presenters of Top Gear are having a field day making fun of green cars, and any thumbs-down from the Stig leaves a stigma that’s hard to dislodge.’

‘When a green car is rated as ’sub zero’ on ’cool wall’, then we know we’re getting somewhere.’

Discuss....

[saudoso]

There is no way moving 2 tons around to carry the 80kg guy will ever be green.

The 'green' car is the one that was not built in the first place.

So let's heve fun while it lasts.

EDIT :

and the government needs help in persuading people to change what they drive

Should read:

and the government needs help in persuading people to quit driving

Not that I intend to do it anytime soon, don't get me wrong.

Edited by saudoso, 14 January 2011 - 14:35.

[MatsNorway]

Wanna be green? move to a city live close to work and start walking.

Personally i don`t give a crap about environment. Its going to hell anyway. Most likely due to lack of resources. READ: to many people on mother earth.

Hitler was a genius. hahaha. just kidding.

[RDV]

saudoso-There is no way moving 2 tons around to carry the 80kg guy will ever be green.

Hey! That's my line...bicycles are very efficient. However, as there's not much chance of stopping cars till we run out of energy, making them more efficient is a start.

[saudoso]

Hey! That's my line...bicycles are very efficient. However, as there's not much chance of stopping cars till we run out of energy, making them more efficient is a start.

I think it's impossible to improve energy efficiency in a rate that balances the always increasing number of cars circulating. There will never be a net reduction of energy used by cars.

[Magoo]

Was auto racing ever truly "relevant" to society? There was a time when it did capture the imagination of the population at large, and when it played some role in the development of passenger cars and the automotive industry as a whole. This time was approximately 1895-1920, and that was a long time ago. Ninety years is a long time to keep up appearances and live in the past.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Because to appreciate a lot of the design and technology in a modern race car requires a decent amount of prior knowledge. Most people are unaware of differentials. They aren't naturally going to understand what's going on, or why, when a driver adjusts his entry/mid/exit diff settings on the wheel.

Just as a personal example, it's really only from reading years of engine related threads here that I get enough insight into how an engine cycle works to be impressed by what it takes to make a high revving racing engine works. And even amongst the shadetree tuners I think a lot of that is lost. If you want more power in your car you make the engine bigger, you don't try to rev the hell out of it. Though that may just be the route of less resistance to the average civillian. And of course these days turbo turbo turbo.

But yeah, try explaining a double deck diffuser or an exhaust blown diffuser when people simply know that planes fly, not why.

[slucas]

Ninety years is a long time to keep up appearances and live in the past.

Too true Magoo, but then there's the Royal Family (pick any)

[OfficeLinebacker]

Was auto racing ever truly "relevant" to society? There was a time when it did capture the imagination of the population at large, and when it played some role in the development of passenger cars and the automotive industry as a whole. This time was approximately 1895-1920, and that was a long time ago. Ninety years is a long time to keep up appearances and live in the past.

The only way that it's relevant now is to channel man's warlike/competitive nature. Same as all sports.

[Tony Matthews]

Because to appreciate a lot of the design and technology in a modern race car requires a decent amount of prior knowledge. Most people are unaware of differentials. They aren't naturally going to understand what's going on, or why, when a driver adjusts his entry/mid/exit diff settings on the wheel.

Quite right. Some effort was made by Martin Brundle in his ITV days to explain the basic technology, but most people have little idea of what is going on behind the team's doors. It is not helped by the teams being, understandably, coy, or by the shift of emphasis from team to driver. Drivers have always been heroes, but I get the impression that the teams had a greater following in the 'hey-day' of motor sport - when the King and Queen headed 250,000 crowds at the British GP.

The fact that so little is known and understood by so many makes the attempt to make F1 more 'relevant' to every-day motoring a blind alley. It should be entertaining and exciting. No other sport is expected to improve any aspect of life apart from the vague hope that some of it might help reduce obesity. Darts, for instance.

It seems that people know less about the workings of their cars as said cars become ever-more complex. Under most bonnets/hoods there is a lightweight, powerful, economical, smooth, reliable and relatively clean engine that looks about as exciting as a Samsonite suitcase, and nothing can be done by the owner but top-up a couple of fluids.

[Risil]

The fact that so little is known and understood by so many makes the attempt to make F1 more 'relevant' to every-day motoring a blind alley. It should be entertaining and exciting. No other sport is expected to improve any aspect of life apart from the vague hope that some of it might help reduce obesity. Darts, for instance.

Shouldn't the fact that F1 is relevant to the idea of motoring be enough to make it relevant to everyday motoring? Motor racing doesn't necessarily need to provide solutions to specific engineering problems, but it should make engineering sexy. In the same way, like OLB hints at, that other sports make the idea of sweaty muddy man-to-man conflict sexy. Whatever the limitations of NASCAR's regulations, I think it very deliberately plays on a kind of engineering nostalgia, from when men were men, engines were carbureted, pistons were large-bore and everything was heavy. Smokey Yunick is as much a part of its outlaw-mythology as Dale Earnhardt.

For F1, designing a set of aerodynamic and downforce-generating surfaces which correspond exactly to an arcane and arbitrary set of rulebook limitations (until proven otherwise, possibly in court) doesn't have the same pull. And of course when the whole thing's locked up and top-secret you're unlikely to get any sense of technical aptitude or science at all, just a vague sense that it's going on, somewhere.

Edited by Risil, 14 January 2011 - 18:23.

[Magoo]

The only way that it's relevant now is to channel man's warlike/competitive nature. Same as all sports.

We have political blogs and 24-hour cable news channels for that now. Lock and load.

[Charles E Taylor]

There is more to it than just the technology.


Mortorsport and the high performance car industry are actually in the Dream Supply industry. Few can participate many can dream. Motorsport itself very elitist; very few people get the opportunity to become involved, many can get to stand on the side, spectate and dream.

It is not cool now, because at the top level almost none can get access and at many other levels it has become so hidebound by regulations which stifle innovation and serve only to protect the incumbents. Most “Motor Racing” as it is now practiced in Europe is in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act it should be called “Motor Following”

For the younger generation, almost universally involved in participation of real time on-line gaming the real thing is “boring”.

The issue is in how we now are conditioned to believe whatever is put in front of us and consume. panem et circenses

Oh for the 50’s 60’s and 70’s when we “did not know what we could not do”.


I was told once that they went to the Moon!!!


Oh Dear!



Charlie

[OfficeLinebacker]

Shouldn't the fact that F1 is relevant to the idea of motoring be enough to make it relevant to everyday motoring? Motor racing doesn't necessarily need to provide solutions to specific engineering problems, but it should make engineering sexy. In the same way, like OLB hints at, that other sports make the idea of sweaty muddy man-to-man conflict sexy. Whatever the limitations of NASCAR's regulations, I think it very deliberately plays on a kind of engineering nostalgia, from when men were men, engines were carbureted, pistons were large-bore and everything was heavy. Smokey Yunick is as much a part of its outlaw-mythology as Dale Earnhardt.

For F1, designing a set of aerodynamic and downforce-generating surfaces which correspond exactly to an arcane and arbitrary set of rulebook limitations (until proven otherwise, possibly in court) doesn't have the same pull. And of course when the whole thing's locked up and top-secret you're unlikely to get any sense of technical aptitude or science at all, just a vague sense that it's going on, somewhere.

Smokey Yunick is a god.

[Lee Nicolle]

Smokey Yunick is a god.

Dont know about a god, but he made a lot of people THINK. I am one.

[Grumbles]

Motorsport technology isn't cool?

Would that mean people who hang around automotive technical forums aren't considered cool either?

Surely there must be some mistake...

[cheapracer]

‘The purpose of motorsport is to promote new technologies and put them out to the public'.

What a load of bullshit and it's this bullshit thats dragging motorsport down. It's only proposed by those who have seen that they can make squillions of dollars out of it by making it more expensive and has never been the idea of motor racing. There is literally NOTHING used on an F1 car that is used on a current road car and the current road car is light years ahead of any F1 car in technologies and has been for 20 years.

Motorsport has always about KISS, bare essential'ed, lightweight, powerful cars driven by gladiators and the further they have gone away from this the less coherent it has become to the fan.

Lets not make F1 relevant, lets get it back to what it was, a sport and Dave Richard's, STFU you evil money grabbing AH.

[gruntguru]

Personally i don`t give a crap about environment. Its going to hell anyway.

Hmm, No kids Mats?

[gruntguru]

'The purpose of motorsport is to promote new technologies and put them out to the public'.

What a load of bullshit and it's this bullshit thats dragging motorsport down. It's only proposed by those who have seen that they can make squillions of dollars out of it by making it more expensive and has never been the idea of motor racing. There is literally NOTHING used on an F1 car that is used on a current road car and the current road car is light years ahead of any F1 car in technologies and has been for 20 years.

This might be bullshit but so is the opposite stance you are taking. F1 R&D can contribute, it has done so in the past, it currently does not and will not in the future, as long as the rules continue to DISCOURAGE relevence. A reasonable shift in focus (not unlike what they are doing) to dampen the obsession with aero and increase the emphasis on fuel efficiency is exactly what F1 and the auto industry need.

There are many potentially road relevant technologies that have appeared then been supressed - even in recent years, Rotary Valves, AlBe Pistons, Sleeve valves, 2 stroke turbo, CVT etc. Any of these would have seen useful development in F1 if allowed to remain. For the future, F1 can play a useful role in developing DFI, VVT and duration, turbo compouding, KERS etc - if only the regulators, and the the spoilt-brat power-broker teams will allow it.

Almost everything on an F1 car is used on a current road car.

Edited by gruntguru, 15 January 2011 - 04:33.

[Wuzak]

I think this was about the last time motorsport was truly relevant (and important)







I don't think F1 will ever be that relevant, even if it production engines are used and developed in F1.

Relevance also has different importance to different people - it is most important to manufacturers and suppliers, slightly less to sponsors, and not much to most fans.

[Wuzak]

This might be bullshit but so is the opposite stance you are taking. F1 R&D can contribute, it has done so in the past, it currently does not and will not in the future, as long as the rules continue to DISCOURAGE relevence. A reasonable shift in focus (not unlike what they are doing) to dampen the obsession with aero and increase the emphasis on fuel efficiency is exactly what F1 and the auto industry need.

Not sure that it is actually what F1 needs...

The auto industry is doing that with and without motorsport. F1 won't help much, if at all.

There are many potentially road relevant technologies that have appeared then been supressed - even in recent years, Rotary Valves, AlBe Pistons, Sleeve valves, 2 stroke turbo, CVT etc. Any of these would have seen useful development in F1 if allowed to remain. For the future, F1 can play a useful role in developing DFI, VVT and duration, turbo compouding, KERS etc - if only the regulators, and the the spoilt-brat power-broker teams will allow it.

Many of the technologies that are being put forward for the new F1 were banned to stop a development and cost race by the engine manufacturers. These include DI, VVT, variable length exhaust, variable length intakes, rotary valves, sleeve valves, 2 strokes. AlBe pistons were banned on safty grounds, turbos were banned on cost grounds (that worked ). CVT was banned because it was a detraction to the show - even the V10 engines sound aweful when they drone around at a constant rpm.

Also, other technologies were banned because the perception that they made the driver redundant, or his job too easy - things like ABS, active ride control, traction control, launch control, 4 wheel steering.

Most technologies trailed behind production cars, and I expect they will continue to remain behind.

[cheapracer]

This might be bullshit but so is the opposite stance you are taking. F1 R&D can contribute, it has done so in the past,

Almost everything on an F1 car is used on a current road car.

What and when? What R&D has F1 ever offered to road cars?

What "almost everything on an F1 car is used on a road car" items are you refering too? Plus you have it the wrong way around, almost nothing on a road car is used on an F1 car and thats the point, racing is diametrically opposed to what makes a good road car.

[gruntguru]

What and when? What R&D has F1 ever offered to road cars?

Its sounds a bit glib to say that almost every system on every road car has benefited from motorsport (including Grand Prix racing) development over the years, but it is true. Everything from tyres and turbochargers to Electronic Fuel Injection, telemetry and composites would not be where they are without the development contributed by motorsport in general and F1 in particular.

What "almost everything on an F1 car is used on a road car" items are you refering too? Plus you have it the wrong way around, almost nothing on a road car is used on an F1 car and thats the point, racing is diametrically opposed to what makes a good road car.

Well start with tyres and work inwards and upwards through suspension, steering, chassis, fuel system,valves, pistons, exhaust and everything in between. Show me the bits that aren't used in road cars?

[gruntguru]

Many of the technologies that are being put forward for the new F1 were banned to stop a development and cost race by the engine manufacturers. These include DI, VVT, variable length exhaust, variable length intakes, rotary valves, sleeve valves, 2 strokes. AlBe pistons were banned on safty grounds, turbos were banned on cost grounds (that worked ).

Its a bit pat to quote all the official reasons given for banning various technologies. The truth is in most cases, one of the old guard thought they might have to play catch up and applied the pressure to ban the innovation. AlBe safety issue is pure BS. Have you read the article by Mario Illien?

[MattPete]

I'm with CheapRacer: motorsports should be fun. Period.

I don't want motorsports to be relevant. I don't want it to be useful. I don't want to be something I can 'relate' to (long the argument for NASCAR over prototypes or single seaters -- like I want to inspire to a Ford Taurus).

Motorsports needs to be cool. Motorsports needs to be far out. When I was a kid, I had zoomy looking cars with wings (Countach, M1, etc.) on my walls, not Priuses, Tauruses, or solar challenge racers. Race cars need to be fire-breathing rocket ships.

[Magoo]

Its sounds a bit glib to say that almost every system on every road car has benefited from motorsport (including Grand Prix racing) development over the years, but it is true. Everything from tyres and turbochargers to Electronic Fuel Injection, telemetry and composites would not be where they are without the development contributed by motorsport in general and F1 in particular.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The technology flow is invariably in the opposite direction -- from production vehicles to racing. Which makes perfect sense, as the technical resources of the OEs dwarf those of motorsports. Do racing teams have the time or budget to do basic materials research or long-look R&D? Hell, no. They can barely look one year ahead, let alone five or ten. When does a racing series go from baby steps to giant steps in technical advances? When one or more global OEs stick their big noses in. When they go away, the series goes back to sleep again. This is the history of racing since time began.

Turbos and EFI are two perfect examples. The FI system on an F1 car is laughably crude compared to the one on the bottom-feeder rent-a-car you pick up at the airport to go watch the F1 race. On the first Turbo-Offy at Indy in '66, the blower came straight off an Allis-Chalmers diesel farm tractor.

[Magoo]

Shouldn't the fact that F1 is relevant to the idea of motoring be enough to make it relevant to everyday motoring? Motor racing doesn't necessarily need to provide solutions to specific engineering problems, but it should make engineering sexy.

Engineering will never be sexy to the general public. They are drawn to the achievement, not to the engineering behind it. As an achievement, how can racing ever compete with putting a man in space? It can't. Motor racing will never again hold that place in the public psyche. The engineering is interesting to us, but we're dorks. We check out each others' mechanical pencils. The general public doesn't care about the engineering. Never did, never will.

[zac510]

Flaky and unreliable funding of teams surely doesn't help motorsport build a consistent reputation as a technological innovator. On that matter, planes aren't particularly cool either. Enthusiasts of these technologies are still anoraks to the general public.

If anything there is actually lots of variety across motorsports various genres and one can usually find technological relevance, entertainment and cheap price somewhere but rarely all in one series. Richards and Drayson are in one of the series that provides the best combination of those things at the moment.


And every time somebody uses the words "I want" and "Motorsport needs" in their post this thread ceases to be a discussion and becomes just self-serving worthless narcissistic claptrap. If something's wrong then teach us a better way rather than trying to force your ideologies.

[GrpB]

For the future, F1 can play a useful role in developing DI, VVT and duration, turbo compouding

Road cars need those technologies because they are NOT driven like race cars. They must idle smoothly, produce useable torque off idle, never see sustained high rpm use, and spend most of their time running almost entirely throttled. Those technologies are required for ADVERTISING, not actual function of the intended vehicle.

Race cars with suitable gearing only need engine output over a very narrow range of rpm, spend lots of time WOT and are maintained religiously as a matter of course. There is no significant functional technology transfer.

The idea of a dedicated VVT/DI 4 stroke SI race engine is laughable, for a race application they provide only variability and functional handicaps. Valve timing stability is bad enough with hot oil on a production VVT application at road vehicle rpm's, on a race application where crank/cam/drive torsional effect on valve timing can be significant, the idea of intentionally introducing free play/variability is ludicrous. Same with DI, high rpm combustion with well designed combustion chambers is insensitive between PFI and DI. DI only introduces significant energy input required to compress the fuel before injection. Great for low rpm, high boost combustion on a turbocharged street car, not so useful on a racecar at 3 or 4 times the roadcar's engine rpm.

BMW knows VVT and DI, they put it in sporty cars because that is what the sporty car market demands. For a true sport motorycle sold at a price premium, the S1000RR, they wanted purely function in a race-like application, and is there VVT or DI? Absolutely not. There is no legitimate transfer.

[Todd]

Why isn't motorsports cool in the UK? David Richards is one of the more charasmatic people involved, and he says things like this:
‘The purpose of motorsport is to promote new technologies and put them out to the public. It’s the processes that are really the main crossover, more so than the technology.’

If anyone was interested in what Richards was doing before reading that, they aren't now. It is a case of dullards trying to arouse interest in dullards.

[benrapp]

Fundamentally the problem is that governments, regulators and other worthless nitwits want racing to be safe. Safe and boring are synonyms. Back when we accepted that getting hurt, or dying, was part of life, and that there were lots of things it was worth risking both for, racing was cool because the men who did it were bold. Now that everything has to be wrapped in a hi-vis jacket, risk-assessed in triplicate and proven not to be harmful to baby polar bears in some assumption-laden computer model, the men who do it are tedious, worthy "athletes" who occasionally take time out from parroting sponsor PR bullshit to do something they call racing. They're no longer bold but they're selfish, and churlish, since if you know you can crash at 200mph without dying, you know the other guy can too - so why not drive him into the wall if it means the chance of a point?

[cheapracer]

Its sounds a bit glib to say that almost every system on every road car has benefited from motorsport (including Grand Prix racing) development over the years, but it is true. Everything from tyres and turbochargers to Electronic Fuel Injection, telemetry and composites would not be where they are without the development contributed by motorsport in general and F1 in particular.


Well start with tyres and work inwards and upwards through suspension, steering, chassis, fuel system,valves, pistons, exhaust and everything in between. Show me the bits that aren't used in road cars?

Not. Can't think of a single thing and if there is it would only be a couple of things at the most. Brakes, injection, turbo's etc were all well developed on road cars or other race cars well before F1, for example besides the BMW2002 Turbo road car, Renault developed their turbo's on LeMan type endurance racing years before F1.

Thats very funny. Now lets talk about active vehicle stabilizer systems, VVT's, ABS, TC, LC, DI, ASBS, twin clutch, power steering, hydraulic suspensions, disc brakes etc all found on road cars for many years well before or not at all in F1. EFI was around for years while F1 still used pump and spit.

Nearly everything found on an F1 originated from a road car and sure they have in some cases developed those items further. Other F1 items such as most of the aero's or carbon fibre - so what?

[saudoso]

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The technology flow is invariably in the opposite direction -- from production vehicles to racing. Which makes perfect sense, as the technical resources of the OEs dwarf those of motorsports. Do racing teams have the time or budget to do basic materials research or long-look R&D? Hell, no. They can barely look one year ahead, let alone five or ten. When does a racing series go from baby steps to giant steps in technical advances? When one or more global OEs stick their big noses in. When they go away, the series goes back to sleep again. This is the history of racing since time began.

Turbos and EFI are two perfect examples. The FI system on an F1 car is laughably crude compared to the one on the bottom-feeder rent-a-car you pick up at the airport to go watch the F1 race. On the first Turbo-Offy at Indy in '66, the blower came straight off an Allis-Chalmers diesel farm tractor.

Once upon a time there was a one Collin Chapman. And another called Gordin Murray.

EDIT: I mean there was room for out of the box thinking and innovation. I can't figure out whether everything was already tried by now, the rules are just damn castrating or we are just seeing a loooong intellectual low season.

Edited by saudoso, 16 January 2011 - 00:09.

[Wuzak]

Once upon a time there was a one Collin Chapman. And another called Gordin Murray.

What did they do in F1 which was not specific to racing?

[saudoso]

What did they do in F1 which was not specific to racing?

They did damn good racing. I don't give a damn about road relevance, please don't get me wrong. But even those are gone.

[Wuzak]

They did damn good racing. I don't give a damn about road relevance, please don't get me wrong. But even those are gone.

Sorry, misunderstood what you were saying.

[gruntguru]

A lot of folks talking at cross purposes here.
- Yes, nearly everything on an F1 was originally seen on a road car - so?
- DFI and PFI are indistinguishable at high RPM? Yes - that's because DFI can't operate in spray guided mode at high rpm (yet). The new rules will create a need for this technology so maybe F1 can help this happen?
- Yes, a lot of technology has transferred from road cars to race cars. I still maintain there has been a significant transfer in the other direction.
- It is BECAUSE racecars have a different purpose that they can push limits and make incremental gains that will ultimately benefit road cars. This is how it used to be! The problem now is the regulators slam the doors every time F1 developers find a promising avenue. Hell they have even FROZEN engine development!

We have always had airflow restricted formulae. There are three basic forms:

- capacity limit where development focuses on VE and engine speed

- Capacity & RPM limit. Development focuses on VE

- Physical airflow restrictor. Development focuses on achieving choked flow through the restrictor and efficiency of air utilisation.

Airflow restricted formula have seen VE pushed close to the theoretical limits. RPM rose steadily (before the imposition of limits) due largely to painstaking development and FEA with some occasional help from innovations like pneumatic springs and AlBe pistons. Of course every increase in RPM required further airflow development to maintain VE up to the higher revs. Although once road-relevant, the more recent stratospheric limits attained are increasingly less so. Today it is ridiculously easy to put unusable levels of power in any road going chassis.

The fuel-flow restricted formula will free-up (if allowed) the design/development process. This time the quest for power will have a new focus – energy efficiency.

Edited by gruntguru, 16 January 2011 - 02:18.

[GrpB]

I still maintain there has been a significant transfer in the other direction.

Well there is fact and there is faith. Of those, only one can be constructively discussed between those that have different viewpoints.

Technological development requires tremendous resources, and it is OEM's, not race teams that have those resources. For example, a high level motorsport team may have a handful of specialists that use sophisticated design/simulation software, an OEM has multi story buildings full of people using that software (and another huge building(s) with wing after wing filled with dynos for testing) And even for an 'in-house' motorsport group, access to those resources is severely restricted because of mainstream, production demands.

Something like DI is feasible in the real world (outside of resarch papers) because an OEM can spend years working on development of that technology without any need for immediate payback. I would be interested to hear the marketing pitch that would have a big name corporate sponsor eager to fund the development of a new technology on their race car that may or may not produce useful results in the coming season. If I was a race team owner, I would hire that marketing guy at any price and drop whoever else I needed to fund it, superstar driver(s) included.

On the original point, motor racing is as relevant as any of the other trivial and useless diversions that define us a human beings. This has always been true, and will be true as long as transportation sticks to the current format. Horse racing is no longer relevant on a wide scale because relatively few people can relate to riding a horse. When transportation again makes a similar shift, then motor racing will similarly lose it's relevancy.

[Wuzak]

The fuel-flow restricted formula will free-up (if allowed) the design/development process. This time the quest for power will have a new focus – energy efficiency.

Well, there are a lot of restrictions. RPM, cylinder count and layout, cylinder bore, capacity, probably boost, likely to be standard turbocharger solution to stop developments in that area, homologations and long life engines preventing any useful devlopment during a season.

So, freed up is pushing it. The design/development process would be considerably freer if the only limit was fuel flow.

[gruntguru]

Technological development requires tremendous resources, and it is OEM's, not race teams that have those resources.

Their goals are different and that is why motorsport has always pushed the envelope - not necessarily in the same direction as OEMs - but nonetheless making gains that are not necessarily irrelevant to OEM's and their products.

Something like DI is feasible in the real world (outside of resarch papers) because an OEM can spend years working on development of that technology without any need for immediate payback. I would be interested to hear the marketing pitch that would have a big name corporate sponsor eager to fund the development of a new technology on their race car that may or may not produce useful results in the coming season.

Something like DI in its current incarnation will most likely appear in F1 engines - for the part-throttle efficiency gain if nothing else. Once that happens I wager that particular envelope will be pushed, to extend spray-guided mixture preparation to higher and higher output levels.

[Ben]

Well there is fact and there is faith. Of those, only one can be constructively discussed between those that have different viewpoints.

Technological development requires tremendous resources, and it is OEM's, not race teams that have those resources. For example, a high level motorsport team may have a handful of specialists that use sophisticated design/simulation software, an OEM has multi story buildings full of people using that software (and another huge building(s) with wing after wing filled with dynos for testing) And even for an 'in-house' motorsport group, access to those resources is severely restricted because of mainstream, production demands.

Something like DI is feasible in the real world (outside of resarch papers) because an OEM can spend years working on development of that technology without any need for immediate payback. I would be interested to hear the marketing pitch that would have a big name corporate sponsor eager to fund the development of a new technology on their race car that may or may not produce useful results in the coming season. If I was a race team owner, I would hire that marketing guy at any price and drop whoever else I needed to fund it, superstar driver(s) included.

On the original point, motor racing is as relevant as any of the other trivial and useless diversions that define us a human beings. This has always been true, and will be true as long as transportation sticks to the current format. Horse racing is no longer relevant on a wide scale because relatively few people can relate to riding a horse. When transportation again makes a similar shift, then motor racing will similarly lose it's relevancy.

We need food and shelter - anything else is just a want.

If enough people want to go motor racing that makes it relevant.

The environmental arguments are fairly moot for me. If we're killing the environment by burning fossil fuel motorsport is a tiny part of this and it's facile to go "they're burning petrol for no reason - lets make them change" whilst blindly continuing to import things from thousands of miles away by plane and boat.

As for sport. A few years ago the Champions League final involved Liverpool and AC Milan and was staged in Istanbul. The crowd was >60,000. What was the carbon footprint of that one football match>

Motorsport is an easy target and we're not going to save the earth by restricting it. A genuine resource usage reduction that will have any impact of climate change is so much bigger than motorsport it's not even funny. We're going to kill the sport by trying to make it relevant, and it's frankly scary that so many people are convinced of the complete opposite.

Ben

[Todd]

Worrying about the fuel used during a race weekend is merely further evidence of the idiocy of the green movement. Far more energy is used transporting the circus from one unjust nation to the next.

[GrpB]

Motorsport is an easy target and we're not going to save the earth by restricting it. A genuine resource usage reduction that will have any impact of climate change is so much bigger than motorsport it's not even funny. We're going to kill the sport by trying to make it relevant, and it's frankly scary that so many people are convinced of the complete opposite.

Ben

Well, to be fair there is automotive related competition that could have a tremendous impact on the environment, and that is with autonomous vehicles. The potential for primarily constant speed travel, with minimal acceleration, deceleration and stopping could have a tremendous benefit for the environment by allowing a significant increase in both mechanical and aerodynamic efficiency using existing technology. But if the general public was interested in those things, they would already drive that way in their current cars, that they don't is proof that there is no interest in the benefits of autonomous technology. And so autonomous vehicle competitions have about the interest that high school robotic competitions have, which is very little outside of their small communities.

In any case 'autonomous racing' is an oxymoron, certainly wouldn't be a motor sport, and carried to it's logical end, is a procession of full scale slot cars, the great tracks altered to suit with inverted T channels run all around the track, running at whatever speeds and g's materials science will allow, wings no longer required, freed finally of their pesky, variable inducing human cargo. One weeps to even contemplate such a horror...

[gruntguru]

Worrying about the fuel used during a race weekend is merely further evidence of the idiocy of the green movement. Far more energy is used transporting the circus from one unjust nation to the next.

I prefer not to label the green movement so easily - there is a higher concentration of idiots in this forum. It is fashionable to mock the "loony tree-huggers" that lie down in front of the bulldozers, but even if their efforts are misguided, their concerns are justified and I have nothing but respect for that effort. I think a small minority of the green movement worry about the race-fuel usage and we should be trying to dispel that myth rather than pointing the finger and laughing.

We should sieze every opportunity to justify the existence of motor racing. There is no doubt in my mind that the overall effect of all motorsport over the centuries has been positive to the environment. I have said before, the tiniest improvement - spread across the worldwide consumption of fuel and emissions to the environment - would reverse all the negative contributions from motorsport. There are a number of avenues:
- Technological development however incremental, has undoubtedly benefited from Motorsport.
- Education - from thousands of weekend racers, to professional race-team members and engineering students participating in Formula SAE. Motorsport is teaching people about cars, engines, mechanical sympathy. How many of you have climbed into a friend or relative's car and said "hey - this thing needs a tune-up"?

Formula SAE is a good example of what can happen. Fuel economy is one of the criteria that scores points toward the "total" that decides the winner. I have some personal involvement in FSAE and each year I see amazing examples of "nerds" being transformed into valuable engineers through participation in motorsport.

Edited by gruntguru, 18 January 2011 - 00:19.

[J. Edlund]

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The technology flow is invariably in the opposite direction -- from production vehicles to racing. Which makes perfect sense, as the technical resources of the OEs dwarf those of motorsports. Do racing teams have the time or budget to do basic materials research or long-look R&D? Hell, no. They can barely look one year ahead, let alone five or ten. When does a racing series go from baby steps to giant steps in technical advances? When one or more global OEs stick their big noses in. When they go away, the series goes back to sleep again. This is the history of racing since time began.

Turbos and EFI are two perfect examples. The FI system on an F1 car is laughably crude compared to the one on the bottom-feeder rent-a-car you pick up at the airport to go watch the F1 race. On the first Turbo-Offy at Indy in '66, the blower came straight off an Allis-Chalmers diesel farm tractor.

F1 have actually allowed for instance basic materials research, but compared to the volume of research even a smaller car maker do, F1 research are insignificant. The research done by F1 is also often in collaboration with the car makers since they have the resources. So spending on F1 only to gain technology is hardy a cost effective, but it is a lot of fun, and it can certainly be good training for new engineers since the whole design-manufacturing-testing process is so fast.

Much of the technology used in racing is crude and simple, but a lot of attention is paid to the details in ways that wouldn't be possible in production cars due to the costs involved.

A lot of folks talking at cross purposes here.
- Yes, nearly everything on an F1 was originally seen on a road car - so?
- DFI and PFI are indistinguishable at high RPM? Yes - that's because DFI can't operate in spray guided mode at high rpm (yet). The new rules will create a need for this technology so maybe F1 can help this happen?
- Yes, a lot of technology has transferred from road cars to race cars. I still maintain there has been a significant transfer in the other direction.
- It is BECAUSE racecars have a different purpose that they can push limits and make incremental gains that will ultimately benefit road cars. This is how it used to be! The problem now is the regulators slam the doors every time F1 developers find a promising avenue. Hell they have even FROZEN engine development!

We have always had airflow restricted formulae. There are three basic forms:

- capacity limit where development focuses on VE and engine speed

- Capacity & RPM limit. Development focuses on VE

- Physical airflow restrictor. Development focuses on achieving choked flow through the restrictor and efficiency of air utilisation.

Airflow restricted formula have seen VE pushed close to the theoretical limits. RPM rose steadily (before the imposition of limits) due largely to painstaking development and FEA with some occasional help from innovations like pneumatic springs and AlBe pistons. Of course every increase in RPM required further airflow development to maintain VE up to the higher revs. Although once road-relevant, the more recent stratospheric limits attained are increasingly less so. Today it is ridiculously easy to put unusable levels of power in any road going chassis.

The fuel-flow restricted formula will free-up (if allowed) the design/development process. This time the quest for power will have a new focus – energy efficiency.

Not only can't a technology like spray guided fuel injection be used at high engine speed, but it also can't be used at high load where a racing engine spend most of its time. The whole reason this technology is used in road cars is that they, unlike racing engines, are very dependant on the efficiency at part load and low engine speed. The different needs of roadcar engines and racing engines often means the racing engine designer have to design the engine around a totally different problem than a road car engine. It have been said that a racing car engine is designed while a road car engine is developed, and I think that is one way to see it.

[gruntguru]

It have been said that a racing car engine is designed while a road car engine is developed, and I think that is one way to see it.

IC engine technology is maturing as a science, so increasingly all engines are being "designed" and optimised on the (digital) "drawing board" with little "development" required. On the other hand, history's most successful racing engines were "developed" (although admittedly pretty good off the drawing board too) eg Rolls Royce type "R" and Merlin, Cosworth DFV.

Edited by gruntguru, 18 January 2011 - 02:41.

[Ben]

Well, to be fair there is automotive related competition that could have a tremendous impact on the environment, and that is with autonomous vehicles. The potential for primarily constant speed travel, with minimal acceleration, deceleration and stopping could have a tremendous benefit for the environment by allowing a significant increase in both mechanical and aerodynamic efficiency using existing technology. But if the general public was interested in those things, they would already drive that way in their current cars, that they don't is proof that there is no interest in the benefits of autonomous technology. And so autonomous vehicle competitions have about the interest that high school robotic competitions have, which is very little outside of their small communities.

In any case 'autonomous racing' is an oxymoron, certainly wouldn't be a motor sport, and carried to it's logical end, is a procession of full scale slot cars, the great tracks altered to suit with inverted T channels run all around the track, running at whatever speeds and g's materials science will allow, wings no longer required, freed finally of their pesky, variable inducing human cargo. One weeps to even contemplate such a horror...

The Darpa challenge was fantastic, but it wasn't exciting if you weren't technically minded.

How is tennis or football "relevant" to wider society. No one talks about the composite developments transferring from tennis rackets into more mainstream items. I still maintain that the obsession with "green racing" is utterly facile and solely based on the fact that the car's themselves burn fuel and that this on a superficial basis only, is unacceptable.

If Lord Drayson, for example really believed in green issues then he'd be developing and marketing an electric or solar powered championship based domestically in the UK. What he's actually doing is toting his entire family round the USA in a massive motorhome racing an LMP1 car, which advertises a jet/rocket-powered supersonic car. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Ben

[Tony Matthews]

How is tennis or football "relevant" to wider society. No one talks about the composite developments transferring from tennis rackets into more mainstream items. I still maintain that the obsession with "green racing" is utterly facile and solely based on the fact that the car's themselves burn fuel and that this on a superficial basis only, is unacceptable.

Exactly what I have been saying.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Because it's a case of perception vs reality. Football doesn't have to demonstrate green credentials because it isn't seen to be anti-green. Cars and by extension motorsport, are. And still on the perception argument, football will never do anything to shift people's opinions on the ecological option. But hybrid race cars and more importantly a proper hybrid supercar, will do a lot to show people that the green option isn't the lower quality option.

[saudoso]

Trying to improve thermal efficiency of a car is really pointless. It's amazing people can't figure that out.

I'll say it again: You are moving 2 tons around to carry the average 90kg guy. You are using 95.5% of the energy to move the vehicle, not the payload. What can ever be green about it?

Unless we get power cells running with H2 generated with energy from solar panels I can't see a way to make it green. Even this alternative might bring it's own environmental issues.