2017 F1 car- first impressions
Discussion
But they have already sold that to GKN for a measly £8 million so that they can actually further their willy-waving in F1.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
eally? For a company within the entertainment industry I'd disagree and I'd argue it's compelling.
OK, as you picked Williams, go on and list their innovation in the industries you listed.Before you say it, I'm aware other companies offer data collection systems, however this is a real world example of F1 technology doing something not done before in that environment.
rdjohn said:
But they have already sold that to GKN for a measly £8 million so that they can actually further their willy-waving in F1.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
How does that contradict that they've benefited society? It doesn't. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
They are a business and to be sustainable you have to make money, that goes without saying! They're not a charity, but the fact is Motorsport (and thus Williams) can and do benefit society, in particular in those industries I mentioned. They are often used as consultancies for much larger firms, particularly in the automotive industry, but also firms such as Tesco consulted Williams to save energy with their fridges; of which they achieved a 17% energy reduction.
I also know that Merc F1 do all of Magdalen School's 3D printing for their DT department. Well, up until last term, that is.
Scuffers said:
OK, flywheels, yes, they did sell that to GKN, but that was for automotive use.
Flywheel based power solutions have been around for years before Williams got interested, install a few at datacentres years ago.
So if Williams donated money to a local school, it would not count as a contribution to society, because they weren't the first people to donate money?! I fail to see the logic. Flywheel based power solutions have been around for years before Williams got interested, install a few at datacentres years ago.
SpeedMattersNot said:
o if Williams donated money to a local school, it would not count as a contribution to society, because they weren't the first people to donate money?! I fail to see the logic.
so, if company X invented something and patented it, then an F1 company happen to do something similar, they now invented it did they?Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
o if Williams donated money to a local school, it would not count as a contribution to society, because they weren't the first people to donate money?! I fail to see the logic.
so, if company X invented something and patented it, then an F1 company happen to do something similar, they now invented it did they?You were trying to discredit the fact Williams had implemented flywheel energy storage devices to remote areas, by stating that they're not the first to do it. I argued that this does not discredit the fact they had still benefited society...
SpeedMattersNot said:
bsolutely not.
You were trying to discredit the fact Williams had implemented flywheel energy storage devices to remote areas, by stating that they're not the first to do it. I argued that this does not discredit the fact they had still benefited society...
that's not what they developed it for.You were trying to discredit the fact Williams had implemented flywheel energy storage devices to remote areas, by stating that they're not the first to do it. I argued that this does not discredit the fact they had still benefited society...
they developed a lightweight system for automotive use, never panned out for F1 but was used in GT/ALMS and later on hybrid busses.
It's not the same system used on power systems.
Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
bsolutely not.
You were trying to discredit the fact Williams had implemented flywheel energy storage devices to remote areas, by stating that they're not the first to do it. I argued that this does not discredit the fact they had still benefited society...
that's not what they developed it for.You were trying to discredit the fact Williams had implemented flywheel energy storage devices to remote areas, by stating that they're not the first to do it. I argued that this does not discredit the fact they had still benefited society...
they developed a lightweight system for automotive use, never panned out for F1 but was used in GT/ALMS and later on hybrid busses.
It's not the same system used on power systems.
"The Isle of Eigg and Fair Isle will be the first sites in Europe to install Formula One-inspired composite flywheel energy storage technology into their power networks as part of a project with Williams Advanced Engineering, the division that commercialises Formula One derived technologies".
The technology is entirely transferable and as a consultancy firm, Williams and thus Motorsport have made a contribution to society. I don't know how much longer you want to avoid accepting this fact.
I know its a case of 'oh things were better in the old days' .... but I honestly believe F1 needs to think this radically, I was watching some videos of 1960's F1 last night and to see the best drivers of that era balancing and drifting the cars at huge speeds, you can really appreciate the skill and control, something which is quite difficult in modern F1 especially for the casual observer.
The thing is that today we have the technology to make cars like these safe, of course there would need to be concessions to safety around the cockpit and you could allow downforce that doesn't leave a massive disruptive wake (ie. no wings), maybe some ground effect, but again limit it so the cars can be balanced by the drivers. This would allow hard close racing.
Regarding engine regs I'd keep it simple, here's 100 litres of fuel to do the race with, come up with whatever you like to make it last. The difficulty here would be to keep costs down so I would also cap the cost of customer units (the availability of which would be mandatory) at €100,000 per unit or a similarly low figure. And enforce a budget restriction for engine development of €1 million. Making F1 more affordable to all teams and innovative. The exact amounts in the budgets and how exactly you can track them I would leave open to negotiation. But you get the idea.
I would enforce steel brakes and manual gearchanges to make it more of a challenge to the drivers and increase the possibilities to overtake (or make a mistake) without doing so in an artificial way, DRS or KERS for example.
Slick tyres, but as sticky as possible while being able to take a hammering for 2 hours, pit stops and refueling would be optional but refueling should be done with a maximum fuel flow rate of 5 litres per second.
I know that this is all very out there and that F1 should be the pinnacle of what is possible, but we've always had rules to control it, I just think those rules have taken the sport in the wrong direction for a long time. Would anyone seriously object if F1 became a modern interpretation of cars like the one below again?
I'm aware that what I've written above is just a brain dump and probably full of holes but I challenge anyone who disagrees, rather than knocking my concept for F1, think of how you would enhance it, just imagine an innovative, exciting, cost effective sport, the fans would come back in their droves and so would the teams.
I just think we ignore the lessons of the past at our peril.
The thing is that today we have the technology to make cars like these safe, of course there would need to be concessions to safety around the cockpit and you could allow downforce that doesn't leave a massive disruptive wake (ie. no wings), maybe some ground effect, but again limit it so the cars can be balanced by the drivers. This would allow hard close racing.
Regarding engine regs I'd keep it simple, here's 100 litres of fuel to do the race with, come up with whatever you like to make it last. The difficulty here would be to keep costs down so I would also cap the cost of customer units (the availability of which would be mandatory) at €100,000 per unit or a similarly low figure. And enforce a budget restriction for engine development of €1 million. Making F1 more affordable to all teams and innovative. The exact amounts in the budgets and how exactly you can track them I would leave open to negotiation. But you get the idea.
I would enforce steel brakes and manual gearchanges to make it more of a challenge to the drivers and increase the possibilities to overtake (or make a mistake) without doing so in an artificial way, DRS or KERS for example.
Slick tyres, but as sticky as possible while being able to take a hammering for 2 hours, pit stops and refueling would be optional but refueling should be done with a maximum fuel flow rate of 5 litres per second.
I know that this is all very out there and that F1 should be the pinnacle of what is possible, but we've always had rules to control it, I just think those rules have taken the sport in the wrong direction for a long time. Would anyone seriously object if F1 became a modern interpretation of cars like the one below again?
I'm aware that what I've written above is just a brain dump and probably full of holes but I challenge anyone who disagrees, rather than knocking my concept for F1, think of how you would enhance it, just imagine an innovative, exciting, cost effective sport, the fans would come back in their droves and so would the teams.
I just think we ignore the lessons of the past at our peril.
Edited by patmahe on Friday 8th January 09:11
patmahe said:
I know its a case of 'oh things were better in the old days' .... but I honestly believe F1 needs to think this radically, I was watching some videos of 1960's F1 last night and to see the best drivers of that era balancing and drifting the cars at huge speeds, you can really appreciate the skill and control, something which is quite difficult in modern F1 especially for the casual observer.
The thing is that today we have the technology to make cars like these safe, of course there would need to be concessions to safety around the cockpit and you could allow downforce that doesn't leave a massive disruptive wake (ie. no wings), maybe some ground effect, but again limit it so the cars can be balanced by the drivers. This would allow hard close racing.
Regarding engine regs I'd keep it simple, here's 100 litres of fuel to do the race with, come up with whatever you like to make it last. The difficulty here would be to keep costs down so I would also cap the cost of customer units (the availability of which would be mandatory) at €100,000 per unit or a similarly low figure. And enforce a budget restriction for engine development of €1 million. Making F1 more affordable to all teams and innovative. The exact amounts in the budgets and how exactly you can track them I would leave open to negotiation. But you get the idea.
I would enforce steel brakes and manual gearchanges to make it more of a challenge to the drivers and increase the possibilities to overtake (or make a mistake) without doing so in an artificial way, DRS or KERS for example.
Slick tyres, but as sticky as possible while being able to take a hammering for 2 hours, pit stops and refueling would be optional but refueling should be done with a maximum fuel flow rate of 5 litres per second.
I know that this is all very out there and that F1 should be the pinnacle of what is possible, but we've always had rules to control it, I just think those rules have taken the sport in the wrong direction for a long time. Would anyone seriously object if F1 became a modern interpretation of cars like the one below again?
I'm aware that what I've written above is just a brain dump and probably full of holes but I challenge anyone who disagrees, rather than knocking my concept for F1, think of how you would enhance it, just imagine an innovative, exciting, cost effective sport, the fans would come back in their droves and so would the teams.
I just think we ignore the lessons of the past at our peril.
Firstly, I think your type of post is quite common on here and amongst a significant number of F1 fans in general. The thing is that today we have the technology to make cars like these safe, of course there would need to be concessions to safety around the cockpit and you could allow downforce that doesn't leave a massive disruptive wake (ie. no wings), maybe some ground effect, but again limit it so the cars can be balanced by the drivers. This would allow hard close racing.
Regarding engine regs I'd keep it simple, here's 100 litres of fuel to do the race with, come up with whatever you like to make it last. The difficulty here would be to keep costs down so I would also cap the cost of customer units (the availability of which would be mandatory) at €100,000 per unit or a similarly low figure. And enforce a budget restriction for engine development of €1 million. Making F1 more affordable to all teams and innovative. The exact amounts in the budgets and how exactly you can track them I would leave open to negotiation. But you get the idea.
I would enforce steel brakes and manual gearchanges to make it more of a challenge to the drivers and increase the possibilities to overtake (or make a mistake) without doing so in an artificial way, DRS or KERS for example.
Slick tyres, but as sticky as possible while being able to take a hammering for 2 hours, pit stops and refueling would be optional but refueling should be done with a maximum fuel flow rate of 5 litres per second.
I know that this is all very out there and that F1 should be the pinnacle of what is possible, but we've always had rules to control it, I just think those rules have taken the sport in the wrong direction for a long time. Would anyone seriously object if F1 became a modern interpretation of cars like the one below again?
I'm aware that what I've written above is just a brain dump and probably full of holes but I challenge anyone who disagrees, rather than knocking my concept for F1, think of how you would enhance it, just imagine an innovative, exciting, cost effective sport, the fans would come back in their droves and so would the teams.
I just think we ignore the lessons of the past at our peril.
I agree with your first paragraph, to the untrained eye modern F1's do just look as though they are being delicately driven around a circuit and that's all there is to it. In the 1960's, as you say, it was visibly challenging. But doesn't the footage of the early 1900's make you reconsider this? The cars back then looked visibly impossible to drive. Is that necessarily a good thing? Does it improve the spectacle?
Regarding the balance being determined by the drivers, I find this a fascinating opinion of yours. We recently had a lecture about how drivers (humans!) generally can't react faster than 5 Hz. Older F1's used to have a yaw rate of around 1 Hz whereas now the engineers threshold is that of the humans ability. I believe you're discussing the controllability of the cars. The slower the yaw rate in frequency, the easier to control the car is. Do you really want the cars to be easier to drive? Seems to counteract your opening statement.
As per the fuel usage, what is your thinking behind this? You state what you want, but what do you think it will really improve or add to the sport? It is unclear whether you think there should be a bigger, or smaller gap between engine developers.
Do you have any justification for deciding to revert back to steel brakes and manual gear shifting? Does this actually make driving a car more challenging? In my opinion, this is counter productive. Some of the best racing I've seen doesn't involve gear changes and actually, the braking is incredibly efficient.
A modern interpretation of your image would be a Caterham. If you want to watch boringly slow cars drive around with no grip, awful brakes which break down all the time and would be slower than a well balanced sport car, just go and watch the Caterham series. I think you just need to accept F1 for what it is. It is a brilliant sport and if having something slower is the recipe, why isn't GP2 the primary source of Motorsport entertainment ?
I just think F1 needs to change its race format. In my opinion, the race format of the GP2 and GP3, of a sprint race and an 'endurance' race is perfect. WEC is taking over from the endurance factor so F1 should go towards more of a sprint race...if anything, it should be 2 sprint races! That's all we need...
SpeedMattersNot said:
A modern interpretation of your image would be a Caterham. If you want to watch boringly slow cars drive around with no grip, awful brakes which break down all the time and would be slower than a well balanced sport car, just go and watch the Caterham series. I think you just need to accept F1 for what it is. It is a brilliant sport and if having something slower is the recipe, why isn't GP2 the primary source of Motorsport entertainment ?
not a massive Caterham fan, but quite simply, your assertion above is just b0ll0cks.not only are they one of the fastest club race championship, they also offer some of the closest racing there is.
outside of mega-bucks GT, show me the 'sportscar' championships that are faster (and no, I don't include Radicals as sportscars).
I am a HUGE Caterham fan (as I own one) but NOT a massive fan of Caterham racing. The cars are aerodynamic bricks and (depending on the class of course) all fitted with similar engines, brakes etc - so very, very closely matched. Whilst this does result in close racing, it also results in perhaps TOO MUCH slipstreamimg and overtaking.
F1 in the 60s allowed a massive variety of engines and, to a limited degree, a variety in shapes. So it allowed SOME slipstreaming. But the best drivers and cars did prevail - which is as it should be.
So, the idea of a modern and safer interpretation of a 60s Grand Prix car is not that bad an idea - I even suggested it further up the thread myself.
However. the cars would be visibly slower than they are today and many other race series would be faster - which is not something the [powers that be in F1 would want.
F1 in the 60s allowed a massive variety of engines and, to a limited degree, a variety in shapes. So it allowed SOME slipstreaming. But the best drivers and cars did prevail - which is as it should be.
So, the idea of a modern and safer interpretation of a 60s Grand Prix car is not that bad an idea - I even suggested it further up the thread myself.
However. the cars would be visibly slower than they are today and many other race series would be faster - which is not something the [powers that be in F1 would want.
Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
A modern interpretation of your image would be a Caterham. If you want to watch boringly slow cars drive around with no grip, awful brakes which break down all the time and would be slower than a well balanced sport car, just go and watch the Caterham series. I think you just need to accept F1 for what it is. It is a brilliant sport and if having something slower is the recipe, why isn't GP2 the primary source of Motorsport entertainment ?
not a massive Caterham fan, but quite simply, your assertion above is just b0ll0cks.not only are they one of the fastest club race championship, they also offer some of the closest racing there is.
outside of mega-bucks GT, show me the 'sportscar' championships that are faster (and no, I don't include Radicals as sportscars).
Castle Combe
Caterham SuperSport 2015 - 1:15.3
Nissan GTR - 1:14.6
All classes from the Castle Combe GT series were also quicker (1:09-1:13)
Nurburgring
Caterham R500 - 7:55
Renault Megane - 7:54.36
Nissan GTR Nismo - 7:08.68
Brands Hatch Indy
Mini Cooper S (Time Attack 2015) - 54.227
Caterham SuperSport 2015 - 53.370
Slowest BTCC qualifier 2015 - 52.665
Formula Vee - 51.98
Clio Cup 2015 - 51.885
How much longer would you like me to spend? As you can see, even a well sorted hot-hatch can compete on the short, narrow, tight and twisty Brands Indy circuit.
If you want to drag F1's back to the stone age, just go and watch something slow already, like I said; the Caterham series or perhaps Formula Vee.
Hope this helps.
Edited by SpeedMattersNot on Sunday 10th January 12:11
I was given a very nice DVD for Christmas which is a review of various motor racing years starting in 1960. It includes the major motor sport of events of the year, not just World Championship F1 but non-championship F1 races, Le Mans, the Targa Florio, Monte Carlo rally etc.
The footage from the early years is mainly newsreel/film footage but now and then they have included actual video tape recordings of the TV coverage.
One clip really stood out. It was the 1963 German Grand Prix from the Nurburgring. It was an excellent quality TV/video recording in excellent definition. I guess it was an early 625 line broadcast by teh national West german TV service at the time. It was black and white, of course.
What REALLY stood out was how SLOW the cars were. They may have looked nice and sounded quite good but they really were not very fast or dramatic to watch.
In fact, here it is on youtube. Have a look for yourselves -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjZLIfavJ-w
The footage from the early years is mainly newsreel/film footage but now and then they have included actual video tape recordings of the TV coverage.
One clip really stood out. It was the 1963 German Grand Prix from the Nurburgring. It was an excellent quality TV/video recording in excellent definition. I guess it was an early 625 line broadcast by teh national West german TV service at the time. It was black and white, of course.
What REALLY stood out was how SLOW the cars were. They may have looked nice and sounded quite good but they really were not very fast or dramatic to watch.
In fact, here it is on youtube. Have a look for yourselves -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjZLIfavJ-w
SpeedMattersNot said:
ery well,
Castle Combe
Caterham SuperSport 2015 - 1:15.3
Nissan GTR - 1:14.6
All classes from the Castle Combe GT series were also quicker (1:09-1:13)
Nurburgring
Caterham R500 - 7:55
Renault Megane - 7:54.36
Nissan GTR Nismo - 7:08.68
Brands Hatch Indy
Mini Cooper S (Time Attack 2015) - 54.227
Caterham SuperSport 2015 - 53.370
Slowest BTCC qualifier 2015 - 52.665
Formula Vee - 51.98
Clio Cup 2015 - 51.885
How much longer would you like me to spend? As you can see, even a well sorted hot-hatch can compete on the short, narrow, tight and twisty Brands Indy circuit.
If you want to drag F1's back to the stone age, just go and watch something slow already, like I said; the Caterham series or perhaps Formula Vee.
Hope this helps.
try harder, stick to R500 times, and stop being selective about drivers and dates.Castle Combe
Caterham SuperSport 2015 - 1:15.3
Nissan GTR - 1:14.6
All classes from the Castle Combe GT series were also quicker (1:09-1:13)
Nurburgring
Caterham R500 - 7:55
Renault Megane - 7:54.36
Nissan GTR Nismo - 7:08.68
Brands Hatch Indy
Mini Cooper S (Time Attack 2015) - 54.227
Caterham SuperSport 2015 - 53.370
Slowest BTCC qualifier 2015 - 52.665
Formula Vee - 51.98
Clio Cup 2015 - 51.885
How much longer would you like me to spend? As you can see, even a well sorted hot-hatch can compete on the short, narrow, tight and twisty Brands Indy circuit.
If you want to drag F1's back to the stone age, just go and watch something slow already, like I said; the Caterham series or perhaps Formula Vee.
Hope this helps.
for example, BHI, back in 2004 R400's were doing 49's (Luc PAILLARD Caterham R400 49.609 - BRSCC - 9th/10th October - Brands Hatch - 2004)
then consider that at the tie, the R500 was the fastest Caterham.
Just because a quick google does not point you at the timesheets does not mean they never happened.
Scuffers said:
try harder, stick to R500 times, and stop being selective about drivers and dates.
for example, BHI, back in 2004 R400's were doing 49's (Luc PAILLARD Caterham R400 49.609 - BRSCC - 9th/10th October - Brands Hatch - 2004)
then consider that at the tie, the R500 was the fastest Caterham.
Just because a quick google does not point you at the timesheets does not mean they never happened.
How is choosing the last and most current year (2015) being selective ? If I was being selective, I'd have gone back twelve years and picked one...like you have done! for example, BHI, back in 2004 R400's were doing 49's (Luc PAILLARD Caterham R400 49.609 - BRSCC - 9th/10th October - Brands Hatch - 2004)
then consider that at the tie, the R500 was the fastest Caterham.
Just because a quick google does not point you at the timesheets does not mean they never happened.
All you've pointed out is that the Caterham Championship used to be faster.
Another relevant example is from Brands Hatch GP circuit.
Caterham Superlight R300 Pole time - 1:40.947
Mini Challenge Pole time - 1:40.258
Mini Challenge Cooper Pole time - 1:34.783
Yes there are faster examples of the Caterham but that comparison is a Mini
Once again, you asked me;
Scuffers said:
outside of mega-bucks GT, show me the 'sportscar' championships that are faster (and no, I don't include Radicals as sportscars).
I've done that.Edited by SpeedMattersNot on Sunday 10th January 14:33
SpeedMattersNot said:
I've done that.
no, you have just been lazy and assumed the current Caterham championships are the peak of what a Caterham can achieve.TSL is your oyster, go look for yourself.
There are plenty of open championships where R500's have quite simply dominated them in the same way a Radical does.
your dreaming if you think a (BMW) Mini can live with a Caterham, especially somewhere like BHI.
Hell, in their day, even the TVR Tuscan's were hard pushed at some ccts to top their times.
Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I've done that.
no, you have just been lazy and assumed the current Caterham championships are the peak of what a Caterham can achieve.Anyway, you claimed earlier that the R500 was quicker than the R400 lap from BHI in 2004 at the time but it was first built in 2008...it appears you need to go and brush up on your history of the marque, not I.
Scuffers said:
TSL is your oyster, go look for yourself.
There are plenty of open championships where R500's have quite simply dominated them in the same way a Radical does.
your dreaming if you think a (BMW) Mini can live with a Caterham, especially somewhere like BHI.
Hell, in their day, even the TVR Tuscan's were hard pushed at some ccts to top their times.
I originally said this;There are plenty of open championships where R500's have quite simply dominated them in the same way a Radical does.
your dreaming if you think a (BMW) Mini can live with a Caterham, especially somewhere like BHI.
Hell, in their day, even the TVR Tuscan's were hard pushed at some ccts to top their times.
SpeedMattersNot said:
A modern interpretation of your image would be a Caterham. If you want to watch boringly slow cars drive around with no grip, awful brakes which break down all the time and would be slower than a well balanced sport car, just go and watch the Caterham series. I think you just need to accept F1 for what it is. It is a brilliant sport and if having something slower is the recipe, why isn't GP2 the primary source of Motorsport entertainment ?
Do you have a time machine we can all use to go and watch the Caterham series in the past? Do you not understand that an open championship, is not the Caterham series. Like with the earlier debate about how Motorsport has benefited society, you have been making up your own argument as if that's what we're both discussing. On top of this, you claimed I couldn't even find 'mega-bucks GT series' nor Radicals. Therefore I didn't and I still found several cars that were faster last year than the Caterham series.
Deal with it.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff