RE: No predictability in 2014 F1

[Ed Straker]

virgilio said:

Your post is absolutely right. But you don't seem to consider etc....

I think you miss his point.
It's the turbo-charging and KERS that have other suppliers interested. It has some resonance to current R&D.
I wouldn't bet against a Honda powered McLaren myself.

The elephant in the room here is that F1 is too safe, and the drivers too corporate. (That's why peeps love Kimi so much)

And what the hell is going on with Lewis? Does Nicole keep his balls in her handbag these days? "It's all my fault - I was just too slow" What the hell kind of Racing Driver excuse is that?!

[Monkeylegend]

Ed Straker said:

The elephant in the room here is that F1 is too safe, and the drivers too corporate. (That's why peeps love Kimi so much)

That and the problems that still persist with team orders.

[the-photographer]

GroundEffect said:

shoestring7 said:

GroundEffect said:

Here is one of the best previews as to how they will sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmKJ5MhDh8

Not quite what we have today, but sound good enough.

For reference, that 1988 car has a 1.5 Honda V6 Twin-Turbo limited to 2.5bar, producing 675BHP - 2014 engines will produce around 600BHP from their single turbo units and with single exhaust outlet they will sound a bit higher pitched.

Edited by GroundEffect on Monday 4th November 14:48

Thanks. Its been tough reading posts from 12 year old stating that a 1600 turbo F1 is certain to be crap when you can remember 1500cc 4 bangers pumping out 1500bhp and sounding like the hounds of hell (before the bores went oval and they blew up 10 miles later).

SS7

Edited by shoestring7 on Monday 4th November 21:02

1500BHP? These things seem to gain BHP every year since they were retired! The only reliable numbers I have is 1050PS for the 1987 Honda engine at 4 bar. You could extrapolate that to just over 1100BHP at 5bar in qualifying.

[virgilio]

Ed Straker said:

I think you miss his point.
It's the turbo-charging and KERS that have other suppliers interested. It has some resonance to current R&D.
I wouldn't bet against a Honda powered McLaren myself.

Apologies as my post was unclear: I wanted to say that big manufacturers won't be attracted by the new rules anymore than they were attracted by the old rules, as both sets of rules stifle all sort of technical innovation, so no manufacturer will be able to boast its R&D credentials (or improve its capabilities indeed) by winning in F1.

The question is whether we want fun races (and to be honest in 2012 we had plenty of them)or whether we want F1 to be the pinnacle of race technology with some boring races (like it was between say 1982 and 1994). I am all in favour of the second, but I doubt Bernie will swap merchandise buying fanboys with stingy geeks like me... The cost excuse is irrelevant in my view: budgets did not decrease from the early 1990s (when most cutting-edge tech was allowed). It's just that teams spend their R&D money on studying the shape of a front wing and the effect of a 0.2mm ride height, rather than on developing amazing and effecient powerplants / gearboxes / suspension systems and so on...

[shoestring7]

GroundEffect said:

Justaredbadge said:

GroundEffect said:

1500BHP? These things seem to gain BHP every year since they were retired! The only reliable numbers I have is 1050PS for the 1987 Honda engine at 4 bar. You could extrapolate that to just over 1100BHP at 5bar in qualifying.

None of the.engine manufacturers back then had a dyno that went above 1100hp. They could max it out and guess the power curve and estimate peak power, but they couldn't be exact about it.

This was an engine redone in the last 10 years on a dyno. Not at the time. And it's pretty easy to calculate actual power without using a dyno, assuming you have enough engine data.

CraigyMc said:

GroundEffect said:

shoestring7 said:

GroundEffect said:

Here is one of the best previews as to how they will sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmKJ5MhDh8

Not quite what we have today, but sound good enough.

For reference, that 1988 car has a 1.5 Honda V6 Twin-Turbo limited to 2.5bar, producing 675BHP - 2014 engines will produce around 600BHP from their single turbo units and with single exhaust outlet they will sound a bit higher pitched.

Edited by GroundEffect on Monday 4th November 14:48

Thanks. Its been tough reading posts from 12 year old stating that a 1600 turbo F1 is certain to be crap when you can remember 1500cc 4 bangers pumping out 1500bhp and sounding like the hounds of hell (before the bores went oval and they blew up 10 miles later).

SS7

Edited by shoestring7 on Monday 4th November 21:02

1500BHP? These things seem to gain BHP every year since they were retired! The only reliable numbers I have is 1050PS for the 1987 Honda engine at 4 bar. You could extrapolate that to just over 1100BHP at 5bar in qualifying.

The images I posted a while back (you know, the one with 1350bhp on the factsheet) were from BMWs stand at the Festival of Speed in 2003.

Wouldn't be the first engine manufacturer to bend the truth a little I know the BMW produced the greatest amount of power but 200BHP more than the Honda? Doubt it.

You're right of course. Rather than trust figures from a manufacturer or a dyno I'd always prefer the ravings of some bloke on the internet.

SS7
i

[Evo]

750turbo said:

What we need is...

3500cc

Whatever configuration sounds the best...

Turbos...

Superchargers...

4 Wheel drive maybe???

Oh, and sideskirts!

You missed off bumper rails all the way round

[TWPC]

TB Rich said:

Absolutely agree. I've been saying this for years, the high turbulent air issue is what has really killed the close racing and everything they have introduced like DRS, KERS and silly engineered tyre degradation doesn't solve this fundamental problem. Most of the overtaking now happens in the pit window trying to get a jump - that's not racing Bernie!!

Ditch the conventional aero they have now and re-introduce ground effects aero. This means we can still have the levels of speed maintained but I understand doesn't cause anywhere near the levels of turbulent air behind the car. If at all possible introduce a cap on that amount of down force KG.

To ditch all forms of high down force wouldn't wash with the masses I feel.

Do you think the masses would miss high down force if the end result was more slip streaming, less grip in the corners, longer braking distances, more instability & more opportunities for overtaking? Unfortunately you could well be right, though I would hope not.

[Schermerhorn]

F1GTRUeno said:

Surely if it requires such amazingly complex thinking then RB are just going to be even further ahead due to the genius of Newey?

Red Bull have suffered from packaging issues related to the KERS system for the last few years. When they lead from the front they don't have to worry about this; clear track, pick your line and run away with it. IF they get stuck behind another car their performance suffers (ala Webber and his poor starts). This is why Vettel is so good - he is a front runner.

I'm not sure all these rules will suit Red Bull next year; the 'tighter' the package ethos suits Newey's design philosophy but add all these ancillaries; turbos, KERS, etc and there could be a major shake up next season.

[Dion20vt]

Yes Yes Yes leave me alone I Know what I'm doing!

[skyrover]

... Boring

[jazzyjeff]

dingocooke said:

It doesn't matter how many gimmicks you throw at F1, it gets less exciting; and every time you introduce something like KERS, it becomes more difficult for a casual spectator to understand; F1 needs new fans, this won't help IMHO.

What?

My mum understands KERS and she's 69 and doesn't understand how to work the DVD recorder

[j90gta]

[quote=shoestring7]

Thanks. Its been tough reading posts from 12 year old stating that a 1600 turbo F1 is certain to be crap when you can remember 1500cc 4 bangers pumping out 1500bhp and sounding like the hounds of hell (before the bores went oval and they blew up 10 miles later).

SS7

In the early 80's they used to have qualifying engines that self destructed after about 5 laps. These were the ones that allegedly put out about 1500 bhp. Racing engines were somewhat less powerful. The BMW blocks were the same as those used in 1502 road cars. They used to leave the blocks out in the rain to "season" them and apparently they went even better if someone actuall pi**ed on them! Back in the day it was exciting stuff with no predictability and no-one would run away with the championship.

[Hellbound]

Evo said:

750turbo said:

What we need is...

3500cc

Whatever configuration sounds the best...

Turbos...

Superchargers...

4 Wheel drive maybe???

Oh, and sideskirts!

You missed off bumper rails all the way round

And a section of the track that has to be done going backwards. Also parallel parking, and a pond...for you to walk your dog round. Yes, each car will need space for a dog.

[Agent Orange]

2014 regulation changes mean no predictability in F1?

Yep the changes may mean a few reliability issues next year which might mean from race to race the results are unpredictable but despite being an ardent fan who will defend F1 at all times I doubt much will change beyond that.

Red Bull adapts to rule changes better than any other team and will still come out top come the end of the season. Vettel with no serious team mate to take points from him and the only driver with a clear number one status will still win WDC.

But it’s the technology that is fascinating with F1. Personally I get as much from Gary Anderson discussing technical issues and his spreadsheet analysis as I do from Button hunting down Vettel in Canada or Kobayashi stuffing it up the inside approaching the hairpin at Suzuka. Therefore 2014 should be brilliant to watch and follow.

[DonkeyApple]

Is there a good reason why the regs determine what design the engine should be?

Would it not widen the interest if the outputs and a few other key variable were set but that things like capacity and configuaration were completely open?

Ergo if one manufacturer wanted to use a four pot, 1L turbo they could and if another wanted to use a V8 they were free to do so?

Surely then different designs would favour different circuits as well as different manufacturers corporate objectives?

[TB Rich]

TWPC said:

TB Rich said:

Absolutely agree. I've been saying this for years, the high turbulent air issue is what has really killed the close racing and everything they have introduced like DRS, KERS and silly engineered tyre degradation doesn't solve this fundamental problem. Most of the overtaking now happens in the pit window trying to get a jump - that's not racing Bernie!!

Ditch the conventional aero they have now and re-introduce ground effects aero. This means we can still have the levels of speed maintained but I understand doesn't cause anywhere near the levels of turbulent air behind the car. If at all possible introduce a cap on that amount of down force KG.

To ditch all forms of high down force wouldn't wash with the masses I feel.

Do you think the masses would miss high down force if the end result was more slip streaming, less grip in the corners, longer braking distances, more instability & more opportunities for overtaking? Unfortunately you could well be right, though I would hope not.

Who knows really, I think anyone discussing F1 on a forum is probably a minority and I have worked with 'regular' guys who loved F1 simply because it was the pinnacle of technology and the cars were so fast.

I expect most would agree F1 has become stale and boring, certainly with respect to genuine close racing. Yet how many would watch say Formula Ford were it televised, a fraction I would imagine. And motorsport soon becomes nothing without an avid TV following to drive the sponsorship programmes etc.

So, trying to strike a balance to retain the speed/technology (the R&D point made earlier to attract manufactures is probably vital), but, as long as it doesn't compromise the very core appeal (to me), which would be very close racing with a considerable emphasis on the driver rather than machine. These artificial means (DRS,KERS,tyre deg) currently employed are a joke really.

[skyrover]

why not simply ban Aero?

It would certainly bring back some of the emphasis on driver ability IMO

[redwedge]

Ed Straker said:

The elephant in the room here is that F1 is too safe, and the drivers too corporate. (That's why peeps love Kimi so much)

This. I don't want to see them all slapping eachother on the back before the podium, then heading off for a nice round of golf with eachother.

[reAnimate]

It's going to take a cycle or two, but market forces will eventually prevail.

One of the reasons we went with sky was to get f1 coverage. Now I find f1 dull, I've gone to BT who cover MotoGP.

When enough people move away there is only one solution - change.

[Wills2]

I'm a recent convert to moto GP it's great to watch lots of skill, bravery and balls on show plus the feeling a few of the top racers don't like each other and will give no quarter on the track.

F1 is so dull now but I still watch a few races the build up and tech stuff is more interesting than the race, hopefuly they can get back to providing seasons like 2008 which was epic right to the last corner of the last lap on the last race.