RE: No predictability in 2014 F1
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
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?
Just money isn't it? If one design turned out to be much better, and it would, then all the money invested by the others would be wasted and they'd all end up running the same anyway. The best way to get genuine efficiency innovation out would be to set the amount of fuel per race and leave everything else engine and KERS related free. It's cost a sWould 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?
t load though and probably still not be at all applicable to road cars.skyrover said:
why not simply ban Aero?
The only way to absolutely do that is to run the cars in a vacuum. If there's a fluid for them to run in, the designers will optimise around it.The alternative is non-absolute, and involves setting regulations to avoid permitting downforce -- in other words, the current regulations.
virgilio said:
Your post is absolutely right. But you don't seem to consider the fact hat even the low capacity V6s planned for next year are pointless in terms of engineering and R&D. After all they are basically standardised (just like the current V8s) with very limited creative potential. Their performance is nothing more than average (turbo engines reached the level of efficiency planned for 2014 already 25-30 years ago - see my previous posts on 1980s F1 and Group C engines)and the scope for innovation to come out of them is just nil. Add the fact that even the Kers systems are pretty standard and you can come to the conclusion that a road going supercar is more of a technological challenge that the posh nascar F1 has become...
You're still comparing powertrains that are stuffed into non-comparable cars. Put a modern engine into an older, less draggy car and then compare. Drag increases with the square of speed - it has a monumental effect on fuel consumption. Modern Formula cars sacrifice a modicum of drag (due to lack of allowable ground effect) for downforce. Wasn't the case when ground effect was allowed which is far less draggy than any kind of over-body aero you can care to imagine.
I can't fathom how you genuinely think there has been no progress in powertrain in 25 years. Seriously? Look at any passenger car with a similar powertrain to what it had 25 years ago and despite a vast increase in weight and size, it will be as fuel efficient or more than the equivalent product from that time period.
Edited by zeppelin101 on Tuesday 5th November 12:27
Edited by zeppelin101 on Tuesday 5th November 12:28
hairykrishna said:
skyrover said:
why not simply ban Aero?
Define banning aero. Even the car in your pic is streamlined, as best they knew how, to reduce drag.Do we want a formula where they all have to have identically shaped cars, running slower than the lower formulas?
Digga said:
hairykrishna said:
skyrover said:
why not simply ban Aero?
Define banning aero. Even the car in your pic is streamlined, as best they knew how, to reduce drag.Do we want a formula where they all have to have identically shaped cars, running slower than the lower formulas?
Gus265 said:
I sincerely hope this is correct - 3 seconds after the start of the race yesterday, I was totally depressed. Again.
This is the part where every F1 pundit tries to convince us REDBULL will not dominate next year, but in reality the engines have been howling away testing hours on the bench for months, all Redbull need to do is attached it to their new car which they make with consummate consistency every year. Until the management structure changes and launches REDBULL into a transitional phase that's how its going to be. Merc may mount a challenge if they let Braun stay, Ferrari should stop just thinking they deserve it and do something about it, and McLaren should really move Martin on because frankly he is not driving them forward, the only genuine contenders who look like they have the skills is Eric and his Lotus just what would he achieve with more funds...HarryFlatters said:
BBS-LM said:
Anything is better then the last 2 years
I think you might have been watching a different program during 2012... it was a fabulous season, Vettel won by 3 points. It was hardly a dominant performance, apart from the four races from Singapore to India.
Ed Straker said:
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?!
Yes! I know this might be a corporate line, but if he even believes this 1% then he's lost the desire to race. 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.
Next year's F1 and R&D don't mix. The turbos they are using are very basic, compounding like that has been done for years on heavy duty stuff, No variable geometry or fancy air recovery plus the engines are frozen until 2020. WEC is much more appealing as the engine regs are open to whatever you want to run. It's the turbo-charging and KERS that have other suppliers interested. It has some resonance to current R&D.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff