Frustration with motorsport.
Discussion
A bit of a rant sorry.
When I look at Formula one. The fastest car is the most efficient to the set of rules layed out by the FiA. I am correct? Efficiency, Eco-friendly are all buzz words that roads cars manufacturers use. As we keep getting told Motorsport needed to be more inline with road cars. so in 2009 they introduced "KERS." Now lets hypothetically ask Adrian Newey does he want to run KERS or a 40kg weight break? If the rules allowed. I would put money it would be the weight saving. It just seems to me that making formula 1 more energy efficient is being over thought like NASA with the space pen and the russains with the pencil.
Some major pioneering development of formula one cars have been allowed: moving the engine to the rear (ok audi did it in the 1930 as well.), monocoque, making the engine a stressed member etc. A lot have been banned ground effects, traction control, active suspension, auto gearboxs. brake steer, 4 wheel stering, ABS etc.
So lets say instead of banning the above how about limiting it. As the cars got to fast and the technology got better. Make the wing, tyres ,engine etc smaller. A side effect would surely be a more efficient race car that uses less fuel? Thus being more eco-friendly. Look at the delta wing very similar idea to the above, but it's not in competition with anything. History shows that the rate of development increases dramatically when in competition fighting with another party. When was the last majoy technical game changer in formula 1? Im not talking about double diffusers that was a loophole in the rules. i mean someone turning up with a complete new idea? F1 cars could become old technology soon due to the rules, developed by clever people using state of the art equipment..
When I look at Formula one. The fastest car is the most efficient to the set of rules layed out by the FiA. I am correct? Efficiency, Eco-friendly are all buzz words that roads cars manufacturers use. As we keep getting told Motorsport needed to be more inline with road cars. so in 2009 they introduced "KERS." Now lets hypothetically ask Adrian Newey does he want to run KERS or a 40kg weight break? If the rules allowed. I would put money it would be the weight saving. It just seems to me that making formula 1 more energy efficient is being over thought like NASA with the space pen and the russains with the pencil.
Some major pioneering development of formula one cars have been allowed: moving the engine to the rear (ok audi did it in the 1930 as well.), monocoque, making the engine a stressed member etc. A lot have been banned ground effects, traction control, active suspension, auto gearboxs. brake steer, 4 wheel stering, ABS etc.
So lets say instead of banning the above how about limiting it. As the cars got to fast and the technology got better. Make the wing, tyres ,engine etc smaller. A side effect would surely be a more efficient race car that uses less fuel? Thus being more eco-friendly. Look at the delta wing very similar idea to the above, but it's not in competition with anything. History shows that the rate of development increases dramatically when in competition fighting with another party. When was the last majoy technical game changer in formula 1? Im not talking about double diffusers that was a loophole in the rules. i mean someone turning up with a complete new idea? F1 cars could become old technology soon due to the rules, developed by clever people using state of the art equipment..
I don't think reducing the size of wings makes F1 cars more efficient. It means they go faster on the straights and slower in the corners thus requiring more energy expensive braking and acceleration.
I don't think KERS is mandatory - Marussia didn't use it. I think the ultimate lap time difference is small but the tactical disadvantage of not having KERS is large.
The space pen thing is a myth - having graphite dust floating around in zero G causes all sorts of problems.
I don't think KERS is mandatory - Marussia didn't use it. I think the ultimate lap time difference is small but the tactical disadvantage of not having KERS is large.
The space pen thing is a myth - having graphite dust floating around in zero G causes all sorts of problems.
bravonovember said:
A bit of a rant sorry.
When I look at Formula one. The fastest car is the most efficient to the set of rules layed out by the FiA. I am correct? Efficiency, Eco-friendly are all buzz words that roads cars manufacturers use. As we keep getting told Motorsport needed to be more inline with road cars. so in 2009 they introduced "KERS." Now lets hypothetically ask Adrian Newey does he want to run KERS or a 40kg weight break? If the rules allowed. I would put money it would be the weight saving. It just seems to me that making formula 1 more energy efficient is being over thought like NASA with the space pen and the russains with the pencil.
Some major pioneering development of formula one cars have been allowed: moving the engine to the rear (ok audi did it in the 1930 as well.), monocoque, making the engine a stressed member etc. A lot have been banned ground effects, traction control, active suspension, auto gearboxs. brake steer, 4 wheel stering, ABS etc.
So lets say instead of banning the above how about limiting it. As the cars got to fast and the technology got better. Make the wing, tyres ,engine etc smaller. A side effect would surely be a more efficient race car that uses less fuel? Thus being more eco-friendly. Look at the delta wing very similar idea to the above, but it's not in competition with anything. History shows that the rate of development increases dramatically when in competition fighting with another party. When was the last majoy technical game changer in formula 1? Im not talking about double diffusers that was a loophole in the rules. i mean someone turning up with a complete new idea? F1 cars could become old technology soon due to the rules, developed by clever people using state of the art equipment..
Your solution is just a vague version of what they do already and pencils are a terrible idea in space.When I look at Formula one. The fastest car is the most efficient to the set of rules layed out by the FiA. I am correct? Efficiency, Eco-friendly are all buzz words that roads cars manufacturers use. As we keep getting told Motorsport needed to be more inline with road cars. so in 2009 they introduced "KERS." Now lets hypothetically ask Adrian Newey does he want to run KERS or a 40kg weight break? If the rules allowed. I would put money it would be the weight saving. It just seems to me that making formula 1 more energy efficient is being over thought like NASA with the space pen and the russains with the pencil.
Some major pioneering development of formula one cars have been allowed: moving the engine to the rear (ok audi did it in the 1930 as well.), monocoque, making the engine a stressed member etc. A lot have been banned ground effects, traction control, active suspension, auto gearboxs. brake steer, 4 wheel stering, ABS etc.
So lets say instead of banning the above how about limiting it. As the cars got to fast and the technology got better. Make the wing, tyres ,engine etc smaller. A side effect would surely be a more efficient race car that uses less fuel? Thus being more eco-friendly. Look at the delta wing very similar idea to the above, but it's not in competition with anything. History shows that the rate of development increases dramatically when in competition fighting with another party. When was the last majoy technical game changer in formula 1? Im not talking about double diffusers that was a loophole in the rules. i mean someone turning up with a complete new idea? F1 cars could become old technology soon due to the rules, developed by clever people using state of the art equipment..
Mr_Thyroid said:
I don't think reducing the size of wings makes F1 cars more efficient. It means they go faster on the straights and slower in the corners thus requiring more energy expensive braking and acceleration.
I don't think KERS is mandatory - Marussia didn't use it. I think the ultimate lap time difference is small but the tactical disadvantage of not having KERS is large.
The space pen thing is a myth - having graphite dust floating around in zero G causes all sorts of problems.
Ha didn't know about the space pen. I don't think KERS is mandatory - Marussia didn't use it. I think the ultimate lap time difference is small but the tactical disadvantage of not having KERS is large.
The space pen thing is a myth - having graphite dust floating around in zero G causes all sorts of problems.
I'm not saying make the wings smaller but at the moment wing size is governed by the rules I belive if ground effect was allowed to be used it would produce far greater downforce with less drag than what they have now. So if the cars got to fast like in the early 80's instead of banning like they did, limit it. so the wings make less downforce but also less drag. After they banned fround effect and skirts and said they had to have flat bottoms to the cars, within 2-3 years they had the same amount of down force from wings but with far more drag thus less efficient.
EDLT said:
Your solution is just a vague version of what they do already and pencils are a terrible idea in space.
if you built a car that weighed 550kg with 700bhp and was built like a bullitt on the stright at lets say monza it would go far faster then the 200-200mph that they do now. It would be dangerously quick and crap around the corners of corse. But let's say a formula one cars had moveable wings would a formula one car need 700bhp to do 200mph? No so reduce the size of the engine . To make a Formual one cars you need to make a efficient car out of a set of inefficient rules. Ok they have drs I mean proper movable wings.My dad is an engineer and has been banging the drum for many years that the most interesting race formula woukd simply be to issue the competitors with a specific calorific value of fuel and allow them to decide how to use it. Well it seems the ACO has been listening as LMP1 will be working towards this ideal in the 2014 regs. To be honest, the F1 regs are restrictive and not very interesting. LMP1 is where genuine energy efficiency is seen, the current KERS pays lip service to efficiency but not much more in my opinion...
chevronb37 said:
My dad is an engineer and has been banging the drum for many years that the most interesting race formula woukd simply be to issue the competitors with a specific calorific value of fuel and allow them to decide how to use it. Well it seems the ACO has been listening as LMP1 will be working towards this ideal in the 2014 regs. To be honest, the F1 regs are restrictive and not very interesting. LMP1 is where genuine energy efficiency is seen, the current KERS pays lip service to efficiency but not much more in my opinion...
agreed. Im no engineer. So will the 2014 LMP reg be similar to group C? That was fual tank/flow size wasn't it?I think conceptually it will be similar to Group C. The cool thing is that diesel and hybrid will be allowed too. Unlike many purists, I actually like the mix of powertrains and technology at Le Mans.
Oh I should add I'm no engineer either but do pay a keen interest, in spite of my own ineptitude!
Oh I should add I'm no engineer either but do pay a keen interest, in spite of my own ineptitude!
chevronb37 said:
I think conceptually it will be similar to Group C. The cool thing is that diesel and hybrid will be allowed too. Unlike many purists, I actually like the mix of powertrains and technology at Le Mans.
Oh I should add I'm no engineer either but do pay a keen interest, in spite of my own ineptitude!
Yeh same. know the principal's. Might point was if the rules allowed I guess a car with only 250-300bhp could be quicker than a formula 1 car. I like different propulsion systems. The quietness of the diesel and how audi conduct them self really work well. and sums up the germans. I think the delta wing is a great bit of kit as well.Oh I should add I'm no engineer either but do pay a keen interest, in spite of my own ineptitude!
I'm not a very good spectator anyway but I find F1 tedious, I've watched nearly every race this year and fell asleep through every one.
The races last too long, the cars are seemingly too easy to drive. They need to simplify the aero side of things and open up the engine regulations a bit i.e. less traction, more power.
I find touring cars more interesting to some extent, still I prefer the one make series particularly the Clio Cup, Mini Cups etc. make for better watching with it just being driver vs driver.
The races last too long, the cars are seemingly too easy to drive. They need to simplify the aero side of things and open up the engine regulations a bit i.e. less traction, more power.
I find touring cars more interesting to some extent, still I prefer the one make series particularly the Clio Cup, Mini Cups etc. make for better watching with it just being driver vs driver.
chevronb37 said:
I think conceptually it will be similar to Group C. The cool thing is that diesel and hybrid will be allowed too. Unlike many purists, I actually like the mix of powertrains and technology at Le Mans.
Oh I should add I'm no engineer either but do pay a keen interest, in spite of my own ineptitude!
Sportscars are the most 'Road relevant' Motorsport. Diesel, petrol, hybrids, etc different engines sizes, etc F1 is all about 'The Show' and entertaining. Oh I should add I'm no engineer either but do pay a keen interest, in spite of my own ineptitude!
Having a set amount of fuel/ energy and taking it from there is the way to go. What is the right solution?
I'm a huge Rallyfan, but I don't see too much in the way of future technology in the WRC; 1.6T engines & 4WD......hardly earth shattering is it? What about Diesels, hybrids, etc
ArnageWRC said:
Sportscars are the most 'Road relevant' Motorsport. Diesel, petrol, hybrids, etc different engines sizes, etc F1 is all about 'The Show' and entertaining.
Having a set amount of fuel/ energy and taking it from there is the way to go. What is the right solution?
I'm a huge Rallyfan, but I don't see too much in the way of future technology in the WRC; 1.6T engines & 4WD......hardly earth shattering is it? What about Diesels, hybrids, etc
Active suspension would be awesome in WRC.Having a set amount of fuel/ energy and taking it from there is the way to go. What is the right solution?
I'm a huge Rallyfan, but I don't see too much in the way of future technology in the WRC; 1.6T engines & 4WD......hardly earth shattering is it? What about Diesels, hybrids, etc
Life Saab Itch said:
I think the F duct, flexing wings and the.mass damper are all existing technologies that were applied to F1 very well. So well that they could have.been thought of as technological leaps forward.
These little innovations really helped peak my interest in F1 over the last few seasons. The issue I have with KERS is that it was foisted on F1 teams, with a "make it work" style mandate. It clearly can work but you can tell certain people hate it (step forward Mr Newey!). Part of me thinks the rules have been twisted to make it a benefit rather than it being a natural benefit, if you see what I mean.bravonovember said:
ArnageWRC said:
Sportscars are the most 'Road relevant' Motorsport. Diesel, petrol, hybrids, etc different engines sizes, etc F1 is all about 'The Show' and entertaining.
Having a set amount of fuel/ energy and taking it from there is the way to go. What is the right solution?
I'm a huge Rallyfan, but I don't see too much in the way of future technology in the WRC; 1.6T engines & 4WD......hardly earth shattering is it? What about Diesels, hybrids, etc
Active suspension would be awesome in WRC.Having a set amount of fuel/ energy and taking it from there is the way to go. What is the right solution?
I'm a huge Rallyfan, but I don't see too much in the way of future technology in the WRC; 1.6T engines & 4WD......hardly earth shattering is it? What about Diesels, hybrids, etc
Hybrid and diesel tech should probably be given a nod, the snag is diesel and hybrid cars rarely sound good, motorsport should be an aural experience as well as visual.
I agree that some kind of power limit also limits the speed. Downforce itself is very energy expensive too, big wings generate a lot of drag and require more power to make them work.
I don't like the KERS and DRS, they just seem too much like tools designed by the organisers to make the race more unpredictable (I hesitate to describe it as more interesting) rather than tools designed by the teams to make the cars faster. Indeed, that's exactly what they are.
If instead there were no rules restricting KERS to seven seconds a lap, and DRS to the following car, and instead simply allowed hybrid powerplants and moveable aerodynamics, then we'd see innovation obvious to the layman like we did in the past.
But of course then we'd also have cars too fast for the tracks again.
But whatever they do I don't think we'll ever make modern F1 look as interesting as 20 year old F1, because cars that move around like they did 20 years ago would not be competitive today. They are always going to look comparatively well nailed down and, well, easy.
I don't like the KERS and DRS, they just seem too much like tools designed by the organisers to make the race more unpredictable (I hesitate to describe it as more interesting) rather than tools designed by the teams to make the cars faster. Indeed, that's exactly what they are.
If instead there were no rules restricting KERS to seven seconds a lap, and DRS to the following car, and instead simply allowed hybrid powerplants and moveable aerodynamics, then we'd see innovation obvious to the layman like we did in the past.
But of course then we'd also have cars too fast for the tracks again.
But whatever they do I don't think we'll ever make modern F1 look as interesting as 20 year old F1, because cars that move around like they did 20 years ago would not be competitive today. They are always going to look comparatively well nailed down and, well, easy.
Eric Mc said:
20 years ago is only 1992.
Watch a 1967 F1 car at work. Now that IS moving around.
Yes please.Watch a 1967 F1 car at work. Now that IS moving around.
Just give it a modern F1 safety tub, steel brakes, sensible sized wheels, on cross ply (okay radials!) hard tyres (that last only a race length), and rear wheel drive. No aero, or very little (to stop it flipping, & to create drag & to keep straight line speed sensible). Fixed quantity of fuel/energy (to keep power sensible). Fixed set of max dimensions, 4wheels. Voila.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff