Toad's ramblings
Discussion
Toad said:
Todt has urged a rethink of priorities in F1 - and thinks the sport needs to wake up to economic and environmental realities that the world is facing.
"We need to cut costs, improve the show and draw investors," he said. "F1 must understand that the world has changed. How can you explain that an F1 car needs 80 litres of fuel to cover 100 kilometres?
"I don't like the cost cap; we must get to a reduction through clear rules, for example with a single aerodynamic package for the entire year. Will the cars slide more in Monte Carlo? [Perhaps, but] then the quality of the drivers will be heightened."
He added: "It's not acceptable to have given up with KERS. The teams complain that it costs too much? Then they must find the way to save money. The teams are sensitive when we talk about lap times, less sensitive when the environment is discussed."
so he's going to be pushing for KERS again?"We need to cut costs, improve the show and draw investors," he said. "F1 must understand that the world has changed. How can you explain that an F1 car needs 80 litres of fuel to cover 100 kilometres?
"I don't like the cost cap; we must get to a reduction through clear rules, for example with a single aerodynamic package for the entire year. Will the cars slide more in Monte Carlo? [Perhaps, but] then the quality of the drivers will be heightened."
He added: "It's not acceptable to have given up with KERS. The teams complain that it costs too much? Then they must find the way to save money. The teams are sensitive when we talk about lap times, less sensitive when the environment is discussed."
don't dislike the concept of KERS, just wish they would not have the gimmicky stupid limit's on it, let them develop KERS to it's limit's not some pre-defined 6 second's per lap s
te....he who makes the best system, wins, simple eh?
touring fan said:
KERS is still in the rule book and can still be used by any F1 team.
Its just that the teams collectively agreed not to pursue the technology any further and voluntarily agreed not to use it.
I think we all know that, the point here is that Toad want's to push it rather than (as the teams would like) to dump it.Its just that the teams collectively agreed not to pursue the technology any further and voluntarily agreed not to use it.
Scuffers said:
so he's going to be pushing for KERS again?
don't dislike the concept of KERS, just wish they would not have the gimmicky stupid limit's on it, let them develop KERS to it's limit's not some pre-defined 6 second's per lap ste....
he who makes the best system, wins, simple eh?
Quite. All or nothing.don't dislike the concept of KERS, just wish they would not have the gimmicky stupid limit's on it, let them develop KERS to it's limit's not some pre-defined 6 second's per lap s
te....he who makes the best system, wins, simple eh?
I think nothing would be better though.
EDLT said:
The single aerodynamic package could work. Iirc they had a standard rear wing in GP2 in the Hamilton years, and because it was designed in such a way that allowed cars to follow closely and overtake without the side effects we see in F1.
problem with all this is at what point does it just become a single series like GP2?F1 is all about the technical challenges as much as the drivers, although the way it's heading, we might just as well scrap that...
think about all the sponsors that are technical partners to F1, what would be their motivation for this if the cars are all the same using the same parts etc?
i think it's going the right way. KERS is a relevant investment. aero is not.
under the regulations for KERS, 2009 was a 'tester' year hence the low capacity and usage limit. it was always intended to be much more capable, and is something that could feedback usefully into road car technology in terms of energy density, and recovery and usage rates. it's something that would have massive appeal to manufacturers and sponsors, and also help to justify the level of investment that we all want to keep in F1, and would keep the sport at the forefront of racing technology. plus, they big money has already been spent in its research and development. the implementation shouldn't be too bad now.
aero on the other hand contributes nothing outside F1, is argueably bad for close racing, and is bloody expensive. i think standard wings would be a great way to go.
under the regulations for KERS, 2009 was a 'tester' year hence the low capacity and usage limit. it was always intended to be much more capable, and is something that could feedback usefully into road car technology in terms of energy density, and recovery and usage rates. it's something that would have massive appeal to manufacturers and sponsors, and also help to justify the level of investment that we all want to keep in F1, and would keep the sport at the forefront of racing technology. plus, they big money has already been spent in its research and development. the implementation shouldn't be too bad now.
aero on the other hand contributes nothing outside F1, is argueably bad for close racing, and is bloody expensive. i think standard wings would be a great way to go.
Scuffers said:
Toad said:
Todt has urged a rethink of priorities in F1 - and thinks the sport needs to wake up to economic and environmental realities that the world is facing.
"We need to cut costs, improve the show and draw investors," he said. "F1 must understand that the world has changed. How can you explain that an F1 car needs 80 litres of fuel to cover 100 kilometres?
"I don't like the cost cap; we must get to a reduction through clear rules, for example with a single aerodynamic package for the entire year. Will the cars slide more in Monte Carlo? [Perhaps, but] then the quality of the drivers will be heightened."
He added: "It's not acceptable to have given up with KERS. The teams complain that it costs too much? Then they must find the way to save money. The teams are sensitive when we talk about lap times, less sensitive when the environment is discussed."
so he's going to be pushing for KERS again?"We need to cut costs, improve the show and draw investors," he said. "F1 must understand that the world has changed. How can you explain that an F1 car needs 80 litres of fuel to cover 100 kilometres?
"I don't like the cost cap; we must get to a reduction through clear rules, for example with a single aerodynamic package for the entire year. Will the cars slide more in Monte Carlo? [Perhaps, but] then the quality of the drivers will be heightened."
He added: "It's not acceptable to have given up with KERS. The teams complain that it costs too much? Then they must find the way to save money. The teams are sensitive when we talk about lap times, less sensitive when the environment is discussed."
don't dislike the concept of KERS, just wish they would not have the gimmicky stupid limit's on it, let them develop KERS to it's limit's not some pre-defined 6 second's per lap s
te....he who makes the best system, wins, simple eh?
Forbes82 said:
I agree but think a budget cap is needed for this to work, otherwise the best system will almost certainly be by the team throwing the most money at it. I'd like to see very open regulations but with a relatively stringent budget, however the big teams are now so big that this would mean severe downsizing and many losing jobs.
don't believe that either, historically, the biggest spending teams are not the ones that always win (Toyota anyone?).I have no problem with technical limit's on Kers, much like the engine shave always has a cc limit, say for KERS a maximum system output in KW, but no artificial time limit's etc.
The Toad is not talking about a standard package for all cars but ones designed by the teams which cannot be altered throughout the season.
This would mean that teams would have to make a decision early on on what their package will be: suitable for high speed circuits, slow speed or somewhere in the middle. So some teams will be fast on certain circuits and slow on others. It’s an interesting idea. Deserves some thought I would have said.
KERS was brought in to increase overtaking but in this it singularly failed. In fact it actually limited overtaking in the early part of the season, with slow Ferraris and McLarens holding up cars which could have challenged for places. Good fun at times but not real racing I would have said.
New technical regs or developments have historically favoured the richer teams. That’s not necessarily bad of course. All I want is good racing. The best years have not always been those where there have been more than a couple of drivers in it.
The question is, of course: what problem are they trying to address by fiddling with the regs? These last few years have been tremendously exciting in the main, only spoiled by the stewards and poor management. Some circuits have been exposed as dreadfully designed. The simple answer to this is not to mess with successful regs but alter the circuits.
This would mean that teams would have to make a decision early on on what their package will be: suitable for high speed circuits, slow speed or somewhere in the middle. So some teams will be fast on certain circuits and slow on others. It’s an interesting idea. Deserves some thought I would have said.
KERS was brought in to increase overtaking but in this it singularly failed. In fact it actually limited overtaking in the early part of the season, with slow Ferraris and McLarens holding up cars which could have challenged for places. Good fun at times but not real racing I would have said.
New technical regs or developments have historically favoured the richer teams. That’s not necessarily bad of course. All I want is good racing. The best years have not always been those where there have been more than a couple of drivers in it.
The question is, of course: what problem are they trying to address by fiddling with the regs? These last few years have been tremendously exciting in the main, only spoiled by the stewards and poor management. Some circuits have been exposed as dreadfully designed. The simple answer to this is not to mess with successful regs but alter the circuits.
Derek Smith said:
The question is, of course: what problem are they trying to address by fiddling with the regs? These last few years have been tremendously exciting in the main, only spoiled by the stewards and poor management. Some circuits have been exposed as dreadfully designed. The simple answer to this is not to mess with successful regs but alter the circuits.
whilst the last few years have been pretty good in terms of results creating excitement, it has still been lacking in the main during the actual races, with most having been the victim of 'field spread' and procession. the problems they are trying to address are: wasted resources (chasing aero), lack of contribution to the world outside F1 (and associated negative perception by some groups that most petrol heads don't care much about), lack of 'show' (the FIA and FOTA's notion, not mine) including lack of overtaking.
i'd agree that circuits need a good look at and significant changes in a lot of cases (un-tilking them perhaps) but i think that's not enough to get back to something interesting and appealing both on and off the track.
if you want to make it better racing and more excitement, un-restrict the engines, go back to 3.5l any format (flat/V/???) leave the tyres as they are, ban diffusers, single element front and rear wings of limited size, job done.
ie, make the cars have more power than grip, and cut the reliance on aero.
Oh hang on, how about:
ie, make the cars have more power than grip, and cut the reliance on aero.
Oh hang on, how about:
skinny said:
Derek Smith said:
The question is, of course: what problem are they trying to address by fiddling with the regs? These last few years have been tremendously exciting in the main, only spoiled by the stewards and poor management. Some circuits have been exposed as dreadfully designed. The simple answer to this is not to mess with successful regs but alter the circuits.
whilst the last few years have been pretty good in terms of results creating excitement, it has still been lacking in the main during the actual races, with most having been the victim of 'field spread' and procession. the problems they are trying to address are: wasted resources (chasing aero), lack of contribution to the world outside F1 (and associated negative perception by some groups that most petrol heads don't care much about), lack of 'show' (the FIA and FOTA's notion, not mine) including lack of overtaking.
i'd agree that circuits need a good look at and significant changes in a lot of cases (un-tilking them perhaps) but i think that's not enough to get back to something interesting and appealing both on and off the track.
[quote]lack of contribution to the world outside F1 (and associated negative perception by some groups that most petrol heads don't care much about),
I think the 'lack of contribution' failure is more of a lack of effective PR. The fault there must lie with mosley. How can you come up with positive features in a sport which has a man who beats women for fun at its head? Look in any pit and you will see men and women highly qualified in their chosen career, brilliant standards and a demand for excellence. That's what we should be pushing. KERS in an F1 car is a dead end for use in cars. Any suggestion that it would be the answer to all our problems is just spin.
the thing is, a sport has no obligation to offer anything more than the sporting spectacle - but in the case of racing, where it does actually have the potential to feed usefully into something else, then at worst it helps to justify the investment and money involved (of which there is considerably more than in other sports such as rugby or tennis... but probably not football) and at best it improves maybe the safety or efficiency of something used by many people in many places.
in the case of KERS however, whilst i was never particularly keen on its introduction into F1, i did accept that it might help push technology to improve things like energy density or charge / discharge rates of storage devices, which would actually be beneficial (at least to the realisation of any sports orientated hybrid instead of a green shopping car in which i have no interest). what's clear is that first and foremost however, such a technology should be introduced to improve the racing or to push the technological boundaries of current formula 1, two things that most fans seem to care about. things like the 5.75% bio content in the fuel does nothing for either of these two points nor does it provide any real or significant environmental advantage.
i would agree that there are far more valuable points that F1 could be pushing, but i don't think that contribution outside of the sport is a totally irrelevant or unnecessary idea for F1.
in the case of KERS however, whilst i was never particularly keen on its introduction into F1, i did accept that it might help push technology to improve things like energy density or charge / discharge rates of storage devices, which would actually be beneficial (at least to the realisation of any sports orientated hybrid instead of a green shopping car in which i have no interest). what's clear is that first and foremost however, such a technology should be introduced to improve the racing or to push the technological boundaries of current formula 1, two things that most fans seem to care about. things like the 5.75% bio content in the fuel does nothing for either of these two points nor does it provide any real or significant environmental advantage.
i would agree that there are far more valuable points that F1 could be pushing, but i don't think that contribution outside of the sport is a totally irrelevant or unnecessary idea for F1.
Scuffers said:
if you want to make it better racing and more excitement, un-restrict the engines, go back to 3.5l any format (flat/V/???) leave the tyres as they are, ban diffusers, single element front and rear wings of limited size, job done.
ie, make the cars have more power than grip, and cut the reliance on aero.
ETA extend 'the plank' all the way to the nose of the car - not necessarily in solid form, but mandate a flat underside from nose to tail. If nothing else it would get rid of the current high noses - improve the looks IMHO and it can't be comfortable for the drivers to be sat with their feet level with their chin. Also narrow the fromt wings so the max width is the inside of the front wheels - that would remove the need for all the strange protuberances that try and steer air around the outside of the front wheels.ie, make the cars have more power than grip, and cut the reliance on aero.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff