Sebastian Vettel
Discussion
entropy said:
Active suspension was originally meant to be banned - from almost immediate effect - halfway through the '93 season but then got changed to the next year...
Off at a tangent I know but it was when they started banning innovations like active suspension that F1 started to go downhill. I remember the Brabham fan car. Okay it was banned, probably for a good reason: it spat stones up into the face of oncoming drivers but boy was it innovative! F1 should be all about allowing the engineers and designers to come up with ever more creative ways to gain an advantage. Not about making some bloody rubber hoops last another 3 laps! I love it still, but boy I wish Liberty would relax the reigns somewhat... 'Righto, back to what you were doing' 
RichB said:
Off at a tangent I know but it was when they started banning innovations like active suspension that F1 started to go downhill. I remember the Brabham fan car. Okay it was banned, probably for a good reason: it spat stones up into the face of oncoming drivers but boy was it innovative! F1 should be all about allowing the engineers and designers to come up with ever more creative ways to gain an advantage. Not about making some bloody rubber hoops last another 3 laps! I love it still, but boy I wish Liberty would relax the reigns somewhat... 'Righto, back to what you were doing'
The Brabham fan car was not banned, Bernie withdrew it as part of his power play negotiations.It did not spit stones out, that was a made up story by the Lotus drivers to try and get it banned.
jsf said:
RichB said:
Off at a tangent I know but it was when they started banning innovations like active suspension that F1 started to go downhill. I remember the Brabham fan car. Okay it was banned, probably for a good reason: it spat stones up into the face of oncoming drivers but boy was it innovative! F1 should be all about allowing the engineers and designers to come up with ever more creative ways to gain an advantage. Not about making some bloody rubber hoops last another 3 laps! I love it still, but boy I wish Liberty would relax the reigns somewhat... 'Righto, back to what you were doing'
The Brabham fan car was not banned, Bernie withdrew it as part of his power play negotiations. It did not spit stones out, that was a made up story by the Lotus drivers to try and get it banned.
RichB said:
entropy said:
Active suspension was originally meant to be banned - from almost immediate effect - halfway through the '93 season but then got changed to the next year...
Off at a tangent I know but it was when they started banning innovations like active suspension that F1 started to go downhill. I remember the Brabham fan car. Okay it was banned, probably for a good reason: it spat stones up into the face of oncoming drivers but boy was it innovative! F1 should be all about allowing the engineers and designers to come up with ever more creative ways to gain an advantage. Not about making some bloody rubber hoops last another 3 laps! I love it still, but boy I wish Liberty would relax the reigns somewhat... 'Righto, back to what you were doing' RichB said:
k, I consider my wrists duly slapped, it was over 40 years ago and I'm happy to say my memory has been somewhat dulled over the year by a pleasant lifestyle. Now, what have you to say about the main point of my post, i.e. curbing innovation in F!? Or, simply ignore me, I won't be offended, and we'l return to discussing Sebastian Vettel
It's a constant fight between the competitor and the rule maker to keep the speeds under control without destroying the DNA.I think the rules are far too tight now, but don't see that improving, in fact its getting worse with the 2022 cars.
jsf said:
RichB said:
k, I consider my wrists duly slapped, it was over 40 years ago and I'm happy to say my memory has been somewhat dulled over the year by a pleasant lifestyle. Now, what have you to say about the main point of my post, i.e. curbing innovation in F!? Or, simply ignore me, I won't be offended, and we'l return to discussing Sebastian Vettel
It's a constant fight between the competitor and the rule maker to keep the speeds under control without destroying the DNA.I think the rules are far too tight now, but don't see that improving, in fact its getting worse with the 2022 cars.
MartG said:
Agreed - the current regulations are far too prescriptive, stifling any innovation. Take the engines for example - rules state number of cylinders, layout, fuel flow rates etc. leaving no latitude for the clever folk to get creative and build something new. Far better if the engine rules simply stated you start the race with a certain number of Kwh onboard in whatever form you want - petrol, diesel, methane, electricity, whatever, and leave the rest up to the engineers to come up with something to win races with.
Remember the crazy front wing designs of the 70s? Tea trays and crab claws - what happened to them? One way or other you'll end up with natural conformity of some kind.Ferrari used to run flat-12s until the end of the 70s. They were too big and bulky for packaging reasons because they severely restricted the width of ground effects tunnels. Similarly - and the biggest myth in F1 - the FIA didn't ban V12s, instead it was Ferrari who gave up on them because they were too big, heavy and thirsty and went with V10s which were the ideal compromise.
Perhaps better more recent example of conformity is WEC. You could run 6, 8 or 10 MJs and rivals copied Toyota with 8MJs. Also if all the cars were painted in completely the same livery the average viewer at watching LM24 could not tell the difference because front end aero became homogenous. IMO that's a reason for the hypercar rules, not only to encourage manufacturers also car design differentiation.
The reason for flow rates is to allow a certain level playing field and mitigate a crazy arms race. They were originated in the 80s but the technology wasn't up to scratch so you had fuel consumption rates in Group C; fuel tanks getting smaller and smaller in F1 to balance with NA engines; fuel tank size were restricted in Indycar and controlled pop-off valves.
entropy said:
Ferrari used to run flat-12s until the end of the 70s. They were too big and bulky for packaging reasons because they severely restricted the width of ground effects tunnels. Similarly - and the biggest myth in F1 - the FIA didn't ban V12s, instead it was Ferrari who gave up on them because they were too big, heavy and thirsty and went with V10s which were the ideal compromise.
The regs specified 3.0l, IIRC rather than cylinders?MartG said:
Agreed - the current regulations are far too prescriptive, stifling any innovation. Take the engines for example - rules state number of cylinders, layout, fuel flow rates etc. leaving no latitude for the clever folk to get creative and build something new. Far better if the engine rules simply stated you start the race with a certain number of Kwh onboard in whatever form you want - petrol, diesel, methane, electricity, whatever, and leave the rest up to the engineers to come up with something to win races with.
Yes, but there's usually a 'best option', and these days with all the data and computing power the manufacturers would all come up with something broadly similar anyway.But this thread appears to be splitting apart as they do!
vaud said:
entropy said:
Ferrari used to run flat-12s until the end of the 70s. They were too big and bulky for packaging reasons because they severely restricted the width of ground effects tunnels. Similarly - and the biggest myth in F1 - the FIA didn't ban V12s, instead it was Ferrari who gave up on them because they were too big, heavy and thirsty and went with V10s which were the ideal compromise.
The regs specified 3.0l, IIRC rather than cylinders?vaud said:
entropy said:
Ferrari used to run flat-12s until the end of the 70s. They were too big and bulky for packaging reasons because they severely restricted the width of ground effects tunnels. Similarly - and the biggest myth in F1 - the FIA didn't ban V12s, instead it was Ferrari who gave up on them because they were too big, heavy and thirsty and went with V10s which were the ideal compromise.
The regs specified 3.0l, IIRC rather than cylinders?RichB said:
I fail to understand is why the rule makers battle to keep speeds under control? It's a nonsense, and therefore something I struggle with. A driver could inevitably be killed crashing at 190mph as 220mph.
There is a genuine reason and it's to do with the laws of physics. Momentum = Mass x Velocity. So far so good, but it's only part of the story.
Kinetic Energy increases with the SQUARE of velocity, meaning the amount of Force involved in a collision absolutely rockets as cars get faster. This means that if a car is going quickly enough it become impossible to conceive any viable form of catch fence or crash barrier which could keep the car out of the grandstands. Similarly it becomes impossible to conceive any helmet or driver restraint system which will prevent destruction of his brain against his own skull or destruction of his internal organs against the seat belts. Pretty much all forms of motor racing have concluded that about 200 mph is the maximum practicable speed consistent with a reasonable level of safety.
rockin said:
RichB said:
I fail to understand is why the rule makers battle to keep speeds under control? It's a nonsense, and therefore something I struggle with. A driver could inevitably be killed crashing at 190mph as 220mph.
There is a genuine reason and it's to do with the laws of physics. Momentum = Mass x Velocity. So far so good, but it's only part of the story.
Kinetic Energy increases with the SQUARE of velocity, meaning the amount of Force involved in a collision absolutely rockets as cars get faster. This means that if a car is going quickly enough it become impossible to conceive any viable form of catch fence or crash barrier which could keep the car out of the grandstands. Similarly it becomes impossible to conceive any helmet or driver restraint system which will prevent destruction of his brain against his own skull or destruction of his internal organs against the seat belts. Pretty much all forms of motor racing have concluded that about 200 mph is the maximum practicable speed consistent with a reasonable level of safety.
mind you were not the IndyCars hitting 220 at Indianapolis 500 a couple of weeks ago? RichB said:
hanks mind you were not the IndyCars hitting 220 at Indianapolis 500 a couple of weeks ago?
Yep and if you were to make Indy part of the F1 calendar we’d likely see F1 doing 220mph too. mind you were not the IndyCars hitting 220 at Indianapolis 500 a couple of weeks ago? It would also be the most dangerous event on the F1 calendar. Indy on the ovals kills or seriously injures a lot of drivers compared to F1.
F1 drivers view Indycar as a dangerous series.
HustleRussell said:
RichB said:
hanks mind you were not the IndyCars hitting 220 at Indianapolis 500 a couple of weeks ago?
Yep and if you were to make Indy part of the F1 calendar we’d likely see F1 doing 220mph too. mind you were not the IndyCars hitting 220 at Indianapolis 500 a couple of weeks ago? It would also be the most dangerous event on the F1 calendar. Indy on the ovals kills or seriously injures a lot of drivers compared to F1.
F1 drivers view Indycar as a dangerous series.
HustleRussell said:
RichB said:
hanks mind you were not the IndyCars hitting 220 at Indianapolis 500 a couple of weeks ago?
Yep and if you were to make Indy part of the F1 calendar we’d likely see F1 doing 220mph too. It would also be the most dangerous event on the F1 calendar. Indy on the ovals kills or seriously injures a lot of drivers compared to F1. F1 drivers view Indycar as a dangerous series. mind you were not the IndyCars hitting 220 at Indianapolis 500 a couple of weeks ago? Anyway, what about Vettel's performance today? I understand he has no motivation but I would have expected him to want to stick on to Ferrari.
Teddy Lop said:
I've a feeling they might have mandated a V10, but it was after ferrari had found they couldn't make a V12 work at 3 litres and switched to V10s, as it was what killed the cosworth DFV. I could be rong though.
The DFV ran out of development potential and was properly trounced during the turbo era.The last F1 car to win a race with a DFV was the Tyrrell 011 in 1983, using the engine in DFY spec.
When turbo engines were banned, they introduced the 3.5 litre formula where the best layout was the V10, those were pegged back with rpm limits and eventually ever smaller capacities meant the V8 made the better compromise before we moved to the current V6 hybrids.
The DFV engine architecture lived on in turbo form in Indycar and was also used in F3000, there was also a long stroke version used in sportscar racing.
RichB said:
hanks mind you were not the IndyCars hitting 220 at Indianapolis 500 a couple of weeks ago?
Yes, Indycar runs a higher maximum speed than, for instance, NASCAR which tops out around 205 mph. This is to some extent offset by their lower weight. I believe the absolute vMax for F1 is up towards Indycar on some long straights although cornering speeds are typically much lower than on an oval. mind you were not the IndyCars hitting 220 at Indianapolis 500 a couple of weeks ago? As someone just mentioned above the "Safer" barriers used in North America are an astounding piece of engineering. Most NASCAR circuits (certainly the ovals) have barrier all the way round, including the 2.5 mile ones like Daytona, Pocono and Talladega. Indy is a bit of an oddity in that Indianapolis itself still has concrete walls on the straights. In big impacts you can see a wave of energy moving along the barrier.
There are some stretches of Safer Barrier at Le Mans, for instance in the Porsche Curves, and I've seen some short sections at F1 circuits as well. They don't need repairing after a collision, avoiding long race interruptions.
jsf said:
The DFV ran out of development potential and was properly trounced during the turbo era.
The last F1 car to win a race with a DFV was the Tyrrell 011 in 1983, using the engine in DFY spec.
When turbo engines were banned, they introduced the 3.5 litre formula where the best layout was the V10, those were pegged back with rpm limits and eventually ever smaller capacities meant the V8 made the better compromise before we moved to the current V6 hybrids.
The DFV engine architecture lived on in turbo form in Indycar and was also used in F3000, there was also a long stroke version used in sportscar racing.
oh, I thought the engine that powered Schumacher in 94 had its roots in the DFVThe last F1 car to win a race with a DFV was the Tyrrell 011 in 1983, using the engine in DFY spec.
When turbo engines were banned, they introduced the 3.5 litre formula where the best layout was the V10, those were pegged back with rpm limits and eventually ever smaller capacities meant the V8 made the better compromise before we moved to the current V6 hybrids.
The DFV engine architecture lived on in turbo form in Indycar and was also used in F3000, there was also a long stroke version used in sportscar racing.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff