|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
7 Apr 2020, 18:40 (Ref:3969170) | #51 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,431
|
Quote:
I do recognise that maybe some knowledge hasn't perhaps reached the keyboard in your bedroom, but if you want to be educated, slowly: The first motorcar in the world to have an engine with two overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder was the Peugeot L76 Grand Prix racing car from 1912. In 1932 Ferdinand Porsche designed and built an Auto Union Grand Prix car. The very high (for the time) power of the design caused the less loaded of the rear wheels to always experience excessive wheel spin at any speed up to around 100 mph. Thus he asked ZF to develop a limited-slip diff idea that he had previously had in order to improve performance. There’s plenty of other tech to go from F1/GP cars to road, many more recent. You’re welcome. Last edited by peebee2; 7 Apr 2020 at 18:50. |
||
|
7 Apr 2020, 19:00 (Ref:3969173) | #52 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
7 Apr 2020, 22:43 (Ref:3969204) | #53 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
I suspect some of the current engine technology will make its way into road cars. The high thermal efficiencies of current F1 will surely lead to a technology trickle down to roads cars before they all go electric in a number of years time. Another area where F1 technology could be used is the motor/generator used in hybrid systems.
|
|
|
8 Apr 2020, 00:42 (Ref:3969223) | #54 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,045
|
Sorry, don't conflate pre-war GP, also directly used as sportscar, with F1. The previous discussion was F1. Sorry, but changing the rules mid topic doesn't make you right. Makes you look foolish. Try again
|
|
|
8 Apr 2020, 00:52 (Ref:3969224) | #55 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,024
|
It's time to park this particular line of "discussion"
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
8 Apr 2020, 07:37 (Ref:3969255) | #56 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,024
|
Stop! It’s pathetic. Post removed.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
8 Apr 2020, 07:50 (Ref:3969260) | #57 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Well, so far all I've seen from our posters is that it's important to retain the technology because it is or may be road relevant. Yet surely this technology, which means the manifavturers control the system, is exactly what is creating the problem.
Also with the current lack of car sales does anyine really think boardrooms are going to countenance the kind of expenditure that is currently being expended? Budget caps are not going to change anything since all they do is push the developments underground and the big teams will still be spending like no tomorrow, if they get their way. The old trope about unlearning technology fails to consider the possibility of not using it. So, to put it bluntly, I agree with Brown that without a root and branch overhaul, there will be 4 teams less on the grid next year. |
||
|
8 Apr 2020, 09:36 (Ref:3969274) | #58 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 956
|
Yes , Peter, the number of times some callow youth, after telling me my specs are rose tinted , will squawk ' But you can't uninvent technology ' . Said as if it were the end of the argument rather than the beginning of one .
Excuse the plug, but as I argued in the F 1 chapters of my book (Amazon / 'all good bookshops' - Driven -an elegy) all F1 needs is good legal draughtsmen , working with engineers to write the regs . Of course the game is to look for loopholes but the approach works well enough . Because F 1 cannot have , or no longer has - 4 wd ABS Fully automatic gearbox Enclosed bodywork Gas turbine power 6 wheels Driver adjustable aero - except DRS Pukka ground effect ...and a whole heap of other stuff , None has been uninvented , just outlawed , and very successfully so . Ironically , as the current regs stand , F1 is by the far the closest it has ever been to a spec formula , with different race shops building essentially the same car but somehow still managing to spend grotesque amounts of money.. |
||
|
8 Apr 2020, 09:54 (Ref:3969276) | #59 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,493
|
Quote:
Do you think everyone would have migrated to the same 4WD/ABS/6-wheel solution if it proved to be effective? I wonder whether, rather than banning a technology or feature, why not make it acceptable that all teams can use the design? On occasion, you will see a team come up with something 'new' (think Brawn D-Diff) and steal a march on the grid, but over time everyone else will develop towards the same design and restore a relative parity. |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
8 Apr 2020, 10:19 (Ref:3969286) | #60 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
The reason why these devices were banned were for one of three reasons or sometimes more than one or all three. First of all cost, because teams would have to spend ridiculous amount of money developing it in an arms race. Secondly safety, especially with ground effect skirts that was uncomfortable for the drivers and saw cornering speeds go ridiculously high, so if anything went wrong, it could be big trouble for the driver. And thirdly it lessened the role of the driver, which is why things like traction control are thankfully gone from the sport
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
8 Apr 2020, 10:27 (Ref:3969289) | #61 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
*sigh*
|
||
|
8 Apr 2020, 11:48 (Ref:3969303) | #62 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
Why wait for cost cap regulations? I assume all teams must be circumventing all resource related regulations today. The idea that caps will not work because teams will cheat them is pure speculation. My opinion is that while not 100% water tight, they work "well enough". Those who fight hardest against them are those teams who would have to spend less. Think about why they are so afraid? Its because privately they know it would work. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
8 Apr 2020, 12:00 (Ref:3969305) | #63 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Richard |
|||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
8 Apr 2020, 12:17 (Ref:3969307) | #64 | |||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Quote:
Hence caping a non existent budget is facile. I'm afraid IMHO we have to get real and yes, if there is going to be a grid then it needs to can the expensive technology and return to a racing championship. Tell me I'm wrong but stop repeating the same old attacks on those with a bit of a realist approach. |
|||
|
8 Apr 2020, 12:29 (Ref:3969310) | #65 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,863
|
Quote:
Hence the story we had in the UK press 20 years or more back. That's well beyond the realm of sensible spending. I think LH should be stripped of ALL his Mercedes F1 titles forthwith. |
|||
__________________
Midgetman - known as Max Tyler to the world. MaxAttaq! |
8 Apr 2020, 12:40 (Ref:3969312) | #66 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
It was allegedly a Lancaster that was found on the Moon. It was obviously on a mission to bomb the secret Nazi Moon base, so Mercedes F1 couldn't use it in the future, the future being now.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
8 Apr 2020, 13:14 (Ref:3969318) | #67 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 956
|
Quote:
No- I am not saying the regs are poorly written , they achieve their purpose by , for example , excluding some technology , or design traits , on the grounds of safety or cost . Huge amounts of money are spent simply because teams have it to spend . At the moment ... I do mourn the fact that the regs effectively mandate the same car - but a softer prescriptive touch at least enables some innovative thinking . Ever since the big guys returned to F1 in numbers, the money supply became grotesque and we all know how it works- give' em $500m and they want $550m , if only so as to show off their carbon fibre toilet seats , like BAR did.. At the moment they are happy to spend a 100 grand to save a tenth on a new winglet. I'd rather a capped budget but less prescription . That way, someone might spend 100 grand on something left field which saves a second |
|||
|
8 Apr 2020, 13:32 (Ref:3969321) | #68 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
To your points above, I broadly agree. F1 is too expensive as it focuses on expensive technology. Much of which is esoteric and optimization of technology that exists because the rules says to use it (such as complex mechanical suspension). Some of it is very high tech and bleeding edge such as the power units. As to non-existing budget. I agree. If teams have no budget there is no team. The saying for space exploration applies to F1. "No bucks, no Buck Rogers!" My comments on budget caps assumes there is going to be budgets. And I think that is a fair assumption to make. I will even argue that having caps in place will seed the ground to actually get sponsors and have a budget. Even pre-pandemic, my opinion is that it is absolutely nuts for anyone (manufacture or otherwise) to enter the sport. Teams like Mercedes and Ferrari are reaping the benefits of years and decades of investment in building up infrastructure, weeding out poor management (Ferrari struggles with this) and gathering the best technical experts. The cost to get to where they are today is huge. Even with caps, it will likely take many years, maybe a decade for those older investments to depreciate (think "stale bread" not the financial term). But in a caped environment you can only be "out spent" by a fixed and finite amount. Right now, the amount that you can be outspent is entirely unknown and out of your control. Who in their right mind would approve a plan in which your competition is an established player AND is able to outspend you by levels that is totally unknown! THAT is why we don't have groups knocking down the door to enter F1. The only ones who do are lead by super fans who frankly are living delusions of grandeur (and as a fan, sure more power to them, they are living the dream even if they are lemmings walking off a cliff) To my point about caps actually helping seed budgets, if you have a system in which the upper cost is fixed. You can make a case to sponsors. If we get X amount of money (with X ideally being somewhere in the ballpark of the cap) then you will be either on or nearly on a level playing field. Can Williams say that to anyone today (ignoring future cost cap regulations?). Truthfully they can't. Maybe if you have a good sales person you can convince a sponsor otherwise. As to realists approach. Generally speaking (and your approach above does this) negative replies to my ideas does not attack where I am wrong, but just say... I am wrong with no details as to why. I do try to provide examples as to why I think others are wrong. If I am doing a poor job, then attack my points not me. Tell me where I am wrong. So again, actually we agree for the most part. You may not agree with caps (make your points and we can also agree to disagree). I agree that caps doesn't work if everything has crumbled as teams do not exist. Caps ALSO does not work if the cap is so high that it doesn't pull budgets for the big boys down (that is the current dispute). If you look at the Zak Brown article that started this discussion they have agreed to come down to $150 from whatever it was previously ($200?). No doubt it was a number the large teams liked and the small teams didn't like, but were mostly powerless to address. Now the crisis has shown up. And the big teams are afraid of loosing either the entire series or the legitimacy of having competition (even if token as it is now), and are willing to re-open negotiations. Now they are trying to pull it down to $100 with Zak saying $125 might be a compromise. That, plus the monitoring system (which is dynamic) is REAL change. But yes, if the cap is too high, and doesn't impact the top teams enough, then it is pointless. Make it a Billion or Trillion dollars. It wouldn't matter. Do you think you will see a difference in a Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull if their budgets drop from $200 to $100 million. Immediately? Slightly, but probably not significantly. Long term (a handful of years)? Absolutely (or at least my opinion is yes). If they can maintain their current level of dominance on half their budget then holy cow they are wasting money today! Will teams cheat at caps? Sure they will. Will it be significant enough to make the caps pointless. My opinion no. As my posts above say, there are already resource restrictions today. Tunnel time, size/hours of CFD, summer holiday. Are teams cheating on that now? In a significant way, probably not. Caps is no different. The counter argument is (they will just bury the cost elsewhere). Maybe they will. But consider giving forensic accounting a chance. Another argument is that they will not open their books. Fine, don't race. We complain about the manufactures as it is. Don't let the door hit your backside on the way out. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
8 Apr 2020, 13:41 (Ref:3969322) | #69 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can't agree more. I did mention earlier that while this could work, I suspect teams will self limit the size of the sand box. If you had a cap of $100 million and said... "Bring whatever you want". It would scare the crap out of everyone. No doubt a select few would say "let me at it" as they think they would have the next great idea. Such as Nissan did with their tricycle LeMans car. But that is an example of the potential for HUGE faceplants. Someone like Mercedes or Ferrari might show up and their "idea" might be a huge dog. They are OK with being second or maybe third. They are NOT Ok with being last. So they will insist on the safe route which is "just like it is today, but just smaller". So continue with tight regulations, etc. Richard Last edited by Richard C; 8 Apr 2020 at 13:48. |
||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
8 Apr 2020, 13:57 (Ref:3969323) | #70 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
When I say teams will self limit the size of the sandbox. I don't mean voluntarily not try new ideas. I mean they will argue against open regulations. They will want the regulations to remain open in the areas they are already staffed to address. So they have expertise in specific areas. If jet engines and hovercrafts somehow became viable, that would be technology they just don't understand.
Also, I apologize if I come across as argumentative. I am just passionate about my ideas. Like anyone I might be wrong. And most all of this is speculation on everyone's part. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
8 Apr 2020, 14:06 (Ref:3969329) | #71 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Can you hear that noise? It's the sound of millions of sponsors beating their path to Williams, Haas and Racing Point. No thought not.
The point is if you don't have the budget to start with, you don't have anything to cap. The cost, not the budget, needs to be reduced dramatically so that there is no reliance on manufacturers. Failing that you and I can kiss goodbye to anything like a full grid of cars next year, or whenever this gets back up and running. |
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
8 Apr 2020, 14:43 (Ref:3969338) | #72 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
Of course in the past manufacturers have pulled out just like that, so if they did, a few teams could be in limbo. OTOH if it wasn’t so reliant in manufacturers we would see costs go down, as it would need to be sustainable as they couldn’t rely on manufacturer money anymore.
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
8 Apr 2020, 14:54 (Ref:3969342) | #73 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Out in the big wide world I'm seeing some major companies struggling with the virus. As I alluded to earlier. if the manufacturers aren't selling cars the shareholders will be questioning why they are spending millions on racing rather than issuing dividends. Williams, racing point and Haas have no, or very little, interest in selling cars. They want to race and need sponsors. Ignoring Red Bull and Torro Rosso.
Merc, Ferrari and Renault are car makers first. Fiat has shut down its plants, Renault is standing still and Merc are doing likewise. The leasing market has/will collapse so no "sales" there. There is no spare cash for a vanity project, it just isn't there. Unlike previous setbacks such as the financial crash in 2008 which was largely in banking and finance, this has impacted the entire manufacturing system. So as I believe Mr B is alluding, we need to see a total re write of the rules to make sure there is racing. If that means doing away with over complicated engines/eight speed gearboxes, wings, daft floors that are wings and other gubbins, then it will assist the smaller teams. |
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
8 Apr 2020, 15:05 (Ref:3969345) | #74 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. Agree about dire situation for next year. 2. Agree about reliance on manufactures. I am absolutely not a fan of manufacture run teams and the dependency upon them (which is actually two intertwined things) 3. You may disagree, but you feel that lowing cost will reduce budget. Unless you have a fixed spec in which ALL components have a fixed cost, the budget will be variable. It is an absolutely indisputable fact that teams will spend as much as they are given! You can reduce cost of components (such as standardizing on various parts). Money will just be spent elsewhere. Now for teams who don't have the budget to cover their current minimum operating costs, you have a point. And for that, it gets back to simplification of common parts (and complex solutions) and I can agree with that. We need to reduce cost for "mandatory spending" (what is the absolute minimum to get a car on the grid) and cap "discretionary spending" (everything done to make the car the best it can be). I think you are focusing on mandatory and I am focusing on discretionary. Both are important and the solutions people are talking about are more than just caps. It includes part standardization, more equitable distribution of money from FOM, etc. Richard |
||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
8 Apr 2020, 15:23 (Ref:3969349) | #75 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Zak Brown | Graz | Formula One | 39 | 14 Jan 2018 19:20 |
[Rumours] Flavio in the brown and smelly ... again | duke_toaster | Formula One | 6 | 22 May 2010 17:44 |
Bruce-Brown, David | TimD | The Driver Files | 10 | 16 Apr 2006 12:43 |
GP2 Barcelona - changes, changes | Martin Haven | National & International Single Seaters | 14 | 7 May 2005 20:22 |
Does anyone know where Colin Brown will be racing this year? | Marshal | National & International Single Seaters | 7 | 18 Feb 2001 21:40 |