|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
6 Jan 2011, 14:02 (Ref:2811924) | #101 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,834
|
I have quoted Gilles here before...
"Take of the aero, and give me more power...!" He hated the silly cars from 1981ish, with hydraulic suspensions. If you want overtaking, look to the likes of Formula Ford, where it's pretty much ALL mechanical grip. Limit that by reducing tyre size, and then you don't need silly carbon brakes. Seeing as they just lock up wheels when you use the things. If you need the sponsor name on the rear wing, then make a standard front and rear 'wing' and offer them to teams, but limit their effectiveness. Let's cut back the aero, and that stops teams running hideously expensive moving floor tunnels 24/7! It might even allow a driver to overtake another on the track... |
||
__________________
Tim Yorath Ecurie Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch Fan of "the sacred monster Christophe Bouchut"... |
6 Jan 2011, 14:21 (Ref:2811931) | #102 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
6 Jan 2011, 14:54 (Ref:2811948) | #103 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Jet engines? Nuclear powered engines? Gas turbine engines? Runs really well on a part consumption of Pandas and Dolphins engines? F1 teams will choose the engine type that best suits F1, and not necessarily because it's relevant to anything else. But sometimes relevance is all that matters: Salesmen..uh An HRT engineer said about KERS yesterday: “It is a fashionable green technology that helps to sell more [road] cars,” the former BMW engineer told Spanish website motor21.com. “It's inefficient, but the large manufacturers want it to sell their cars. A lot of the manufacturers want KERS as a tool of their marketing departments to justify their investments in F1.” Last edited by Marbot; 6 Jan 2011 at 15:02. |
||
|
6 Jan 2011, 19:30 (Ref:2812068) | #104 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,404
|
I believe that possibly its mainly inefficient in terms of F1 investment because the overly restrictive FIA regs relating to deployment, number of wheels KERS can be used in, restrictions re generation of KERS etc make it inefficient and too limited to be of road relevance.. Toyota claimed there was more KERS technology in a Prius than in an F1 setup.
|
||
|
6 Jan 2011, 20:09 (Ref:2812093) | #105 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
The problem seems to be that if you get more power from KERS in F1, then you have to have correspondingly less from your primary power source. Otherwise we end up with cars that are once again, too fast. |
||
|
6 Jan 2011, 22:28 (Ref:2812167) | #106 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
That isn't too much of a problem, provided costs are kept sensible and "the show" - and however you want to phrase it, it is important - is maintained. Another way to reduce straightline speed would be to increase drag somehow, of course.
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
7 Jan 2011, 00:54 (Ref:2812203) | #107 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,404
|
Raise minimum height by a fair amount. I think I recall reading something about a 40mm minimum ride height would severely impact on downforce.
|
||
|
7 Jan 2011, 08:38 (Ref:2812314) | #108 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Perhaps it is that the intention is to go as quickly as possible by using as little fuel as possible? This will no doubt be a recurring theme in future FIA regulations. |
||
|
7 Jan 2011, 15:24 (Ref:2812544) | #109 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
Any way, free engines should not be equated with free fuel. Only commercially available and road-practical fuels should be allowed. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
7 Jan 2011, 19:07 (Ref:2812653) | #110 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Hold everything! Luca's not happy at all.
Someone let him have is V6 engines, please! http://www.crash.net/f1/news/165787/...ntezemolo.html |
|
|
7 Jan 2011, 19:59 (Ref:2812682) | #111 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,293
|
I really dont think a series that isn't "F1" would work in the way he wants it to. A1GP used Ferrari engines in its last year(s), does the average man on the street know that, or even knows what A1GP is?
|
||
|
7 Jan 2011, 20:05 (Ref:2812688) | #112 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
There will no doubt be those that want to stay as 'F1' too, which will no doubt only help to confuse matters. Fortunately, it seems that Luca is currently on a one man crusade, and maybe it's also been raining a lot in Italy just lately. |
||
|
8 Jan 2011, 03:00 (Ref:2812790) | #113 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,404
|
Well it seems Luca has Bernie potentially on his side..... Bernie confirming concern that the new 4 cylinder turbos wont provide the required type or level of noise is a major concern to him.
Quote:
I recall Niki Lauda perhaps jestfully citing the noise of a V8 Cosworth behind him after than many years of a 12 cylinder noise was part of his reason for quitting Brabham after he tried their next years car and announcing his retirement on the spot at the Canadian GP in 1979. Certainly I for one miss the euphony of sound that a seventies grid provided in abundance.... mmmmm the sound of a Matra or BRM V12, plus all the other options rather than even the screech of the cacophony we now have. But even what we have now is on paper a better option than waht I and clearly others fear may happen. To me the noise was always half of the appeal way back when, listening to the different notes for clues of what was about to appear in sight. |
|||
|
8 Jan 2011, 03:58 (Ref:2812796) | #114 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
If F1 was being true to its apparent goal of developing technology then the best way of ensuring the development of technology would be to say you have x litres to complete a GP do it anyway you like. Maybe layout the dimensions of a cube the car must fit under and subject them to crash tests, if they pass they are in!
Then we would see the most efficient technology developed and the rubbish like KERS binned. If you wish to have a genuine motor race then you have to ensure the cars can race one another. |
|
|
8 Jan 2011, 08:55 (Ref:2812818) | #115 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
V12 1.6 litre turbos......hmmm
To some, the 'sound of F1' died with the introduction of the V8 2.4's. But for me it had already died at the end of 95 when the last V12 Ferrari was heard. Superleague only do V12's. Maybe we should watch that instead? |
|
|
8 Jan 2011, 10:18 (Ref:2812843) | #116 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
The sound of the new engines may prove to be unpopular. However, in the 1980s no-one ever complained about the sound of the then-used turbo engines.
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
8 Jan 2011, 15:35 (Ref:2812949) | #117 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
TBH, I don't think that the vast majority of F1 fans give two hoots about what actually propels the cars around the track, as long as they are fast and make a decent noise.
If F1 were to implement the use of Superleagues 4.2 litre 750bhp V12 engines for the next few seasons, I don't think that you would have much complaint from most fans, but you would have complaints from the current engine manufacturers, and probably some moaning on forums. We should blame the marketing people at Renault etc for the proposed new regulations. It is they who are insisting that what's out on track should mirror what's in road cars. Maybe we should be more careful which boxes we tick when we fill in those F1 surveys? |
|
|
8 Jan 2011, 20:04 (Ref:2813014) | #118 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
I truly believe that Formula 1 can be relevant, but mandating a specific engine configuration and introducing a regulatory framework that provides an absolute point of perfection is the solution.
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
9 Jan 2011, 01:00 (Ref:2813083) | #119 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
It is only if the technologies compete and are developed that we can see which is ultimately the best. If the fuel is restricted, will a 1000cc turbo screamer be more effective than a 3000cc miller cycle engine with a turbo? Could the teams more effectively capture the wasted energy into some other energy recovery system than the mandated stone age KERS. Penalise systems that result in huge quantities of toxic metal products, like batteries and KERS for instance. How the heck are they sustainable? |
||
|
9 Jan 2011, 01:03 (Ref:2813084) | #120 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
The 4.2 litre V12 sound; pardon the pun; the way to go imo. |
||
|
9 Jan 2011, 10:56 (Ref:2813174) | #121 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
I mistyped.
I wanted to write: I truly believe that Formula 1 can be relevant, but mandating a specific engine configuration and introducing a regulatory framework that provides an absolute point of perfection is not the solution. Quite incomprehensibly I'm not allowed to edit my post. |
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
9 Jan 2011, 11:00 (Ref:2813176) | #122 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv_Qf...eature=related |
||
|
9 Jan 2011, 12:41 (Ref:2813224) | #123 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Guess we are not allowed to edit posts after they are put up to stop people changing their arguments and positions retrospectively and hence making a forum argument incomprehensible. |
||
|
9 Jan 2011, 12:43 (Ref:2813226) | #124 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
I read about the launch but never gave them much thought myself. The specs for the cars do sound good though. Thanks for the vid. |
||
|
9 Jan 2011, 12:44 (Ref:2813227) | #125 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
If I understand correctly there is a ten or fifteen minute time limit for post edits.
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jos "Dead Loss" Verstappen & Enrique "Not Piquet" Bernoldi | I Ate Yoko Ono | Formula One | 16 | 9 Oct 2001 14:44 |