![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,192
![]() |
Quote:
![]() But having said that, due to its open-wheel and open cockpit design Formula One's aerodynamics will never be relevant to any road car including the multi-million hypercars. As aero development is totally irrelevant, costs an awful lot and has detrimental effect on the racing, they should just get rid of it. Yes, Formula One will become a "Formula Ford on steroids", but would that be a problem? |
|||
![]() |
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari ![]() |
![]() |
#27 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,192
![]() |
Currently, the teams are forced to an endless refinement. But refining something is the most expensive thing to do.
|
||
![]() |
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari ![]() |
![]() |
#28 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,660
![]() |
Standard front/rear wings, wide tyres no more than 6 gears and a Judd V10.
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 925
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
So what ? Are you saying teams must retain their current size because , somehow, they have gone from employing 50 people to 500 ? And so numbers can never reduce, ever , regardless of size ? Sorry , but I am arguing about the sport, not employment opportunities. And , given the intellects at work in F 1 , I can think of many, many better outlets to apply them to than , y'know, saving a tenth round Monza through a tweak in winglet design |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,865
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Thanks for the link to the Motorsports cover. McLaren MP4/6? Take the regulations from that era and drop them into today. Does anything really think the cars that would result would look like those cars from that era? There is no way they would. At a minimum we know more now than then about how to make these cars perform. So you would see current innovations on those cars.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oddly enough you could have more technical freedom with cost caps. However I think teams would fight against it (cost caps PLUS significant technical freedom). They want predictable results. Open technical regulations is the opposite of that. They want to have a small number of areas to devote resources. Not all over the place. Richard |
||||
![]() |
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." ![]() |
![]() |
#31 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
I have long proposed that the regs should severely restrict the amount of engineering at the track and if that is done the ability to manage the car is constrained so it becomes less complex and thus costs less. No multi function steering wheel, it can have a horn button if they want. No pit to car communications at all, none, none, none. No data transmission back to the factory from the track. A limitation of data channels that can be used, this is limited to number not actual channels so the teams must declare what channels they wish to monitor before practise starts. No engineers sitting in front of a gazillion screens at the track. Proof must be provided that customer teams are allowed at no extra cost to use exactly the same engine and transmission mapping that the OEM teams have access to. If I were a betting man I would say that customer teams only have this access on hugely expensive terms, yes you can have it but is it going to cost you a lot of money. All the above does not limit the thinking or using of any technology but what it does is force the teams to make choices of what technology they can manage at the track. If they can't manage it then they won't put it on the cars but in no way does it stop them thinking and perhaps coming up with new ideas. The logistics at the track would be far simpler and way less expensive and if I had my way they would be limited to one laptop at the track for vehicle management which would definitely put a barrier up in how complex the cars could be but I think that is not realistic these days. I love technology, I bought my current road car because it is full of it but F1 has reached the peak of absurdity and thing need to be reset in such a way as not to limit it but to limit what can be managed at the track. Here is how absurd data can be and I was guilty of it. A few years ago I became involved in racing Super Karts and we had nearly 40 channels of data on the kart, it was in its limited way engineering gone mad and we never understood that until late in the piece and the guys involved in the data side could not see it at any price. Last edited by Casper; 7 Apr 2020 at 01:39. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 | |||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,352
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
I never said those features are on the cars because of F1. I said that knowledge gained in F1 may have contributed to the development of the solutions we see on cars today. This was in response to a post that talked about features on F1 cars being seen on road cars. Have road cars developed aerodynamic features? Yes. Did all of these come from F1? No. Did some of these come from F1? Possibly. Has knowledge gained through F1 contributed to aero on cars today? Yes. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
![]() ![]() |
Even saying there may be an F1 flow on is wrong. the only resemblance to an F1 car and all its technology to a road car is they both have four wheels and that was not always the case as we know.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,352
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Are you seriously suggesting that zero knowledge developed as part of F1 R&D reaches a road car?
|
||
![]() |
__________________
"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." ![]() |
![]() |
#37 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,791
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk |
|||
![]() |
__________________
Midgetman - known as Max Tyler to the world. MaxAttaq! ![]() |
![]() |
#38 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 814
![]() |
Would anybody object to the idea of components from a road car being used in F1?It would strengthen the links between racetrack and road.It might be necessary to stipulate that only components from cars produced at a rate of over 50,000 per year could be considered to keep the super exotic stuff out.It might mean the scrapyards would be scoured for suspension parts from 60's Citroens as they had features the FIA has worked tirelessly to ban.On the other hand I don't believe many road cars have a need for inerters.Why not consider air suspension like the larger Audis and Jaguars?The cars have a need for compressed air for pneumatic valve springs and are likely to have a source of air.
There is and will probably always will be something pretty absurd about hundreds of engineers scratching for microscopic improvements in a formula that is edging ever closer to becoming GP1. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 925
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The three biggest legacies from F 1 in a road car context are
- faux diffusers (even on a 1litre Focus ) - faux 'raised nose' look - the irritating tendency of some lazy journalists to wibble on about 'mechanical grip' , as if most road cars at most speeds had any other sort of grip To be fair, I first saw shift lights and paddle shifts on Ferrari 640/641 but any legacy from F1 to road cars is incidental - and that is just as it should be . After all , the purpose of the space programme wasn't to invent non stick pans and WD40 was it ? |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,181
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Another thing to factor in that the teams money from FOM only comes from income generated by FOM. So, it is not unreasonable to assume that FOM will actually make a massive loss in 2020, which will mean no money for any F1 teams next year. These is already speculation that FOM may have to return as much as $250m to circuit promoters from what will be cancelled events this year and by subsiding promoters who cannot sell sufficient tickets for postponed races.
As I posted in another thread one of the major F1 ticket sellers has already said that F1 tickets sales have not slowed, they have in fact stopped dead. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#41 | |||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
![]() ![]() |
Show me where an F1 break through reached a road car, no ifs or buts but actually was developed in F1 and then moved across to a mass produced road car. I might be proven wrong but I simply can't think of anything.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,398
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Patrick Head always argued F1 had no need to improve the breed, quite rightly in my view. Of course F1 is the pinnacle of technology, but we don't need so much it lessens the racing quality and reduces driver input
|
|
![]() |
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! ![]() |
![]() |
#46 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,292
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Four valves per cylinder Limited slip differential All first introduced in Grand Prix cars. None recent I grant you, but plenty if you look hard enough. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 | |||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,352
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Probably best summed up in the following sentence: 'F1 has actually been more about taking technology that has been tried and tinkered with - often with limited success - and pushing it to its very limit. It's at this point that this "perfected" technology then feeds back into the real world.' Examples include: 'tweaking of technology can be found as far back as 1912, when Renault replaced the overhead camshaft in its race car with a double overhead camshaft. This meant a less restricted airflow at higher speeds as there was a wider angle between the intake and exhaust valves.' 'Carbon Fibre construction had been around for a while, but the MP4/1 unveiled in 1981 was the first car to use carbon fibre to create a single-piece monocoque for the body developing the technology in use by aerospace at the time. This is now used to keep weight down and retain rigidity on higher-end cars.' 'The first semi-automatic transmission, reducing the dependence on the clutch pedal, was developed by Chrysler back in the 1940s, and other manufacturers continued to develop variants of it after the war. However, semi-automatic transmissions never really took off as they were complicated and didn't really suit drivers, offering neither the ease of use of an automatic or the driving quality that comes with a manual transmission. In the late 1980s, Ferrari developed a semi-automatic gearbox for its F1-89. After some early reliability problems - even Ferrari found it a complicated system - the gearbox proved to be revolutionary, allowing drivers to change gear quickly and reducing occurrences of accidental gear changes. By the mid-90s, all F1 cars had moved to semi-automatic transmission, while Ferrari was introducing it to the wider public with the F355. The original 1994 Berlinetta version used a manual gearbox, but the semi-automatic transmission was added in 1997. Although still an expensive system, many high-end road cars now use the 'flappy paddle' semi-automatic transmission.' 'Williams FW15C : Traction control, active suspension, anti-lock brakes: these things were all in use in some form or another in production cars. However, the Williams car utilised new electronics packages to control these, [...] since then electronics have playing a much more significant part in the engine management, traction control and braking of our production cars.' |
|||
![]() |
__________________
"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." ![]() |
![]() |
#48 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
![]() ![]() one may think i drive a luxury vehicle but its just a very affordable VW Alltrack - basically a fatter slower Golf. over time technology filters both up and down. while these technologies were not created for racing, they were nevertheless proven on a race track. im sure someone can point out where these ideas really came from (aerospace or military industries or someplace less esoteric) but that just speaks to the back and forth flow of ideas. for me it doesnt necessarily suggest one part of the process (racing in this case) is irrelevant simply because it did not come first in generating those ideas. for me there is a connection between this sport and mass production to the point where it is no longer even relevant to question where the idea came from in the first place. and of course some technologies will have more use on a race track but irrelevant for a road car and other techs will come to life in a road car but will be considered anathema to proper racing. im not so much touting the value of blind research but in this era of the virus there is surly an argument to be made about the value of people working and researching ideas that may not look to be obviously or immediately valuable and/or exploitable. how long does it takes to bring something from bespoke application to mass manufactured and affordable enough for the standard/average road car? that we see nothing recent may even suggest, F1's limiting of technology/cost controls on new ides is what has slowed the pace of information transfer. ![]() while i agree that these techs take the 'soul' out of real life racing competitions, i would imagine real time data acquisition and analysis and the feeding of that data into computer models to predict behaviour would be massively important to road cars/autonomous driving technologies. on one had you say there is nothing F1 does first but then also advocate limiting the possibility of F1 being a leader in cross over technologies. anyways, at the end of the day i agree with you that F1 needs to find a better and cheaper way to do things. i just remain unconvinced that limiting tech is the way to go. ending the endless cycle of refinements is closer to where i would draw the line...unfortunately i am not knowledgeable enough to define where exactly that line is any better then that. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place ![]() |
![]() |
#49 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,312
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sorry, NONE of those were first in a grand prix car. In fact all can be traced back to street car development between the 1910s and 1940s. But if you'd like try again but actually bring documents with you this time
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 925
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
What F 1 is really good at (at least since it became mass entertainment) is giving enough profile to technology to endow it with mainstream credibility . The Chevy Corvair had had turbocharging years before the Renault RS1 in 77 , as had various cars from 911 to Saab 99, turbos had been used in Indy and Le Mans - but it was F1 (and Gp B rally cars) which catapulted turbos into the limelight . Within a year or two, turbos were de rigueur for hot hatches , and turbo branding was everywhere from vacuum cleaners to razors.
Chaparral might have pioneered serious aero , and ground effect , before F1 but their name is unknown outside the sport Or carbon - a big deal was rightly made of John Barnard's carbon fibre McLaren MP4/1 - but I'd been using carbon fishing rods for years before its debut in 81 . |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |