|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
30 Apr 2010, 07:54 (Ref:2682051) | #101 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
But I don't think that for one moment they make up anywhere near the vast majority of Bernie's viewers. All the teams have built their own suspension systems, but only Red Bull's has anything on it that's noteworthy and still it costs the teams millions to produce each one. Engines still cost a small fortune to produce and yet barely any development work is done on them. X-Trac make a gearbox that's probably 90-95% as good as any other teams gearbox for a fraction of the cost and no one talks about gearboxes. |
||
|
30 Apr 2010, 08:10 (Ref:2682054) | #102 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
30 Apr 2010, 12:12 (Ref:2682160) | #103 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 725
|
Quote:
I witnessed them originally in the 80's and it was numbing to be standing opposite the pits at Brands Hatch and feel a F1 car being powered by a 1,200hp engine actually shaking the ground as it drove past. It was spine tingling hearing the Ferrari V12, the Honda V10 and V12, the Lamborghini V12, beautiful shrieking units. Sadly, regulations and emission controls change technology constantly. I may well leave the future F1 races to watching on TV. Just attend Thorough Bred GP until they're banned forever. |
|||
__________________
C YA |
30 Apr 2010, 14:13 (Ref:2682213) | #104 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Quote:
I know what you mean about ground shaking after seeing a 93 Benetton going rounds Brands on a demo run. Think that was a v12 normally aspirated engine. |
|||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
30 Apr 2010, 16:51 (Ref:2682275) | #105 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
In 1993 Benetton used Ford V8s. That year only the Larousse Lamborghinis and the Ferrari engines were V12.
|
||
__________________
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." |
30 Apr 2010, 20:52 (Ref:2682384) | #106 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,767
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
30 Apr 2010, 23:12 (Ref:2682446) | #107 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 725
|
Quote:
At no stage during Australia, Malaysia or China was the focus on the cars, purely on the driving on display. In fact, Bahrain caused people to question the efficiency of the cars now. Isn't it significant that heading the forums every race weekend is "Driver of the Race" and "Rate the race" At no stage have I seen a forum asking people to rate the technology... Autosport is the biggest motorsport weekly on sale in the UK. Their sales figures may be 150,000 per week. From a population of 60 odd million, that's poor. Viewing figures for races in the UK may be 6 or 7,000,000, so we're talking a tiny percentage who actually care... 2) Regarding the 90% of Americans, are we talking 90% of the USA population or 90% of the F1 fans in the US? It's common knowledge that the biggest form of motorsport in the US is Nascar. Hardly a bedrock of technology. |
|||
__________________
C YA |
1 May 2010, 00:18 (Ref:2682465) | #108 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
||
|
1 May 2010, 00:25 (Ref:2682466) | #109 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Quote:
Joe Saward's blog is were you would have read that originally, and I repeated it here...The amount of fuel burned by a Jumbo Jet on take off that is! America landed on the Moon, I think that is quite an achievement don't you? even if the technology used in NASCAR is not...I have been inside, (and I mean inside) NASA JPL it's rather impressive to say the least.. |
|||
|
1 May 2010, 00:37 (Ref:2682469) | #110 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
60% of F1s 'carbon footprint' is for the running costs incurred by such things as wind tunnels etc. Fuel used during the season amounts to a tiny fraction of F1s costs.
|
|
|
1 May 2010, 00:56 (Ref:2682478) | #111 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Apollo 13 really summed up what it is that most people wanted to watch once Neil Armstrong had done the business. More films, books and documentaries were produced for that particular mission than for any other mission before or after. Maybe because it was more about the men than the machines? |
||
|
1 May 2010, 00:56 (Ref:2682479) | #112 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 725
|
Quote:
I also have a plasma TV and whilst I read articles before buying it about the difference between LCD and Plasma, when I switch the damn thing on, all I care about is the picture I'm watching. I get in my car, and nowadays, they have more computing power than what was needed to land on the moon, yet I don't need to know how that works, just that it does reliably. I take out my iphone and make calls all over the planet. I understand something about mobile networks and their set up, I work in the telecoms industry, but again, I need to know the network works. Not how. Whether F1 goes green with 1.5 litre turbo engines running 10,000 or 12,000rpm or what injection system they are using, ultimately makes little difference to what I watch. There are people who are fascinated by technology and need to know how everything works. I have no issue with that, but personally, it's a tool. |
|||
__________________
C YA |
1 May 2010, 00:57 (Ref:2682480) | #113 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 725
|
Quote:
I watched a documentary which was fascinating about the 86 launch and how one engineer tried to get NASA to stop the launch. Temperature that morning was -11degrees, and he was certain the O rings on the booster rockets would fail on the launch pad. He was relieved when it cleared the tower and assumed luck had been on their side... NASA had run a campaign to take a teacher into space, so as to regenerate interest in the shuttle once more Last edited by herowassenna; 1 May 2010 at 01:06. Reason: Entered before completion |
|||
__________________
C YA |
3 May 2010, 08:44 (Ref:2683646) | #114 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
F1 is about racing, and if you bring a dragster to an F1 race it is not the right tool for road racing. The current crop of cars are great technology in outwash wings and aero aides, but the formula is wrong and despite the hype surrounding them they are very limited in their primary application which is racing! Therefore lousy tools! |
||
|
3 May 2010, 11:09 (Ref:2683701) | #115 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
As I said in a post earlier. Most of F1s 'waste' takes place away from the GPs. Wind tunnels use an extraordinary amount of power to start them up and keep them running. Usually requiring a quick phone call to the local power station every time they need to do it. Getting rid of useless aero development would go a long way to making F1 greener. Virgin could be on to a winner here.
|
|
|
3 May 2010, 12:31 (Ref:2683743) | #116 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 335
|
The idea of a green F1 isn't the amount of energy and resources directly consumed by racing operations and manufacture, it's about the contributions that F1's development can add to the green state-of-the-art in automotive technology.
It would be absolutely ridiculous to demand that the cars get 30 miles to the gallon of renewable fuel on the track, or move the show from track to track using sail-powered freighters or horse-drawn barges. And having F1's development so rule-restricted that it's a veritable spec series makes such green development a sham. If they're serious about green development, and not just paying it lip service, they need to open up the rules enough to give the developers some elbow room. |
||
|
3 May 2010, 12:48 (Ref:2683750) | #117 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Then you have to ask yourself: Is F1 the best platform for 'green' technology anyway? Since leaving F1, Honda and others have already gone far beyond KERS and fossil fuel engines. Probably to a point where F1 wouldn't be relevant to them, no matter what the regulations were. The FIA currently run a racing series called the 'FIA Alternative Energies Cup'. "I PURPOSE OF EVENTS The purpose of these Events is the promotion of environmentally-friendly and in some cases commercially suitable solar and/or electrically powered vehicles, as well as vehicles powered by alternative energies. In line with the pioneering nature of automobile sport, countless technical concepts are tested through competition, the aim of such events is to demonstrate to the general public that vehicles powered by solar, electrical and alternative energies can give good performance and can thus be perfectly suitable for everyday use." Does the FIA need another one? |
||
|
3 May 2010, 13:07 (Ref:2683755) | #118 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 335
|
Quote:
When automotive green technology has far exceeded what the restrictive F1 development rules might allow, there is virtually no chance that anything developed by and for F1 will have any relevance, anything at all, to automotive green technology. As I mentioned in the 2011 KERS thread, F1's green efforts would be equally served, and be equally as honest, by plastering the cars with "We Got Green!" decals. Right now, F1 spends many millions on pointless development efforts. To me, today's rules make a mockery of F1's stated purpose (or at least what the stated purpose used to be when I started following the series). I'm afraid that today's stated purpose would allude to power grabs and lining Bernie's and CVC's pockets. A green F1? Yeah, right. I could go on, but I think I'll stop here before I start turning the air blue, and smashing my poor, innocent keyboard with heavy objects. |
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[WTCC] Turbo charged 1600 engines from 2011 | JMeissner | Touring Car Racing | 95 | 3 Mar 2010 00:35 |
Smaller turbo engines and bigger wheels planned for WTCC | JMeissner | Touring Car Racing | 100 | 22 Dec 2008 21:09 |
Turbo compound engines? | chris1600 | Formula One | 11 | 13 May 2008 06:51 |
Max's Grand New Plan. Spec Chassis and Bio Turbo Engines. | Hazza | Formula One | 118 | 28 Jun 2007 19:21 |
Turbo CVH Engines | Flat Out Farr | Racing Technology | 11 | 21 Jun 2006 07:29 |