|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
17 Jul 2014, 19:55 (Ref:3434958) | #626 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,967
|
sorry i should have asked, do you still see the front wing as an area where innovation is still possible or is it just an area of refinement?
|
||
__________________
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 |
17 Jul 2014, 21:00 (Ref:3434969) | #627 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
That's what I find so frustrating. The cars could be full of things that make you go "What were they smoking when they came up with that?" These would be things everybody would enjoy, because they would be so cool. The reason you don't find the technical side of the sport interesting now, is because the technical side of the sport is NOT interesting now. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
17 Jul 2014, 21:29 (Ref:3434975) | #628 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 717
|
You sir are just plain wrong. I knew this fantasy car would come up as one of your examples eventually.
If F1 was like this, it would be an extremely fast and dangerous procession and amazingly quick cars, with no ovetaking because they would all be so perfect. It would result in crazy cornering speeds, breaking, and ultimately, driver deaths when things go wrong. While it is kind of an interesting conversation point, this is 100% the wrong direction for F1 to go on. Shhh. |
|
|
17 Jul 2014, 21:32 (Ref:3434976) | #629 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,147
|
Quote:
Regarding innovation, I suspect that much of the innovation in F1 is likely hidden away as a way to keep the other teams from figuring things out. There is likely a number of small details that if each of us was to understand we might find interesting. Maybe this really is ongoing refinement via many small (and hidden) innovations. To another point above, I suspect opinions as to how to "fix F1" are based upon what each of us find interesting about F1. Both the technology and the racing are equally important to me while others just like the racing. That is why I am personally generally against "spec" components. I find the engineering part fascinating. But I also don't view the world as being so black and white, so I think there can be a happy medium somewhere. I have to say this thread has been an enjoyable experience today. No shouting and gnashing of teeth. Richard |
||
|
17 Jul 2014, 22:04 (Ref:3434979) | #630 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 717
|
Quote:
It was outlawed and in the rules it sights no allowance for aerodynamic alteration by the driver by way of hand movement, or something similar. I actually wonder if the changes of the rules over the years has actually resulted in FRIC now becoming outside of the rules, when it was perhaps perfectly legal when it was introduced. In other words, areas of the rule book that have been clarified for other reasons now means FRIC has become illegal. It is certainly a blury area. |
||
|
17 Jul 2014, 22:07 (Ref:3434980) | #631 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
Which means, at some point, well out in the future, through the efforts of all those clever engineers, they would complete an F1 race, at current racing speeds and distance, using a single gallon of gasoline. But really the Red Bull X2010 is quite pedestrian relative to what we would have right now, if the rule book were as short as it was in the early 1970's. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
18 Jul 2014, 00:39 (Ref:3435002) | #632 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
|
||
|
18 Jul 2014, 01:57 (Ref:3435013) | #633 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,147
|
Never said spec suspension. Just that if they plan to put in place a cost controlled active suspension, that instead of spec suspension parts, have a spec ECU that has limited/capped compute and input/output capability. Teams would be free to do whatever they wanted within those constraints. I think that in general the magic in an active suspension system will be the software which would also be free as long as it fits within the capabilities of the spec ECU.
I expect what we will actually see will be both a spec ECU plus a number of homologated components (sensors and actuators) that will be required. That would be much more restrictive than what I am proposing. I will be shocked if they allow a totally free active suspension. Richard |
|
|
18 Jul 2014, 02:11 (Ref:3435014) | #634 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,147
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
|
18 Jul 2014, 02:34 (Ref:3435018) | #635 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
How does that differ from this is a single element wing of given chord profile and plan form, install it how you want? Just outlaw any wing in front of the front axle line should work even better! |
||
|
18 Jul 2014, 17:56 (Ref:3435227) | #636 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,147
|
I am assuming that if they do active suspension that the current McLaren ECU may not have the capacity to also handle the active suspension, but maybe it does. I don’t know how much extra capacity that ECU has. So I was assuming there would need to be an extra ECU just for active suspension.
Quote:
Quote:
Richard |
|||
|
18 Jul 2014, 19:05 (Ref:3435247) | #637 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
I have always believed a budget cap is the way to go but it does not look like it will happen.
On the subject of restricting aero development I have a number of suggestions that hopefully should result in cost saving. Restrict wings to set number of chord profiles. All wing elements must retain the same profile across their entire width when viewed from the side. Wing end plates should be flat and in a vertical position with no holes in them. |
|
|
19 Jul 2014, 06:35 (Ref:3435352) | #638 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 40
|
Dang, I haven't been following this thread for a while, but posted something on the FRIC thread [posts 94 to 99?, sorry, didn't want to cross post and don't know how to link to a particular post] that might be relevant. Seems miatanut, Richard, and I are thinking along similar lines. I believe that some sort of cost cap with real teeth, like permanent expulsion, is an absolute necessity. It can be set at near current levels of the mid pack teams, higher, or lower depending upon the amount of prestige desired, pandering to the enshrined teams, etc. but let's make engineering creativity in a resource limited universe the distinguishing characteristic, rather than handing the trophy to the idiot willing to spend the most. This is certainly more real world relevant than anything F1 does today, and great training for engineers in any field.
The teams say it is impossible to come up with enforceable budget caps, but there are plenty of accountants and ex IRS auditors who I bet could easily prove them wrong. I really think no one has given 1% of the time, money, and resources to coming up with a workable cap system that Mercedes has spent on FRIC this year alone. And that is now a total write off. How long is Ferrari going to be willing to trundle around in 6th place while spending, what, $300,000,000 a year? That's liable to even get the Fiat board's attention. Cut it back to $100 M and it could probably get funded out of petty cash. And trundling around in 6th won't be nearly as embarrassing if your only spending 1/3 the money. And so as not to discriminate, the same could be said of their best buds McLaren. Paul |
||
|
19 Jul 2014, 08:50 (Ref:3435391) | #639 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
Quote:
I firmly believe a cost cap is the way to go and open up the rule book to allow more innovation. |
||
|
19 Jul 2014, 10:33 (Ref:3435417) | #640 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,188
|
|||
|
19 Jul 2014, 11:19 (Ref:3435424) | #641 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,215
|
But you can. Innovation is more about new ideas more than R&D, been there and done that in another form of motor sport. That is what Newey was alluding to, he was not allowed to develop ideas which he wanted to implement. Development yes, research not so much as he had arrived at where he wanted to develop those ideas. Research implies that new ideas are being sought as there are no answers at present and research is needed.
|
|
|
19 Jul 2014, 18:32 (Ref:3435592) | #642 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,302
|
If you want to limit downforce, then simply just setting a fixed wing surface area would work as well as any other solution.
|
||
|
19 Jul 2014, 21:43 (Ref:3435636) | #643 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
19 Jul 2014, 23:45 (Ref:3435656) | #644 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Fuel rules would be whatever they are now. Or, single source the fuel to be the standard pump gas Shell or whoever sells across the EU.
|
||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
19 Jul 2014, 23:59 (Ref:3435658) | #645 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,153
|
Limiting the teams to a single source could be problematic. The sponsorship from a few of the oil companies ExxonMobil, Total, PDVSA, Petronas, Shell etc isn't purely commercial. Some of them actually make the fuel each car uses.
|
|
|
20 Jul 2014, 00:03 (Ref:3435659) | #646 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,763
|
The problem with single source, is it prevents teams from choosing a cheaper supplier.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
20 Jul 2014, 01:18 (Ref:3435667) | #647 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
Still, I think the current fuel rules seem to be working just fine. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
20 Jul 2014, 04:54 (Ref:3435706) | #648 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,153
|
.
|
|
|
20 Jul 2014, 12:12 (Ref:3435794) | #649 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
20 Jul 2014, 12:56 (Ref:3435807) | #650 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Not what formula status quo is looking for either. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |