[Tech Issue] Double DRS banned for 2013

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Marbot

F1 teams, these days, are in the business of staying in business. That's all.

while that may be true, uninspiring but true, the fact that they all sell similar products surely must offer them some incentive to compete with each other.

anyways you make it sound like F1 is losing billions a year instead of making it. ifs its about solvency for the teams or even a sustainable business model for future teams then achieving a better commercial agreement is more preferable to cost cutting imo.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

while that may be true, uninspiring but true, the fact that they all sell similar products surely must offer them some incentive to compete with each other.

Only two car manufacturers build both car and engine as a single F1 product. The rest is a mish-mash of private teams with no interest in building road cars at all. Or if they do build road cars they don't use their own engines in F1.

Similar products? Renault are only interested in down-sized petrol turbos, turbo-diesels and electric cars. Probably with the emphasis now shifting to electric vehicles.

Ferrari have road cars struggling to reach 20mpg, and that's a British imperial gallon and not a U.S. gallon!

Only recently have Ferrari fitted anything like a Hybrid system to one of their cars.

Chalk and Cheese.

Mercedes are somewhere in the middle, and probably having a good look at the results so far attained, that perhaps still justify further participation.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

anyways you make it sound like F1 is losing billions a year instead of making it. ifs its about solvency for the teams or even a sustainable business model for future teams then achieving a better commercial agreement is more preferable to cost cutting imo.

I believe that they have got a better commercial agreement. There will also be a resource restriction agreement that will probably be governed by the FIA.

Now, what were we.......ah yes, DDRS!

[luke g28]

What does it matter if the teams build the car and/or engine?

If you have your name / brand written in bold letters down the side of the winning car every week then you get big publicity. Likewise if your name is written on losing / underachieving car then you get that publicity too.

If the Caterhams have engine failures every week then everybody will associate Caterham with unreliability even though its a Renault engine.

How much exposure has a drinks company gotten from f1 over the last 3-5 years? I would be very surprised if they are not seeing any benefit from competing.

As for DDRS I see absolutely 0 benefit in banning it. Looks an awful lot like a fduct though (dont think that needed banning either but oh well).

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

What does it matter if the teams build the car and/or engine?

If you have your name / brand written in bold letters down the side of the winning car every week then you get big publicity. Likewise if your name is written on losing / underachieving car then you get that publicity too.

If the Caterhams have engine failures every week then everybody will associate Caterham with unreliability even though its a Renault engine.

How much exposure has a drinks company gotten from f1 over the last 3-5 years? I would be very surprised if they are not seeing any benefit from competing.

I answered to this post.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

while that may be true, uninspiring but true, the fact that they all sell similar products surely must offer them some incentive to compete with each other.

They don't all sell similar products. There is nothing that they can agree on that will be of benefit to all of the teams.

Red Bull have obviously benefited from F1 a great deal, but Renault insist that it's a V6 turbo for 2014 or they're outa there! NA V8's aren't 'doing it' for them.

It doesn't look like Cosworth or pure will be in F1 in 2014, so that's potentially 3 engine manufacturers supplying 12 teams.

Originally Posted by luke g28

As for DDRS I see absolutely 0 benefit in banning it. Looks an awful lot like a fduct though (dont think that needed banning either but oh well).

If we had kept every little innovative performance increase since innovative performance increase in F1 actually began. What sort of cornering/straight line speeds do you think we would have now? What sort of performance decreaser would be needed to get things sane again?

Don't say: 'reduce aero' because you just argued to increase it.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

while that may be true, uninspiring but true, the fact that they all sell similar products surely must offer them some incentive to compete with each other.

the teams all build race cars in order to race each other in F1. thats the product they produce and sell and hence what places them in completion with each other. i was responding sarcastically (and apparently poorly) to your point that they are only in business to stay in business.

Originally Posted by Marbot

No. They are not in the business of competing in every area.

F1 teams, these days, are in the business of staying in business. That's all.

i called it uninspiring because there is more to F1 then watching companies balance their books and stay in business. (another poor attempt at sarcasm)

anyways now you are changing the goal posts on this discussion. on one hand you say that allowing them this type of technical freedom will lead to ridiculousness.

Originally Posted by Marbot

The thing is though, is that if they allowed every little gizmo to be used that was ever thought of by an F1 engineer, the cars would probably by now be very over-complicated indeed, and for no real reason.

now you allude to the possibility that Renault might leave because they lack the technical freedom to do what they want and make it sound like we will be at a loss for having less suppliers.

which incidentally would also suggest that Renault, at least, has other motivations of staying in F1 other then just staying in business.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Red Bull have obviously benefited from F1 a great deal, but Renault insist that it's a V6 turbo for 2014 or they're outa there! NA V8's aren't 'doing it' for them.

It doesn't look like Cosworth or pure will be in F1 in 2014, so that's potentially 3 engine manufacturers supplying 12 teams.

i see the lack of tech freedom as a deterrent to teams/suppliers being involved and the end result is less competition...and regretting lack of competition (both on track and in the factory) has been a pretty consistent theme of mine over the past few months.

obviously people see what they want to see and this is what i see in more and more of the decisions being made in F1. maybe its always been this way and it has just reached a tipping point for me. but less variety while increasing profits and limiting competition might make for a great business model but it makes for poor sport.

long and short of all this is that your posts confuse me Marbot...as no doubt mine confuse you. so im afraid we must once again settle on agreeing to disagree.

on a side note im in favour of less Craig Pollack not more!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If we had kept every little innovative performance increase since innovative performance increase in F1 actually began. What sort of cornering/straight line speeds do you think we would have now? What sort of performance decreaser would be needed to get things sane again?

Don't say: 'reduce aero' because you just argued to increase it.

Allowing a device which reduces drag by reducing aero downforce (under certain conditions) is increasing aero?

If we kept every sort of performance increase since F1 actually began, we would have cars that would absolutely blow our minds relative to what we have now. How do you keep speeds under control? You could wade into all sorts of minutia about aero regs, or you could just cut the allowable fuel way back from what they use now and watch the engineers go into overdrive trying to get the speed back.

In other words, it would be great fun!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

the teams all build race cars in order to race each other in F1. thats the product they produce and sell and hence what places them in completion with each other. i was responding sarcastically (and apparently poorly) to your point that they are only in business to stay in business.

Yes they are in competition with each other, but in order to stay in competition with each other, there needs to be a 'show'. No more Ferrari and Bridgestone heading off into the distance while the cameras focus on Ross Brawn eating a Banana.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i called it uninspiring because there is more to F1 then watching companies balance their books and stay in business. (another poor attempt at sarcasm)

OK.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

anyways now you are changing the goal posts on this discussion. on one hand you say that allowing them this type of technical freedom will lead to ridiculousness.

?

Originally Posted by chillibowl

now you allude to the possibility that Renault might leave because they lack the technical freedom to do what they want and make it sound like we will be at a loss for having less suppliers.

Nope. I allude to the possibility of Renault leaving the sport if a down-sized petrol turbo engine was not to be the engine of choice.

I said that Cosworth and PURE were likely not to be on the grid in 2014. Cosworth may even leave at the end of this season! That's going to cause problems for a couple of teams that can ill afford to be redesigning a chassis that's already probably half way designed and built for next season.

http://totalf1.com/full_story/view/4...liers_in_2014/

Originally Posted by chillibowl

which incidentally would also suggest that Renault, at least, has other motivations of staying in F1 other then just staying in business.

Yep. Renault wants to showcase down-sized petrol turbo engines with energy saving capabilities. That's it!

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i see the lack of tech freedom as a deterrent to teams/suppliers being involved and the end result is less competition...and regretting lack of competition (both on track and in the factory) has been a pretty consistent theme of mine over the past few months.

Seems to be that the opposite of your thinking is actually the case.

If you read most articles on the subject and if you listen to people like Martin Whitmarsh on the subject. You will find that the biggest deterrent to other manufacturers coming into the sport is that they don't want too much technical variety in F1.

"Whitmarsh stated that he was personally against having more than one engine configuration for the Formula 1 teams because manufacturers will have to build more than one configuration to bring out the best."

“I've argued for diversity myself in the past. Although the regulations are fixed, they typically evolve, and if you had a range of engines then it would be clear after a year one solution was the right one. At that point a manufacturer would develop the alternate configuration.”

http://blogs.bettor.com/Martin-Whitm...-1-news-a79987

Is he wrong? He ought to know best.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

obviously people see what they want to see and this is what i see in more and more of the decisions being made in F1. maybe its always been this way and it has just reached a tipping point for me. but less variety while increasing profits and limiting competition might make for a great business model but it makes for poor sport.

OK. I respect your opinion.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

long and short of all this is that your posts confuse me Marbot...as no doubt mine confuse you. so im afraid we must once again settle on agreeing to disagree.

OK.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

on a side note im in favour of less Craig Pollack not more!

Is he really that bad a person?

Originally Posted by miatanut

Allowing a device which reduces drag by reducing aero downforce (under certain conditions) is increasing aero?

Imagine that you don't have a DRS. How much downforce can you afford not to run without getting eaten alive on the straights? Bearing in mind that, at any F1 circuit, most time is made up on the corners. That is why F1 cars are quick around the lap. Would it not be better to have the best of both worlds? i.e. More uncompromised downforce on the slow bits, less downforce on the fast bits.

Originally Posted by miatanut

If we kept every sort of performance increase since F1 actually began, we would have cars that would absolutely blow our minds relative to what we have now. How do you keep speeds under control? You could wade into all sorts of minutia about aero regs, or you could just cut the allowable fuel way back from what they use now and watch the engineers go into overdrive trying to get the speed back.

In other words, it would be great fun!

See above. They don't want it. Did they ever?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

You could wade into all sorts of minutia about aero regs, or you could just cut the allowable fuel way back from what they use now and watch the engineers go into overdrive trying to get the speed back.

Missed a point out.

Ironically, 2014 will see just that very thing happening. Yes, the engine regs are fixed, but downforce has got to be sacrificed because you can no longer carry excess fuel in order to overcome drag.

But, as explained by Martin Whitmarsh in the above article, you can't have many different types of engine in F1 at the same time. Not now. As he points out, if there are many different types of engine configuration, then after a year, all manufacturers will develop the most successful engine at a further cost to them with regards R&D, etc. If someone also develops a better engine than those, then the manufacturers are once again going to be asked to spend huge amounts of money on R&D on an engine that may or may not be competitive with a brand new engine that someone else has developed at the same time.

Any engine manufacturer is then going to be asking some serious questions about its participation in the sport with regard to these extraordinary costs.

They can't just scrap one project and move on to another project without incurring huge financial costs on the project that was scrapped and the new project. There are time frames for these things and you can't just switch from one to another in the blink of an eye.

But we're off topic again, so let's try to stick to why it is that DDRS is going to be banned for next season.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

But we're off topic again, so let's try to stick to why it is that DDRS is going to be banned for next season.

That's been answered and answered quite easily.

Because banning it protects the status quo.

From the article you linked:

Whitmarsh added, “So it's about reducing the risk, and I hope in the future we can have four or five automotive manufacturers in the sport at any one time. They're always going to come in and out as it suits them and works for their marketing programme.”

Initially, the International Automobile Federation (FIA) decided to bring V4 engines from the 2013 season to cut down the engine cost. Formula 1 teams reacted differently to that suggestion as the lower ranked teams agreed while higher ranked teams opposed the change.

The bigger teams want to keep everything just the way it is, thank you very much.

Which is why we don't see the innovation we had in the past.

If carbon brakes weren't already part of F1 and somebody introduced them tomorrow, the rest of the teams would vote to ban them.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Because banning it protects the status quo.

Considering that very few wanted it in the first place, I can't understand the sentiment that's now being shown for it.

Originally Posted by miatanut

Which is why we don't see the innovation we had in the past.

Cars built to be as light as possible, with no concern for driver safety, bring about things like minimum weight regulations. We don't see six wheeled Tyrell's any more, because, while they may have been novel, it's not something you would like to see on all twenty odd cars. Anyone turning up with wheels and tyres wider than anyone else's is going to bring about wheel and tyre regulations, before wheel and tyre sizes get silly. That's how it works.

Originally Posted by miatanut

If carbon brakes weren't already part of F1 and somebody introduced them tomorrow, the rest of the teams would vote to ban them.

They might get banned if they made the racing poorer or were found to be of no real relevance to the majority of road cars. Oh, wait.....

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

They might get banned if they made the racing poorer or were found to be of no real relevance to the majority of road cars. Oh, wait.....

They would get banned because they would be a new, expensive, avenue and after everybody went through the expense of developing them, they would all be back to even. That was the story of F1 innovation. Nothing new there.

Carbon brakes didn't just happen. There were exploding rotors, drivers not liking the feel of them. There was a development curve.

Yes, many of F1's innovations ultimately detracted from the racing. As a kid, I thought the emergence of the wings was pretty cool. Now I realize they messed up the racing.

F1 used to be about building a better mousetrap. Now, it's about "the show."

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Originally Posted by miatanut

F1 used to be about building a better mousetrap. Now, it's about "the show."

I fully agree with you, currently it's a good product, but I worry they're starting to go a little too far in making the series more for television viewers with lower attention spans and less for innovation.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

They might get banned if they made the racing poorer or were found to be of no real relevance to the majority of road cars. Oh, wait.....

I cant see the point of better brakes on a road car either

The 2014 regs are nowhere near as radical as you make out.

If we allowed all of the performance increases we would probably have much closer racing as there would be none of this "wake" rubbish that stops cars following each other.

[S14]

Originally Posted by luke g28

I cant see the point of better brakes on a road car either

The 2014 regs are nowhere near as radical as you make out.

If we allowed all of the performance increases we would probably have much closer racing as there would be none of this "wake" rubbish that stops cars following each other.

Did the 'Fan Car' not produce dirty air behind it? I honestly don't know, but I'm assuming everyone would have a fan at the back if they were allowed all of the performance advancements F1 has seen. And that's assuming they wouldn't run wings in addition to the fan (which is a possibility, I admit).

That being said, we'd likely have to introduce G-Suits for the drivers in this series. And the safety cells would have to be rather extraordinary, given the speeds at which the inevitable shunts would occur.

Of course, in this Formula One (Libre), double DRS would have to be allowed, now wouldn't they?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by S14

Did the 'Fan Car' not produce dirty air behind it?

Drivers following the fan car said that it spat gravel at them! There was also a concern about what would happen to a drivers feet should they run into the back of it. Remember, that a drivers feet were much further forwards, back then. Even today, I think that it would be banned on safety grounds.







Ouch!

[JeremySmith]

I thought this thread was about a double DRS system ?

[S14]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Drivers following the fan car said that it spat gravel at them! There was also a concern about what would happen to a drivers feet should they run into the back of it. Remember, that a drivers feet were much further forwards, back then. Even today, I think that it would be banned on safety grounds.





Ouch!

I suspect the gravel spitting/foot shredding tendencies could be dealt with - probably with mesh placed either in the fan intakes or at the rear of the assembly (probably the former, to prevent FOD) and with some sort of blade guard (or use of a Centrifugal or Crossflow type fan) respectively. Maybe they'd duct it such that it produces thrust.

I wonder if the stream from a rear mounted ducted fan would be worse than the turbulence in the wake of a wing, or if the (relatively) high velocity flow of the air would produce a larger low-pressure area behind the car? Maybe some bleed air, if you can really call it that, could be used to stall the wings (however many are present and wherever they are placed) instead of a passive DRS*? And it could be used to preserve laminar flow over the body, as necessary, to help keep the drag down.

*See, that was on topic, right?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

I cant see the point of better brakes on a road car either

At best, they are an expensive option on some high end supercars. Possibly a benefit for track days, and of little use elsewhere.

The ability to use the statement: 'My cars got carbon fibre brakes, just like an F1 car' is probably their biggest selling point.

Originally Posted by luke g28

The 2014 regs are nowhere near as radical as you make out.

They are probably the most open that they have ever been.

Originally Posted by luke g28

If we allowed all of the performance increases we would probably have much closer racing as there would be none of this "wake" rubbish that stops cars following each other.

That's absurd! You would end up with 500cc engines and g-force suits. Do you want F1 cars to have 500cc engines? Do you want the best driver to be the one that is less susceptible to g-forces? Is the racing not close enough now? Can the racing be too close?

Back to DDRS. I'm not really surprised that something like the DDRS might appear to be an innovative thing, but once everyone has them, it then becomes just another expensive complication to the overall design of an F1 car.

P.S. See revived thread for debate about other things not connected to the DDRS thread.