After Bahrain do you agree with Bernie?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

No you wouldn't!

Do you know what a 150 hp electric motor weighs?
Now you have 4 all as unsprung weight!
Plus a 600 hp generator.

It would be a brushless DC, like the ones used in electric airplanes and quad copters, scaled-up. It would be just small enough to fit inside the wheel, and the bigger you can make it the lighter it can be for a given torque. You don't have any brakes there anymore, because all of the braking is electric (because of that it's actually more than 150 HP). Being F1, everything but the magnets, conductors, & bearings would be carbon fiber. Of course the motor bearings are also the wheel bearings. If in the spirit of innovation F1 agreed to a larger wheel size and low profile tires, you could make it even better. You could even make it kind of like an old split rim truck tire, where the tire and the rim are one piece, and the rest of the wheel is part of the car. At that point, those clever F1 engineers might even figure out how to make the rim the permanent magnets and just the coils are part of the car. The gas turbine and generator are not 600 HP. Maybe 450 because they are both going full tilt whether the car is accelerating, braking, tiptoeing around a corner, whatever, and the excess output gets dumped in the supercapacitors.

Or, maybe you're right, the whole concept wouldn't work.

That would be the beauty of it. Seeing people attempt new stuff. Like F1 used to be.

Bernie did a good job making it into NASCAR but with bigger budgets, and with it going in a different direction, somebody has figured out how to build a better mousetrap, somebody else hasn't, and things aren't so artificially close for a change. Bernie doesn't like that.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The benefits aren't developing a hybrid solution you can simply use in a road car, the benefits are improved ways of thinking, packaging, processing, developing a similar (or not so similar) technology in road and other applications. The development of these ideas happens much quicker in this highly competitive environment.

Consider how the teams turned round their testing woes before the first race. Very impressive, in such a short time and with no running.

Thank you for explaining ... Yes it's truly fantastic technology developed in a very short space of time, much of which is being completely overshadowed because some did a better job than others, and so some would try to draw the attention to what's wrong rather than applauding the work of many talented engineers

It's often forgotten that these cars are extremely exotic one off works of art ...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The benefits aren't developing a hybrid solution you can simply use in a road car, the benefits are improved ways of thinking, packaging, processing, developing a similar (or not so similar) technology in road and other applications. The development of these ideas happens much quicker in this highly competitive environment.

Consider how the teams turned round their testing woes before the first race. Very impressive, in such a short time and with no running.

Except for the one small problem that development is now frozen!

[Adam43]

It would be even more if full development was allowed. However we can't have that because everyone keeps going on about there being too much spend.

Of course, there is still development to ways of thinking, packaging, processes and people development. A freeze meaning nothing at all is improved, not to an F1 team where improvements are a way of life.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It would be even more if full development was allowed. However we can't have that because everyone keeps going on about there being too much spend.

Of course, there is still development to ways of thinking, packaging, processes and people development. A freeze meaning nothing at all is improved, not to an F1 team where improvements are a way of life.

Spending it where it matters!

No cost reduction possible here, dead simple really!

[Adam43]

[Pingguest]

I strongly support the idea of making Formula 1 more fuel-efficient and hence more relevant for other industries. With various stakeholders having to justify their presence in the sport with more than marketing purposes only.

However, many ways lead to Rome. Enforcing teams to use hybrid power and specifying a certain configuration for the internal combustion engine, is wrong and throws away a lot of potential in terms of relevance and cost-efficiency. Why are teams not allowed to show up with a small and light four-cylinder engine with two turbos and without electric motor to save a lot of weight?

Originally Posted by wnut

Set the minimum weight at 450 kg and make the PU / KERS and battery approach optional and unlimited!
Then we will see if it is a nonsense technology or not!

Why do we need a (one size fits all) minimum weight any away?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Why do we need a (one size fits all) minimum weight any away?

Good point, if it passes the safety test it should be in no matter how light it is! I think that the idea of the minimum weight is that you don't end up with desperate and dangerous engineering practices!

A hundred kilo ballasting for the driver should be mandatory imo, but that has nothing to do with the car, merely what has to be added!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I strongly support the idea of making Formula 1 more fuel-efficient and hence more relevant for other industries. With various stakeholders having to justify their presence in the sport with more than marketing purposes only.

However, many ways lead to Rome. Enforcing teams to use hybrid power and specifying a certain configuration for the internal combustion engine, is wrong and throws away a lot of potential in terms of relevance and cost-efficiency. Why are teams not allowed to show up with a small and light four-cylinder engine with two turbos and without electric motor to save a lot of weight?

Although I admit I am not particularly enamoured with the latest power-units, both Renault and, just today, Mercedes have stated that would have probably withdrawn - I think that the likelyhood of their leaving was greater than even "probably" - if a power source along the current lines was not mandated. One must assume that they approve of the principle of the new rules/regulations because they have spent hundreds, if not millions, of shareholders' potential profits in their efforts to produce the power-units that are on the track today.

The fact that Honda, once it saw the new power-unit rules/regulations, decided to return to F1, speaks volumes about what the engine manufactures feel is relevant to them. And this is endorsed by what Mercedes said today, and that is that this is an important message that they can relay to their management board because they have managed to produce a power-unit that seems to be providing as much (if not more) power than last years engines, yet it consumes at least 30% less fossil fuel. That is an important message.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Why do we need a (one size fits all) minimum weight any away?

Because teams will be sorely tempted to cut corners in their efforts to reduce weight, and that may lead to safety concerns. This is why the rules/regulations were introduced in the first place. The F1 Working Group, or whichever body it was/is that formulates the rules/regs, takes into consideration weights of power-units, gearboxes, and materials used in the construction of the cars when they set out the minimum weight. It also means that, from aminumum point of view, all the teams are on a level playing field. And even then, some constructors can't even get down to the minimum weight, which seems to suggest that the people that proposed the wieghts were right on the money.

[wnut]

aminumum - ???!!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

aminumum - ???!!

A brain fart, or more likely, brain faster than digits!

Should prabably have read: 'from a minimum weight point of view'.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

Good point, if it passes the safety test it should be in no matter how light it is! I think that the idea of the minimum weight is that you don't end up with desperate and dangerous engineering practices!

A hundred kilo ballasting for the driver should be mandatory imo, but that has nothing to do with the car, merely what has to be added!

Historically, the cars are under the minimum weight. Ballast is used to make the cars both legal and well balanced. Only this year some cars are thought to be heavier than the minimum weight - the Sauber team even openly admitted their car is overweight.

In fact, if the minimum weight is a true safeguard against against dangerous engineering, no general competence for the stewards to exclude vehicles with a dangerous construction (article 2.3 of the Technical Regulations) nor a general duty to comply with the conditions of safety (article 3.2 of the Sporting Regulations) would be necessary. Throughout the years teams were excluded (Sauber in the early-2000's) or investigated (Red Bull in the late-2010's) for unsafe constructions, such as breaking rear wings and front suspensions.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Could someone change the incorrect spelling in the thread title?

It's making me twitch

Selby

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

Good point, if it passes the safety test it should be in no matter how light it is! I think that the idea of the minimum weight is that you don't end up with desperate and dangerous engineering practices!

A hundred kilo ballasting for the driver should be mandatory imo, but that has nothing to do with the car, merely what has to be added!

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Because teams will be sorely tempted to cut corners in their efforts to reduce weight, and that may lead to safety concerns. This is why the rules/regulations were introduced in the first place.

The minimum weight was to try to enforce safety before there was crash testing. Now we have crash testing and it is a relic.

[JamesH]

Colin Chapman I think on race cars : "Simplify, then add lightness."

Interesting that even with a minimum weight some cars are over. That would imply the weight limit is pretty much on the money.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

Could someone change the incorrect spelling in the thread title?

It's making me twitch

Selby

Fixed ...

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The minimum weight was to try to enforce safety before there was crash testing. Now we have crash testing and it is a relic.

The weight limit may have originally been to encourage safety, but, as you say, due to crash testing that is less important. It encourages reliability and cost saving a little too, for similar reasons.

What it does do is limit the performance gain due to weight loss. Yes, you still want to reduce weight to then be able to put the weight where you want, but it isn't as advantageous as simply losing the weight from a lap time point of view. As such retaining the weight limit encourages a closer field by exaggerating the diminishing returns from spending on weight saving.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Fixed ...

haha Thanks, man. Was having a tetchy day

Selby

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The weight limit may have originally been to encourage safety, but, as you say, due to crash testing that is less important. It encourages reliability and cost saving a little too, for similar reasons.

What it does do is limit the performance gain due to weight loss. Yes, you still want to reduce weight to then be able to put the weight where you want, but it isn't as advantageous as simply losing the weight from a lap time point of view. As such retaining the weight limit encourages a closer field by exaggerating the diminishing returns from spending on weight saving.

Originally teams manufacture a car to finish a race. In past decade the FIA introduced regulations enforcing a certain longevity for some components, such as the engine and gearbox. I fail to see how the minimum weight change this any respect and is thus a necessary piece of legislation.

It does not reduce costs either. If teams cannot spend their money on weight reduction, then they will use it for other purposes. Recently Ron Dennis said quite rightly that teams will spend whatever money they have.

The minimum weight fits in the whole idea that more stringent regulations in general and enforced durability, standardization, homologation and equalization in particular are the rights answer for performance limitations and cost savings. But despite the fact that such regulations have been introduced since the two thousands, budgets were reduced until the outbreak of the credit crisis.
This is far from illogical, as strict regulations provide an absolute point of perfection and teams are forced to work towards the same solution. History provides indications that the whole idea stated above is indeed incorrect. With the more liberal engine regulations in the eighties BMW could win races and become world champion with turbo engines that were not only production-based but even used for production cars. With more liberal bodywork regulations Colin Chapman could find an answer to Ferrari getting the upper hand because of their powerful engine and introduced a radical new underbody design, called ground effects.
The solutions stated above are examples of what is possible with more liberal regulations and what is outlawed under the current regime. Nowadays teams have to work towards the same point of perfection, with using an increasing amount of resources as a necessity to get or stay ahead.

[wolfhound]

One problem with removing the weight limits is how do you avoid taller drivers being at a disadvantage. In a few years we would only have drivers of less than 1.5m tall weiging less than 50kg.

One possible way is to have a minimum driver weight including the seat where ballast can be placed in the seat to take a light driver up to a certain weight.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

One problem with removing the weight limits is how do you avoid taller drivers being at a disadvantage. In a few years we would only have drivers of less than 1.5m tall weiging less than 50kg.

One possible way is to have a minimum driver weight including the seat where ballast can be placed in the seat to take a light driver up to a certain weight.

I have another idea. If drivers weight parity is desirable, the minimum weight could be abolished for the car only. On Thursday the FIA could weight the car without the driver and mandate a one-weekend minimum weight that is one hundred kilo higher but including the driver.

Allow me to elaborate. Assume that without the drivers a McLaren and a Ferrari would weight five hundred kilograms and six hundred kilograms respectively. Then for the entire race weekend the FIA would mandate the McLaren car to weight six hundred kilograms including the driver and the Ferrari no less than seven hundred kilograms. A driver weight parity is still achieved, but teams can make their cars as light as possible or fit within their design strategy.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Originally teams manufacture a car to finish a race. In past decade the FIA introduced regulations enforcing a certain longevity for some components, such as the engine and gearbox. I fail to see how the minimum weight change this any respect and is thus a necessary piece of legislation.

It does not reduce costs either. If teams cannot spend their money on weight reduction, then they will use it for other purposes. Recently Ron Dennis said quite rightly that teams will spend whatever money they have.

The minimum weight fits in the whole idea that more stringent regulations in general and enforced durability, standardization, homologation and equalization in particular are the rights answer for performance limitations and cost savings. But despite the fact that such regulations have been introduced since the two thousands, budgets were reduced until the outbreak of the credit crisis.
This is far from illogical, as strict regulations provide an absolute point of perfection and teams are forced to work towards the same solution. History provides indications that the whole idea stated above is indeed incorrect. With the more liberal engine regulations in the eighties BMW could win races and become world champion with turbo engines that were not only production-based but even used for production cars. With more liberal bodywork regulations Colin Chapman could find an answer to Ferrari getting the upper hand because of their powerful engine and introduced a radical new underbody design, called ground effects.
The solutions stated above are examples of what is possible with more liberal regulations and what is outlawed under the current regime. Nowadays teams have to work towards the same point of perfection, with using an increasing amount of resources as a necessity to get or stay ahead.

Hear hear!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

One problem with removing the weight limits is how do you avoid taller drivers being at a disadvantage. In a few years we would only have drivers of less than 1.5m tall weiging less than 50kg.

One possible way is to have a minimum driver weight including the seat where ballast can be placed in the seat to take a light driver up to a certain weight.

Wnut has a whole thread on this subject. Agreed, but you want the ballast well fixed to the car, not part of the seat. Driver +seat + "driver ballast" all the same for all cars. Ballast anchored to the car right behind the driver's butt so the C of G is very close to the C of G of the driver.

[JamesH]

I feel a new career for Warrick Davies coming on.

[Sengio]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

There was some good racing in Malaysia though at various stages. It wasn't a thriller, it was just... Malaysia. I always find that particular race a bit odd and often wish I had waited for the repeat, but it is too early in the season to do so!

Worst races ever are thrillers such as Spain 1999, Hungary 2004. Races that reduce grown men to tears.

God, Hungary 2004, still remember that!

According to http://cliptheapex.com/overtaking/ - ZERO overtakes in a race were during 2009 European GP (Valencia), 2005 USA GP (no surprise there, six cars started the race), and the 2003 Monaco GP.