Quote from 5th Earth :

Hmm... 4wd, 2.2 v6 turbo at 10k rpm...

Is it just me, or does this sound exactly like a Group B rally car?

What's wrong with a group B rallycar?

Think about it this way . Which is more energy efficient:

1. Sending 800hp through the rear wheels only in a hopeless attempt to turn power into forward acceleration.

2. All else very similar, but sending 1/3 of the power to the front wheels too so the car could actually use a major portion of that power.

As far as I'm concerned, TC is better off banned since it is a band aid solution to a very fundamental physical problem. It is basically a software solution to a hardware issue. Remember the MB A class? That horrible thing never stood a chance to handle safely since it's suspension calibrations were hopelessly unsuited to do so. So, they used a software solution (aka TC and SC) to "fix" it.

But the fact remains that the cars are still hopelessly flawed and fundamentally unsafe by mechanical design.

F-1 should of course be the pinnacle of motorsport technology and must remain that way to deserve such a title. And it's about time it gets more relevant to real world automotive technology, otherwise it will go the way of the dodo OR be as acceptable as heroin abuse. If only some people here actually think about things very deeply before they say that F-1 should remain the technological dinosaur or an even lower stage of evolution then it currently is. There are of course genuine environmentalists (like me) that genuinely care about the environment both for human prosperity and the wild, since the intricate balance of life is essential for the well being of all on this planet. Then there are of course the greenies so caught up in their insanity that they'll rather have all humans dead then slaughter a cow to feed a poor starving village.

Quote from Jamexing :

1. Sending 800hp through the rear wheels only in a hopeless attempt to turn power into forward acceleration.

2. All else very similar, but sending 1/3 of the power to the front wheels too so the car could actually use a major portion of that power.

An F1 car isn't that traction limited, I think you'd find the weight and inefficiency would make 4WD a waste of space in current F1 cars in single seaters that are severely traction limited (eg. hillclimb cars) it could be a massive advantage, in fact the Hepworth special (a 4WD F5000 style hillclimb car) is still seriously quick up Shelsley today seeing it just launch off the line with virtually no wheelspin is quite a sight.0

Quote from ajp71 :

An F1 car isn't that traction limited, I think you'd find the weight and inefficiency would make 4WD a waste of space in current F1 cars in single seaters that are severely traction limited (eg. hillclimb cars) it could be a massive advantage, in fact the Hepworth special (a 4WD F5000 style hillclimb car) is still seriously quick up Shelsley today seeing it just launch off the line with virtually no wheelspin is quite a sight.0

What I'm trying to say that F-1 should have been very free to new drivetrain technology that better puts power to the ground. And no one can deny that F-1 cars HAD launch control because honestly, they have next to no traction compared to their power output when aerodynamic downforce isn't massive.

The secret to more overtaking has always been to reduce reliance on downforce generating devices that cause huge turbulently wakes behind the car and definitely NOT this stupid P2P (more like P2Catchup) hare-brained excuse. When mechanical grip and traction takes more precedence over the car's overall handling and performance, then drivetrain technologies will get their chance to shine.

BTW, since they are going to make hybrids that store kinetic energy from braking via flywheel based energy storage, might as well let that stored energy drive the front wheels too and provide better corner exits. This kills many birds with 1 stone as it frees up rear packaging and makes good use of the space up front. Aids mass balance too.

If 4WD was implemented conventionally (i.e. via 3 diffs), then the only real problem now is packaging, but if chassis design was relatively free that can be overcome. The weight argument doesn't really hold since todays cars can already run 80kg underweight if they were allowed to. So, a bunch of titanium alloy/carbon fiber/carbon nanotube driveshafts and components are supposed to weigh MORE than 80kg in this day and age?

Quote from Jamexing :

F-1 should of course be the pinnacle of motorsport technology and must remain that way to deserve such a title. And it's about time it gets more relevant to real world automotive technology, otherwise it will go the way of the dodo OR be as acceptable as heroin abuse. If only some people here actually think about things very deeply before they say that F-1 should remain the technological dinosaur or an even lower stage of evolution then it currently is.

Amen.

just a thought

power boost / push to pass is there really any difference to the turbo era when fuel was limited and the drivers would adjust the boost when fighting for position and then back it down to save fuel ?

back then the racing was good so maybe given they wish to "appear" to be green they should limit fuel and allow the teams to decide how they use their fuel, if you made fuel stops illegal then it would be easy to police. the only problem being that youd have to fix the amount at a sensible level and resist the enviromentalist calls for it to be reduced all the time


EDIT - this may or may not reflect my feelings but i felt it was worth mentioning

Ladies and gentlemen...

The FIA has just released word on the future of F1:



+ Environmentally friendly!
+ Plenty of overtaking action!
+ Drivers now only need one input device: a single pedal for acceleration.
+ Incredible safety for everyone!
+ Top teams will have cars which are good enough for the drivers to hold their foot down 100% of the time - giving them plenty of time to take naps or do live-interviews whilst racing!

;p

Quote from Leifde :

Yes to bringing F1 to Donington!

But may I ask why you said no to 2 of my suggestions?

F-1 has already been to donnington i cant remember what year but it was for the european GP (i still have the flyer somewhere),


http://www.aspect-landscape.com/landscape/casestudies8.html


EDIT:- it was 1993 at donno

It was 1993 and it was a VERY wet round. Senna lapped all but one car IIRC. But of course you know that if you have the flyer/were there.

I meant bring it back to Donington. Renault took their F1 car to the World Series meeting at Donington last year (I think they do every year) and that was pretty amazing, add 23 more and it would simply be awesome. Donington was bought recently and I guess that's one of their aims, bring F1 back to Donington.

I was at the world series, and i agree it was immense and all for free....

An F1 car should always be the ultimate Sports car, not a super-fast sedan with all types of driving helps. 4 Wheel drive, Traction Control, could it get anymore awful? When you buy a real Sports car it has to have the option of switching TC off and have rear Wheel drive, its the sportiest way of driving. Why should the supposed to be best drivers in the World need driving helps?

Max Mosley has lost his mind years ago, he just has no idea even what he himself wants for F1, he wants Launch Control, he wants Launch control to be gone, he wants Traction Control, than he wants Traction Control banned, then he wants Traction Control back, then he wants a push-button-to-overtake Mode, then he wants no driving helps, then he wants to resign, then he doesnt want to resign, and these are just a few examples of how Max Mosley is changing his opinion every few months, that Man has totally lost it.

I thought politicians in my country are stupid, but Max is in his own class.

I´m not interested in F1 since the last 15 years because I grow up with a very different style of f1 watching in the 80s. The new stuff sounds very interesting to me, maybe this will end the boring type of f1 we had the last 10 years!


BTW: IMHO Can-Am was the mayor league in racing

Quote :

The weight argument doesn't really hold since todays cars can already run 80kg underweight if they were allowed to. So, a bunch of titanium alloy/carbon fiber/carbon nanotube driveshafts and components are supposed to weigh MORE than 80kg in this day and age?

Ideally any racing car is built as light as it can possibly be then it's balasted in just the right point to create an almost ideal weight distribution. A large chunk of the mass of a F1 car is this weight which will be dumped somewhere between the driver, fuel tank and engine and what's more it makes the weight distribution easily adjustable. Despite having a very long wheel base and F1 car is still responsive because of where the mass is concentrated if you then spread this mass out the car would start having more restricted handling adjustments and on fast tracks I'd of thought you'd actually make it slower. All that is before you take into account the drivetrain efficiency difference (FXR vs FZR ).

Quote from Jamexing :

What I'm trying to say that F-1 should have been very free to new drivetrain technology that better puts power to the ground. And no one can deny that F-1 cars HAD launch control because honestly, they have next to no traction compared to their power output when aerodynamic downforce isn't massive.

F1 cars are not that traction limited atm, and with better weight distribution the power can be applied earlier so I doubt 4WD will magically make cars better on anything other than very slow corners where yes it is true they are traction limited.

Well, did I mention that it won't be conventional 4WD?

Drivetrain efficiency? Let's see, most braking energy is generated at the FRONT tires, so why not put the energy recovery device at the front and recover the energy as efficiently as possible? And wouldn't be better to use that recovered energy to power the front wheels as well to use that residual tractive capability at the front then to smoke the rear tires again? And if F-1 cars weren't so traction limited, then why all this fuss with TC? If they REALLY have THAT much traction then no one would bother because TC would actually SLOW YOU DOWN and WASTE tires! In the early days of TC people thought TC would actually save tires. Turns out that the opposite is true, as drivers could consistently make the most of all the grip the driven tires have. Can a human match or beat TC over a lap with one's right foot? Possibly. But what about 1.5 hours of race distance? In 50+ Celsius, backbreaking, vision blurring vibration and bone-breaking g-forces and blood sloshing around your body like a fuel sloshing around in your fuel tank?

And when was the last time the ultimate track performance of a current F-1 car was limited by moment of inertia? The only situation where that actually has some bearing is with multiple and/or connected and/or twisty and extremely technical corners (e.g. mountain passes, TIGHT chicanes). No surprise why those Mid-engined 4WD Group B monsters were so terrifyingly fast, eh? With todays tracks getting more and more F-1 friendly, chicanes become less and less necessary and corners would be nice and simple. Chicanes are more of a slowdown device for older and supposedly faster F-1 circuits than anything else. Remember that Michelin tire fiasco at Indy? Michelin says: "PLEASE INSTALL CHICANE!" Bridgestone said: "Ah, whatever..."

4WD isn't the only way to maximize power to the ground. E-diffs would have been as perfect as RWD could get, but for some reason the "Ferrari International Aid" banned Ferrari's beautiful e-diff. Oh sweet irony...

And even if 4WD was done conventionally, I don't see how it should take up the full 80kg. In such an application, all you need is something that shifts say 5-30% power to the front via compact and lightweight electronic clutch to better use the power. Basically, you don't need super strong front driveshafts and differentials that could take even half the engine power.

Besides, if downforce levels are forced to drop, 4WD's advantages just get too obvious to ignore. As someone here already mentioned, SS with 4WD and limited (i.e. less than crazy F-1 levels) of downforce on twisty mountain course == unbeatable monster.

1. The engines will be quiter.
2. Some sources say its biodiesel, the engines will be even more quiter
3. Max should be given the boot!!!



Indy Car and Champcar could form and make a series better than F1 if this happens.
Go to as many F1 races as you can before 2011!
If F1 uses 4wd more options for race tracks could come into the picture.
Though the cars may sound like crap, imagine a 770 hp 4wd F1 car taking off from a stop it would be amazingly quick with no traction control bogging the car down.


If I ran Formula One this is what I would do as far as cars go:

Aids:Keep TC it makes a cool sound.
Tires:Slick Tires
Aero:Less strict aero regulations
Engines:3.0 N/A V10, 3.2 liter N/A V8, 2.6 liter N/A V12. 3.5 liter N/A V6. Rev limited to 19,000 rpm

Quote from Jamexing :

What's wrong with a group B rallycar?

Nothing, except that this is F1, not rally. If the FIA wants Group B rally cars, then they should reinstate the Group B rally. Hell, I think that would be better than F1.

they should just drop all regulations and boom f1 would be interesting again and maybe actually able to take some proper steps towards eco friendliness with the possibility to push foward on h2 and electric engines

Quote from Shotglass :

they should just drop all regulations and boom f1 would be interesting again and maybe actually able to take some proper steps towards eco friendliness with the possibility to push foward on h2 and electric engines

Um, no. If all regulations were dropped, nobody would run hydrogen fuel or electric. The power density of both mediums is pathetic compared to regular old gasoline, let alone high-tech racing fuels.

Quote from 5th Earth :

Um, no. If all regulations were dropped, nobody would run hydrogen fuel or electric. The power density of both mediums is pathetic compared to regular old gasoline, let alone high-tech racing fuels.

rubbish the energy (not power) density of h2 is about 3 times higher than petrol
and while the energy density of batteries is rather low the efficency of an electric motor is leaps beyond any petrol engine which more than makes up for the lack in enery density

Quote from Shotglass :

rubbish the energy (not power) density of h2 is about 3 times higher than petrol
and while the energy density of batteries is rather low the efficency of an electric motor is leaps beyond any petrol engine which more than makes up for the lack in enery density

Apologies for the energy/power mistake--you are right of course, not sure what I was thinking. I still disagree with you, though.

For the efficiency of electric motors making up for low energy density in the batteries, I beg to differ. Currently available electric vehicles struggle to top a range of 200 miles, and even optimistic claims for future vehicles are only in the 300-350 miles area. My '94 Honda Civic can easily manage, real world, 250+ miles on a small 10-gallon tank (I've repeatedly proven this with my in-car odometer). Factor in that regenerative braking will be negligible for a racing vehicle, and pit stops would require the replacement of the entire battery pack(s), I don't think we'll be seeing an electric F1 anytime soon.

Hydrogen has great energy density by mass, but terrible energy density by volume. Even liquid hydrogen packs a mere 8 megajoules per liter, whereas gasoline has between 30-35, depending on octane rating and added alcohol content. For the same amount of energy, a hydrogen car has to carry over 4 times as much fuel by volume. I just don't think a modern F1 car has room for all that hydrogen, let alone for the weight of the infrastructure needed to keep it compressed/liquid. It could be done, but it would be a very different vehicle.

If you want the best fuel, money no limit, according to wikipedia Boron seems to be the best choice. Incredible energy density by mass and volume--no idea how you'd build an engine around it though.

Quote from 11SuLLy11 :

i said the exact same in other thread about getting rid off paddle shift,

I'm not much of a mechanic, so I don't really understand the anti-paddle thing... What's the problem? Why does it matter how you change gear? Is this just a Hemingwayesque masculinity issue (real men pull on a stick...)or is there an actual, mechanical reason why stick shift sequential is more competitive than flicking a paddle?

Quote from joen :

Something tells me motorracing fans aren't exactly in the same camp as environmentalists for the biggest part. And F1 surely isn't going to disappear completely because of these environmentalists. As long as the global powers that be have anything to say in it. In the big picture the pollution caused by motorracing is a drop in the ocean.

The pollution caused by racing isn't really the issue. You plainly haven't noticed that governments like to govern, and the environmental trends give politicians the licence for all kinds of authoritarian dick swinging. They love that shit, and just because a few people like to watch cars running round in circles, they won't give up any opportunity to exercise a bit of power.

Pulling a paddle requires no skill. Changing gear with an h-shift lever gate without wrecking the engine through over-revving, without breaking gears/dog rings, without missing a shift, without getting the wrong gear and without sacrificing braking performance whilst you heel/toe however does.

Can you see why one makes racing worse (too easy, no mistakes), and one makes racing better (real driver skill so racing becomes, as it should be, a meritocracy, and the additional mistake/concentration that go with it means that the faster drivers aren't necessarily always in front of the slower ones).

Noticed that the recent decline of F1 has been because of paddle shifting, traction control and other electronic gizmos. It might be nice technology, but if you want technology for technologies sake then just make a 'clever car' showroom and leave the racing to real racing cars and real racing drivers.

I can see how an H-gate increases the variables that a driver must engage with, but I would expect at the level of Formula One that missing a gear is a relatively minor addition to the list of random moments that might occur in a race.

The important part is judging when to change gear, what gear ratios to run, etc. The manner in which you actuate that change is of secondary importance, perhaps? I'm not sure since you didn't answer my question. I'm guessing that a paddle shift can link to an automatic gearbox, a semi-automatic, or a fully manual... I'm guessing its always sequential... I'm guessing that your position is not anti-paddle shift as such, but in favour of manual, non-sequential gearboxes?

Obviously you didn't watch (or read about) pre-paddle shift F1 - missing shifts was fairly common. It is very hard to go down the gearbox whilst threshold braking, heel/toeing, defending the line and controlling a slight handling imbalance. F1 drivers aren't gods!

When to change gear is not difficult to judge. We all do it every day. Racing cars often have shift lights to make it easier. The hard bit is not shifting too early or late whilst slowing down. Ratio choosing remains the same as it always has. The manner in which the gear is changed is of primary importance from a racing/fan/spectator point of view!

Paddle shifts are used with semi-automatic gearboxes, when the driver calls the shift, the electro-hydraulics carry it out. Auto gearboxes require no outside input from the driver and thus don't need paddles unless you override it (when it becomes a semi-auto). Also, F1 autos are just automatically controlled semi-autos, not autos like most road cars have.
Sequential paddles tend to be mechanical - the MRT will have a mechanical sequential mated to it's motorcycle (sequential) gearbox. Sequentials can only go +/-1 gear. Manuals/Semi-Auto's can go direct to any gear.

My position is that I dislike any system that removes the possibility of errors from a driver by the reduction of skill needed to drive it. Sure, paddles might be slightly safer, and they are certainly quicker. But who wants a perfectly safe, really fast motorsport where the drivers don't have that much talent. I would be happy with mechanical sequential systems if the shift was via a lever on the cockpit side, but I'd still massively prefer a mechanical h-gate shift.

I don't care if it's slower, and if everyone uses it then no team is disadvantaged any more than currently.

I don't care if it's slightly more dangerous. If it's too dangerous for the whining girls in F1 (Webber, Coulthard etc) then they should do something safer and slower and more boring like Chess (I like Chess btw, but you cannot deny it is a slower, safer more 'boring' game).

Quote from tristancliffe :

Pulling a paddle requires no skill. Changing gear with an h-shift lever gate without wrecking the engine through over-revving, without breaking gears/dog rings, without missing a shift, without getting the wrong gear and without sacrificing braking performance whilst you heel/toe however does.
Can you see why one makes racing worse (too easy, no mistakes), and one makes racing better (real driver skill so racing becomes, as it should be, a meritocracy, and the additional mistake/concentration that go with it means that the faster drivers aren't necessarily always in front of the slower ones).

In the same logic, let's go back to wooden skis, because those new ones slide just too easily, and are too reliable. You don't need that much talent to go fast. While we're at it, lets also put a spoon with an egg in their mouth and if anyone drops it he's disqualified. Is that going to make the sport better? Or separate the men from the boys?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Noticed that the recent decline of F1 has been because of paddle shifting, traction control and other electronic gizmos. It might be nice technology, but if you want technology for technologies sake then just make a 'clever car' showroom and leave the racing to real racing cars and real racing drivers.

On one hand, I agree with traction control and electronic assistance, I don't like it either. It ''helps'' the driver too much. Paddle shifting doesn't in my opinion, it just lets them concentrate more on the racing. It's exactly the same thing, just on a new faster level.

On the other hand, F1 is about technology and always was. For me F1 is about going the fastest possible around a given track. That's why I don't like the recent changes supposed to make racing closer etc...The sport evolves, the cars evolve, isn't it logical that the way of racing and of overtaking will evolve too? I too like my show, but there are plenty of other series to see it. If F1 was only about driving, everybody would have the same car. F1 isn't about 22 drivers on a track, as much as you'd like it to be,it's much deeper and I'm sure you guys know it.

I appreciate all that. I don't want to see F1 dumbed down too much, or become a one-make series by any means. I don't even like the customer car logic.

I'm not saying I'm against progress. Let's use your example - if skiers were fitted with gyroscopes so that cannot fall over no matter what happens because they'll be faster and make less errors, would you approve. Or should the skier, no matter how advanced his skis, be in control? I'm sure technology could make a skier stay upright or lean exactly the right amount automatically if it was tested and researched, but wouldn't that make skiing, even top level skiing, a bit of a joke?

Paddle shifting doesn't help the driver? Now they don't even need to concentrate on the shift, just blip blip blip with their fingertips. If it will overrev the shift is overruled. They don't need to take their hands off the wheels. Then can almost always shift mid corner. How is that not helping them and making their jobs easier? Do you remember the race(s) when gear lever knobs fell off, and the driver (I'm thinking of Senna here) finished, and won, the race using a threaded rod to shift with? His hand was chewed up and bleeding, the glove virtually non-existant! Does that not show ability, character, force of mind etc to an unmarked degree? Now we have drivers stopping when their knees get a bit sore!!!!!!

Yup, F1 is about technology. I agree with it! But technology that goes against the grain of the sport (e.g. stuff that makes driving a car way too easy) should be banned. TC. Paddle Shifting.

F1 is about the pinnacle of racing, combined with techology. It's not driver vs driver, but ALSO team vs team. Yet to remove the driver element until it's basically team vs team means you've lost something, surely? The sport evolves. Cars evolve. But it would appear that people want the techology AND the racing? Yet they complain that modern F1 is dull?!?!?!?!? If you want fast, high technology cars then can't they just do a parade before a motor-race. Then let slightly less technological cars with the best drivers fight it out for points afterwards? F1 is NOT the pinnacle of technology. Often, they only use second hand technology. F1 can remain the pinnacle of technology, just move the goalposts downwards everywhere. Ban TC in ALL motorsport - we can do it, we don't need to prove it anymore. F1 won't improve road TC anymore. F1 paddle shifts are crap on the road - they have to be redesigned and reprogrammed to work, so the F1 improvments won't filter down so much now. So why not get rid of it, make F1 'better', and concentrate on brake energy recycling. The cars go faster (perhaps requiring more skill, especially combined with manual h-gate 'boxes), it helps reduce the impact on the environment (if, indeed, there really is one), and it will improve road car techology - win, win, win.