F1 Powertrains and more exciting races?

I didn't know they had rules on the wings in cart, i just thought they ran the little wings on the ovals as they wanted to be able to do a million miles an hour.
I tried watching cart, but I just couldn't (although mansel winning at gold coast was simply awesome) oval racing, both cart and nascar is much much worse than vettle winning 10 in a row for me. Circuits I can handle but still dont' watch much.

Personally I want them to increase aero, rather than limit it... don't knwo if it would work, but they should try it for giggles, that and 1500hp...and while I know that any sort of parity (or honest parity) would be impossible, I'd love to see run whatever engine you liked configuration wise, 4,6,8,10,12 NA or turbo even rotor or..ugh diesel just get some variety in there. Like 88 you have v8 and v12 and turbos, theoretically the turbos were nobbled, but I guess they had them pretty well figured out, then 89 there was v8,v10 and v12. But too hard, but it would be nice.
 
To be honest, anything that overhauls the tired no engine development formula can only be a positive. When I was a kid F1 was all about innovation and taking a chance on new unproven "outside the box" technologies. These days, it's more about trying to extract the tiniest advantage out of a loophole in the regs whilst hoping Ferrari don't go complaining about it to the FIA.

This season, they finally scraped the barrel of tedium with the "coanda" exhaust. You need to have studied fluid dynamics to understand it, and then you'll find it's the most boring performance add on in decades...

For me the moratorium on engine development was the nail in F1's coffin, closely followed by the introduction of tyres that are deliberately made to be shite and of course DRS. Perhaps this new turbo era might be its salvation. I doubt it though, it's been too tightly controlled, and there's not enough players in the game. V6's were made compulsory since it's apparently easier to package a turbo into a V6, and of course it leaves advertising real estate on the engine covers intact. The fact that everyone actually wanted to go for inline 4's for simplicity, reliability and efficiency wasn't considered as important as having engines that sounded nice. The option to have inline 4's, or perhaps flat 6's or 8's would have allowed more variety and options for packaging suspension etc. and given us the viewers a few opportunities to see things go bang.

Standard F1 gearboxes will still prevail, using technology that would be hopeless on road cars. Gearboxes that engage 2 cogs at once and are reliant of the speed of hydraulic actuation to prevent them exploding in a shower of shrapnel are never going to work on your mums ford focus. DSG et al rely on completely different operating methodology, none of which comes from F1. In fact, the opportunities for F1 originated tech to cascade down to us mere mortals seem to have been mercilessly quashed at every turn in recent decades, Williams once developed a variable speed technology that would have meant they had full power and/or maximum efficiency at any given speed. No lag, no power band issues. Banned before they even raced it... Active suspension, banned. Active aero, banned.

F1 now has about as much relevance to road cars as it does to cycling, so I think they should be allowed to explore the full spectrum of engineering tech to bring some excitement back. Gas turbines, multi wheel drive, active aero etc... Bring it on, just so long as the driver, and his skills, remain a key part of the equation.

Of course, no matter how boring it is, I always seem to be dragging myself out of bed at silly o clock to watch the Asian GP's... :oops:
 
T'boo Ted":1msapj67 said:
I didn't know they had rules on the wings in cart, i just thought they ran the little wings on the ovals as they wanted to be able to do a million miles an hour.

Well I want to think it was a sort of mandated wing package that had to be used on certain tracks (super speedways, not sure if there was anything specific on the other / shorter ovals).

Yes, true enough, the tiny wings would help for top speeds, too. But I'm sure I heard comments about them being mandatory.

T'boo Ted":1msapj67 said:
I tried watching cart, but I just couldn't (although mansel winning at gold coast was simply awesome) oval racing, both cart and nascar is much much worse than vettle winning 10 in a row for me. Circuits I can handle but still dont' watch much.

Oddly, I actually tended to enjoy the oval races - yet I've never been interested in NASCAR oval races. I think I liked the ChampCar series, when it was about 1/3 ovals, 1/3 race tracks, 1/3 street circuits - the one they used to run on an airport always seemed rather good.

T'boo Ted":1msapj67 said:
Personally I want them to increase aero, rather than limit it... don't knwo if it would work, but they should try it for giggles, that and 1500hp...and while I know that any sort of parity (or honest parity) would be impossible, I'd love to see run whatever engine you liked configuration wise, 4,6,8,10,12 NA or turbo even rotor or..ugh diesel just get some variety in there. Like 88 you have v8 and v12 and turbos, theoretically the turbos were nobbled, but I guess they had them pretty well figured out, then 89 there was v8,v10 and v12. But too hard, but it would be nice.

Don't know, really, what I feel about the aero debate. There's something to be said for it being unfettered - but then without much in the way of regulations, there's often other consequences.

I think there has to be some control, unfortunately - I think without some of it, and close scrutiny, they push the boundaries and over step the mark too easily. That said, whilst I think they do need close scrutiny to ensure the rules, and the spirit of the rules is being adhered to, I also think there's a bit too much micro-mangement of it all in F1. Not sure the balance is quite right at the moment, and I'm not sure that a spectacle and exciting racing are good enough excuses for the contrivancies that are, or at least were at play in the last few seasons.
 
Osella":24cpljqg said:
-traction control/abs, started in Touring Cars in the 70's (BMW). Banned in F1 but were already in road cars. Further developed in Touring cars in the 90's. (Mercedes) yep i was thinking after I wrote this, traction control was in f1 like late 80's but in cars well before, another F1 trickle down myth, abs came frome f1? no idea

-active suspension, banned from F1 but not really used in road cars, maybe some passive was. Yes, the technologies are used extensively in self-adjusting dampers and adjustable suspension (although only found in top-end hypercars/luxury saloons).

-pneumatic valves, used in Motorbike engines - also lead to the Fiat/Alfa Multiair engine.did not know that

-turbos, most performance turbo cars got their influence from.. Sportscars / GT's. BMW & Porsche pretty much invented turbocharging of petrol engines in Motorsport. Renault copied, then took it to F1. yes I get too hung up on WRC group B being the best of everything, completely forgot about sports cars and turbos.

-carbon fiber, used extensively in performance road cars & motorbikes, as well as boat hulls. One use of Carbon fibRE technology can be most prevalently seen in .... bicycles!remember were talking regular road cars

-crazy exotic metals used for blocks, exhausts and wheels, were all banned. But development of these has been extensively incorporated into the cycle industry, aerospace industry and exotic metals in engines (Gold & Beryllium) was actually a road car development (the BMW V12 in the McLaren F1) which made it's way into F1.still talking regular road cars

-carbon brakes, we get carbon/ceramic brakes for loads of money, but straight carbon, well you wouldn't want them on the road and not really on your everyday mondeo. Correct, fairly useless technology in the main, and being phased out/banned from many racing series.

-semi auto box, yep we now have those and they are common at all levels of cars.

-KERS, does anyone make a car with kers? i'm sure there are other recovery things, not sure. Didn't Volvo make a kers system that is better than a F1 one, not sure, but i read that somewhere, but they still don't use it yet. The Porsche 918 uses the Williams Flybrid KERS, and yes, pretty much all hybrids use KERS. The packaging of it developed in racing is hugely used by Infiniti, Toyota, BMW & Porsche - however much of this has been in Sportscars/GT's by Audi, Toyota and Porsche. (actually Zytek and Williams-produced hybrid systems). Next year in F1 the KERS is being incorporated into the power delivery instead of being a boost button - which unfortunately increases the Ders effect and makes it MORE important - which frankly sucks!are we talking road cars or race cars? I'm sure the prius etc use some sort of recovery thing, but don't know anything about it, is it kers or something else?

-ground effects, nope not much.

-aerodynamics, not sure how relevant they are to road cars, but I'm sure there is some advantages gained. Errmmmm, all of it? Movable / automatic wings, for example, diffusers (effective even at low speed i.e road-car speeds), downforce without drag, all of this is developed through motorsport. well yes of course, but regular road cars ie a diesel mondeo?

And don't forget THE major developments in engines on the last 30 years - fuel injection and engine management.. Developed in Sportscars (Group C was THE major driving force behind engine efficiency and electronic fuel management) and later in F1. Direct injection engines were also developed through motorsport, and have provided a direct benefit to road cars.

Errrmmm... the Euro NCAP crash tests? Max Mosely's idea, developed from the F1 crash testing.
Side-impact and frontal crumple zones? F1 again.. did not know that
There might not be much obvious trickle-down effect, but there's a lot more behind the scenes. Admittedly however, most developments come from Sportscar racing, which is far more open and interesting in terms of technologies - witness the Deltawing and just wait for Michelin's new 'sponge' wet tyres to hit the roads..

I did mean to imply that sportscars was more credit for advances than F1, but I only mentioned it about economy then forgot imply for the rest of my statements, I did try to say regular cars not sports/supercars but then I guess where do you draw the line, someones regular car can be someone elses sports car etc

In terms of racing however, I'm pretty much convinced individual races will be great, but until they get rid of double-points for the finale/s, it's not worth watching F1 - especially now there's a world Sportscar championship back again!

Get well soon Michael....
 
The Merc W126 was the first with ABS as standard in 1979. It would have already had a rudimentary engine management system and not long later, airbags and a basic traction control system. Not sure where that would have come from in F1 at the time - I was too young! And I was probably glued to the rallying at the time. Much more fun to watch as a kid.

Other random thoughts:

Citroen ZX Volcane with the passive rear wobbly suspension, anyone remember those? It used to tuck in to aid on tight bends/ roundabouts

Honda with its 4wd/ 4 wheel steer

Nissan with the computer controlled Skyline 4wd

Must be oodles of banned stuff.

Ground effect F1 cars with a fan to keep it glued.

6 wheeled Lotus?

Or am I mad...?

a quick google: http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/67303.html
 
See thats what I mean, and don't get me wrong I love my F1 even when it is boring as batshit, but the whole trickle down of technology isn't exactly true.

I love my rallying, for me group b and then 92-99 were the best years, now I don't even bother, its just not the same.

Had a guy come into my work when I was working in servos years ago and he was going on about his car and how amazing it was and all the F1 technology that was crammed into it, and I'm just looking at him, it was a nissan nomad/serena.
 
My boss used to work for Bosch when the first Audi rally cars appeared, he would tell me which injection system was 'goot' or 'bedd' before I bought my bangers (whats Aussie for knackered old car?) - he's German btw...
 
shitbox, shitter... other than that I can;t think of oen right now other than whatever the car was called but spoken in a derisive tone...

my old quattro had bosch electrics, they weren't happy.
 
GSB":27o9vyow said:
To be honest, anything that overhauls the tired no engine development formula can only be a positive. When I was a kid F1 was all about innovation and taking a chance on new unproven "outside the box" technologies.
Let's hope it means more failures. When I started watching F1 there were engine blow-ups all the time, last season I remember one in the last race or two (a Lotus?) but they are rare, presumably down to the reliability increasing over time. A wee shake up might help.

I don't know jack about the tech, I watch to see overtaking, crashing, rain and safety cars. Do a rain dance, bring back gravel traps, anything to sort the wheat (Alonso) from the chaff (Vettel & Hamilton) . Ideally I want around half the cars finishing, rather than 95% like now.
 
Lol agree, the whole you must make them reliable because they have to last a bunch of races has meant that the engines are pretty much bullet proof, infact the reliability of the whole car is now a bit too good (except the tyres...and webbers car). I know they are trying to reduce costs but the small teams don't have enough money anyway...

What are the rules next year anyway? I see loads of teams moaning as they won't be able to do any development in 2015 but honda will (by development I mean new engine) which will be either good or bad for them. Is there no updates after the start of the season?
 
Back
Top