More controversy surrounding 2014 engines

[Marbot]

I believe that each driver will also be limited to 4 or 5 engines for 2014. That may not be relevant to costs, but it will be relevant to developing engines that are more reliable and efficient. Which, I suppose, will also be relevant to costs and efficiency in the long term. Not just for F1, but for road car engine manufacturing in general.

Hopefully, we'll get other engine manufacturers coming along when most of the hard work has been done by the current engine manufacturers in F1.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

using less electricity for the wind tunnels,

Now there is an idea for the RRA a restricrtion on the amount of electricity the teams use, As the wind tunnel is one of the biggest users of electricity you then have a limit on their use.

We also know that aero is one of the biggest culprits in the lack of overtaking without DRS.

[TRuss]

Ethanol does not have to come from crops but can also be made from farming scraps.

And many of you are missing the point. It doesn't matter how much fuel F1 cars currently use compared to airliners or oil tankers or whatever. What matters is the chance for these cars to be used for the development of new technologies to improve our road going cars. Just as racing was used for from the beginning. I cannot understand the adversity to this. At the very least maybe we'll get to see something different, instead of the same old same old year after year. Pneumatic valves aren't doing it for me anymore.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Now there is an idea for the RRA a restricrtion on the amount of electricity the teams use, As the wind tunnel is one of the biggest users of electricity you then have a limit on their use.

I believe it's necessary for the teams to inform the local power station of their intention to start their wind tunnel up.

Originally Posted by wolfhound

We also know that aero is one of the biggest culprits in the lack of overtaking without DRS.

Currently, the amount of fuel for an F1 car is unlimited, it is not regulated in any way other than what is the optimum amount to use i.e. enough to run the race at optimum pace with huge amounts of drag. The driver need only take is foot off the go pedal to experience huge amounts of braking force. That is why HRT have brake problems and other teams don't. They don't have enough downforce and therefore don't have enough drag.

Reduce the amount of fuel and you have to reduce the amount of drag that you carry around. You can lessen the effect of less fuel by creating systems that harvest energy. If you can do that efficiently, then you can have a 'draggier' car.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I believe it's necessary for the teams to inform the local power station of their intention to start their wind tunnel up.

Currently, the amount of fuel for an F1 car is unlimited, it is not regulated in any way other than what is the optimum amount to use i.e. enough to run the race at optimum pace with huge amounts of drag. The driver need only take is foot off the go pedal to experience huge amounts of braking force. That is why HRT have brake problems and other teams don't. They don't have enough downforce and therefore don't have enough drag.

Reduce the amount of fuel and you have to reduce the amount of drag that you carry around. You can lessen the effect of less fuel by creating systems that harvest energy. If you can do that efficiently, then you can have a 'draggier' car.

What is the drag co-efficient of an F1 car?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

What is the drag co-efficient of an F1 car?

The average Cd of a truck is about 0.8. That of an F1 car is around 0.9 to 1.1, depending on the track.

[Félix]

We're talking about relevance to road cars, and I can't help but think that road racing in general has been going the wrong way for decades. Those who win races very rarely do it because they have the best engine or because of a more efficient design that generates less drag: they win because they can generate more downforce. Races are won in the corners. The current and future F1 rules and those of most road racing championships equalize power (when they don't simply mandate spec parts) and leave one area for potentially race-winning gains: downforce.

I'm sorry but no one on the road drives like that. No one will buy the latest Toyota because it does 1.4G in a corner instead of 1.3G. No one will benefit from a 10% increase in downforce. A 5% reduction in drag does make a difference, and anyone can see it at the gas/petrol station.

Formula cars have barn door aerodynamics, fitting a wing to a car is irrelevant unless you want to corner over 150kph and if downforce is needed in competition, underbody tunnels and generally clever design are available and infinitely more efficient (see the Deltawing). F1 cars could be made 4 times more efficient via aero improvements but we're here reading some old men's reservations about a change that will affect the sound of the engines and their speed but won't even cut fuel consumption by 50%. It's a quasi spec formula anyway, why not make it efficient and relevant instead of slighty altering an archaic recipe?

[Nicholosophy]

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Félix

We're talking about relevance to road cars, and I can't help but think that road racing in general has been going the wrong way for decades. Those who win races very rarely do it because they have the best engine or because of a more efficient design that generates less drag: they win because they can generate more downforce. Races are won in the corners. The current and future F1 rules and those of most road racing championships equalize power (when they don't simply mandate spec parts) and leave one area for potentially race-winning gains: downforce.

I'm sorry but no one on the road drives like that. No one will buy the latest Toyota because it does 1.4G in a corner instead of 1.3G. No one will benefit from a 10% increase in downforce. A 5% reduction in drag does make a difference, and anyone can see it at the gas/petrol station.

Formula cars have barn door aerodynamics, fitting a wing to a car is irrelevant unless you want to corner over 150kph and if downforce is needed in competition, underbody tunnels and generally clever design are available and infinitely more efficient (see the Deltawing). F1 cars could be made 4 times more efficient via aero improvements but we're here reading some old men's reservations about a change that will affect the sound of the engines and their speed but won't even cut fuel consumption by 50%. It's a quasi spec formula anyway, why not make it efficient and relevant instead of slighty altering an archaic recipe?

Yep... great post... totally agree. Formula One has no relevance whatsoever to the road... and never really had. Almost all of the technological 'development' that takes place there nowadays is little more than an expensive vanity exercise in social uselessness which has no purpose other than to put on a show to entertain a TV audience.

[Flavio Galtieri]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Yep... great post... totally agree. Formula One has no relevance whatsoever to the road... and never really had. Almost all of the technological 'development' that takes place there nowadays is little more than an expensive vanity exercise in social uselessness which has no purpose other than to put on a show to entertain a TV audience.

You both make great points. I sometimes wonder myself why we have hundreds of the cleverest engineers on earth devoting their time and brainpower in order to get another 10th out of a car going round and round...

But it's more than that isn't it? It's the challenge, the sport, the TV spectacle. There's nothing wrong with writing rules that preserve all that with a passing nod to our preoccupation with saving the planet is there?

There's absolutely no point in trying to "justify" Formula One in terms of it's contribution to society, safety, roads cars or anything.

If we could race space vehicles to the moon and back somebody would want to do it and rather a lot of the population with TV's would gladly watch.

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Yep... great post... totally agree. Formula One has no relevance whatsoever to the road... and never really had. Almost all of the technological 'development' that takes place there nowadays is little more than an expensive vanity exercise in social uselessness which has no purpose other than to put on a show to entertain a TV audience.

At last, sense.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

You both make great points. I sometimes wonder myself why we have hundreds of the cleverest engineers on earth devoting their time and brainpower in order to get another 10th out of a car going round and round...

But it's more than that isn't it? It's the challenge, the sport, the TV spectacle. There's nothing wrong with writing rules that preserve all that with a passing nod to our preoccupation with saving the planet is there?

There's absolutely no point in trying to "justify" Formula One in terms of it's contribution to society, safety, roads cars or anything.

If we could race space vehicles to the moon and back somebody would want to do it and rather a lot of the population with TV's would gladly watch.

Trying to justify F1 is like trying to justify bullfight ("Toradas") in Spain...

[P38 in workshop]

Its no bad thing to have at least a tenuous justification of the existence of racing.There are hordes of humourless,unemployed vegetarians who would love to see motor racing legislated away on the basis of saving a few icebergs.Failing to allow development of more modern engines is a bit akin to the NASCAR philosophy of a few years back.The racing might be close,but who really thinks watching outmoded technology is what the pinnacle of motorsport should be doing?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by nicanary

At last, sense.

It makes no sense to sponsors.

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It makes no sense to sponsors.

Surely, all the sponsors want to see is their name on the side of a car being viewed by millions? Technological progress has no effect on their willingness to provide sponsorship.

Glamour by association.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by nicanary

Surely, all the sponsors want to see is their name on the side of a car being viewed by millions? Technological progress has no effect on their willingness to provide sponsorship.

Glamour by association.

That's not actually the case at all. Relevancy has replaced glamour in many areas. If you actually read the sponsorship blurbs for any of F1s sponsors, you'll probably find the word 'efficiency' in them in probably more than just one instance.

And you won't attract any new engine manufacturers into F1 if you continue to use archaic, totally irrelevant, high revving, V8 engines.

I would love for F1 to go back to V12s and V10s etc, but it ain't never gonna happen.

[Bononi]

F1 tech not going to cars... I would love to have fast degrading tyres to get a shot at going to some places, like countryside, faster than others. or not !

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by nicanary

Surely, all the sponsors want to see is their name on the side of a car being viewed by millions? Technological progress has no effect on their willingness to provide sponsorship.

Glamour by association.

They also want to increase sales and they want to see their product succeed, in order to justify the money they spend on sponsorship. Shell want to sell more petrol, so if Alonso wins in his Ferrari, it's going to help their profile. Success by association.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I believe that each driver will also be limited to 4 or 5 engines for 2014. That may not be relevant to costs, but it will be relevant to developing engines that are more reliable and efficient. Which, I suppose, will also be relevant to costs and efficiency in the long term. Not just for F1, but for road car engine manufacturing in general.

Allowing four to five engines per season sounds a bit arbitrary to me. In fact, if limiting the use of engines is indeed of any relevance, it is simply incomprehensible that Formula 1 did not follow DTM's example of mandating the engines to last the entire season. This would also effectively outlaw all in-season engine development.

Originally Posted by davyboy

Yep... great post... totally agree. Formula One has no relevance whatsoever to the road... and never really had. Almost all of the technological 'development' that takes place there nowadays is little more than an expensive vanity exercise in social uselessness which has no purpose other than to put on a show to entertain a TV audience.

Formula 1 is, could be and should be relevant, although not solely or necessarily for the automotive industry.
Moreover, the technical regulations should become less restrictive to allow more room for creativity and intelligence - which are key values.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bononi

F1 tech not going to cars... I would love to have fast degrading tyres to get a shot at going to some places, like countryside, faster than others. or not !

So long as you have something to get back home with, why not.

I've recently heard complaints that the tyres are now too conservative, and it's making the races boring. No pleasing some people.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Allowing four to five engines per season sounds a bit arbitrary to me. In fact, if limiting the use of engines is indeed of any relevance, it is simply incomprehensible that Formula 1 did not follow DTM's example of mandating the engines to last the entire season. This would also effectively outlaw all in-season engine development.

Cutting the use of engines from 8 to 4 or 5 means that you have to have your act together with regard to making your engines more reliable. If DTM has mandated a single engine per season, then it's probably done more on grounds of cost rather than anything else. You also have to take into consideration what the penalties are for changing an engine. With regard to engine development: Do big V8 petrol engines need massive development? Do current F1 engines need massive development?

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Moreover, the technical regulations should become less restrictive to allow more room for creativity and intelligence - which are key values.

Then you will need a budget cap (and a harsh one) to keep the sporting side of things alive.

Red Bull and others say tighter regulations are needed, other teams say not. It's not a no-brainer decision to have more open regulations.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Formula 1 is, could be and should be relevant, although not solely or necessarily for the automotive industry.
Moreover, the technical regulations should become less restrictive to allow more room for creativity and intelligence - which are key values.

The vast majority of an F1 team's development budget goes into refining a very constrained aero envelope - and as we've discussed elsewhere, that's resulted in a projectile with a Cd worse than a truck... which isn't very road relevant.

[garcon]

And another thing.

If F1 wants to do something about its environmental impact, how about not holding races at night under 4 trillion watts of artificial light?

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by garcon

And another thing.

If F1 wants to do something about its environmental impact, how about not holding races at night under 4 trillion watts of artificial light?

+1

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by garcon

And another thing.

If F1 wants to do something about its environmental impact, how about not holding races at night under 4 trillion watts of artificial light?

whats the energy expenditure of millions of TV's world wide turned on at the same time?

at best its only ever going to be about the appearance of eco-friendliness unless watching that race/event causes people to rethink how they set up their homes/reorganize their own lives. thats where the true change will come from and not how much energy F1 consumes.

if F1 promotes that (without actually doing anything about it) is that so wrong?