After Bahrain do you agree with Bernie?

[Adam43]

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.

I too would like less stringent regulations. However you have to have a certain level of pragmatism. Well most people do.
Are you not trying to understand what I am saying, because as someone who shares the same ideals as you I find discussing these points very frustrating. Are we ever going to be able to develop a discussion past the superficial obvious points we all know? My post was made already in the context of teams spending, Colin Champman, BMW, etc...

My point is that if you have a weight limit then spending a lot on weight reduction, while still an advantage, is less of an advantage than it would be. Thus it keeps the grid closer.
Yes teams spend what they want or have, but this kind of rule means that spending more has an even greater diminishing returns effect.

I did not say it reduced costs, I said it reduced the gain of spending.

It may even mean that the spend is better placed on another newer, more interesting aspect of car design. As a general comment reducing weight is well proven as an effective solution to going faster, or saving fuel, no need to pursue thus to the nth degree.

I think this is the actual reason a minimum weight rule is applied in pretty much every category there is from club racing to F1. To reduce the need to, or the impact of, spending on weight reduction. Not to do with safety.

Yes, restrictive design is annoying. I'd keep the minimum weight rule though.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I too would like less stringent regulations. However you have to have a certain level of pragmatism. Well most people do.
Are you not trying to understand what I am saying, because as someone who shares the same ideals as you I find discussing these points very frustrating. Are we ever going to be able to develop a discussion past the superficial obvious points we all know? My post was made already in the context of teams spending, Colin Champman, BMW, etc...

My point is that if you have a weight limit then spending a lot on weight reduction, while still an advantage, is less of an advantage than it would be. Thus it keeps the grid closer.
Yes teams spend what they want or have, but this kind of rule means that spending more has an even greater diminishing returns effect.

I did not say it reduced costs, I said it reduced the gain of spending.

It may even mean that the spend is better placed on another newer, more interesting aspect of car design. As a general comment reducing weight is well proven as an effective solution to going faster, or saving fuel, no need to pursue thus to the nth degree.

I think this is the actual reason a minimum weight rule is applied in pretty much every category there is from club racing to F1. To reduce the need to, or the impact of, spending on weight reduction. Not to do with safety.

Yes, restrictive design is annoying. I'd keep the minimum weight rule though.

Because they spend what they have, now they spend to the nth degree on aero. Maybe spending on weight reduction would be a much more useful activity, because they might develop ideas that are more likely to get used on a road car than aero.

It's like for two or more decades, F1 has been trying to use a hammer to solve a problem that needs a screw driver. The problem is budgets getting out of control, and instead trying to sort out an effective tool for solving that problem, they migrate towards a spec solution with the idea that it would somehow control costs, when all it has done is make it cost millions to gain tenths. Largely on aero. Those same millions, which the teams would spend if they had them, could have been used to explore all kinds of wild ideas, some of which would work, and ultimately make it cheaper for Joe Public to drive to work.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Because they spend what they have, now they spend to the nth degree on aero. Maybe spending on weight reduction would be a much more useful activity, because they might develop ideas that are more likely to get used on a road car than aero.

It's like for two or more decades, F1 has been trying to use a hammer to solve a problem that needs a screw driver. The problem is budgets getting out of control, and instead trying to sort out an effective tool for solving that problem, they migrate towards a spec solution with the idea that it would somehow control costs, when all it has done is make it cost millions to gain tenths. Largely on aero. Those same millions, which the teams would spend if they had them, could have been used to explore all kinds of wild ideas, some of which would work, and ultimately make it cheaper for Joe Public to drive to work.

Name me five developments that have come out of F1 and into the production mainstream for road cars in the last ten years, make it twenty years if you like. I have heard this argument so many times it is like a cracked record and has little or no basis in reality.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Casper

Name me five developments that have come out of F1 and into the production mainstream for road cars in the last ten years, make it twenty years if you like. I have heard this argument so many times it is like a cracked record and has little or no basis in reality.

Okay!

1) Flappy paddle gear levers, the gearboxes they are attached to not so much.
2) Heaps of carbon printed Perspex.
3) Wonderful ceramic brakes that work much better than the cast iron vented discs - If you want to use your car on the track please use the cast iron ones because the carbon ceramic discs are not designed for track use!
4) Schumacher supposedly sorted out the handling of the Ferrari Enzo
5) Pirelli road tyres!




You and me both Casper!

In truth probably the only thing that has had any input would be the McLaren F1 because of Gordon Murray's F1 design experience!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Casper

Name me five developments that have come out of F1 and into the production mainstream for road cars in the last ten years, make it twenty years if you like. I have heard this argument so many times it is like a cracked record and has little or no basis in reality.

The counter argument is also a broken record. Take something that bears a passing resemblance to something that was later developed in racing but occurred first and declare 'that wasn't developed in racing.'

1. Flappy paddle gearboxes. No, I'm not talking about some 1901 preselect system. I'm talking about a dry clutch operated by software, not a driver's foot. It cost Ferrari a lot of races before they got it working right.
2. MASSIVE improvement in tire construction and compound and tread designs to reduce aquaplaning. Oh, right, that happened entirely through normal R&D budgets and had nothing to do with anything learned in racing.
3. Active suspension (until it got banned).
4. I'm not going to limit myself to F1 because I think valuable things are learned in other top-level racing series. Tubocharging. Yes, aeroplanes had them before. Locomotives had them before. Trucks had them before. You didn't see them appearing on road cars until after they were used at Indy and they figured out how to achieve decent boost and lag control.
5. Multilink suspension that doesn't suddenly & unpredictably throw the car off the road.
6. High performance diesel engines. ACO couldn't even keep up with the rapid development that occurred on an 80+ year old technology once it got into the hands of racing engineers, the development was occurring so rapidly.
7. Active differential development. Now banned.

I think only going back 20 years is pointless, as for the last 20 years we have been in the spec car era, and any innovation is by definition agains the rules.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The counter argument is also a broken record. Take something that bears a passing resemblance to something that was later developed in racing but occurred first and declare 'that wasn't developed in racing.'


3. Active suspension (until it got banned).
4. I'm not going to limit myself to F1 because I think valuable things are learned in other top-level racing series. Tubocharging. Yes, aeroplanes had them before. Locomotives had them before. Trucks had them before. You didn't see them appearing on road cars until after they were used at Indy and they figured out how to achieve decent boost and lag control.
5. Multilink suspension that doesn't suddenly & unpredictably throw the car off the road.
6. High performance diesel engines. ACO couldn't even keep up with the rapid development that occurred on an 80+ year old technology once it got into the hands of racing engineers, the development was occurring so rapidly.
7. Active differential development. Now banned.

I think only going back 20 years is pointless, as for the last 20 years we have been in the spec car era, and any innovation is by definition agains the rules.

Miatanut do you know of an actively suspended road car?




Oldsmobile Jetfire 1962.

Years before any racing use!


Using any form of racing to give credit to "valuable things learned" is taking credit for an awful lot of grey areas.

Active diffs were developed by rally cars, who were working on real saloons and real world tracks. Not cars running around in super smooth open parking lots.

Originally Posted by miatanut

I think only going back 20 years is pointless, as for the last 20 years we have been in the spec car era, and any innovation is by definition agains the rules.

Gives credence to Casper's argument!

What is F1 actually about?
To me it is about the racing, and development is incidental, but I really wonder sometimes!

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Because they spend what they have, now they spend to the nth degree on aero. Maybe spending on weight reduction would be a much more useful activity, because they might develop ideas that are more likely to get used on a road car than aero.

That is a good point, especially as the spend is on the spend on aero is undesirable. This is also regulated, and maybe should be more so then? Currently there is very little diminishing returns as there isn't much speed difference. Consistent difference, but bin lap times down the F1 grid have been very close over the last ten years.
There is a big gap at the front at the moment, but that ain't to do with aero.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wnut

To me it is about the racing, and development is incidental, but I really wonder sometimes!

Me too and F1 would be easier for everyone to understand if it was. However dismissing developments. Whether directly or indirectly it does. It is interesting, for some of us, to talk about and it is a reason why a lot of manufacturer support goes into F1.

It's a bit of both. Like it has always been since the first race.

Perhaps it is primarily about racing, but a significant side effect is development. It is often like University research sometimes it is about something specific, sometimes more abstract and it provides a benefit you weren't expected, other times just abstract.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The counter argument is also a broken record. Take something that bears a passing resemblance to something that was later developed in racing but occurred first and declare 'that wasn't developed in racing.'

1. Flappy paddle gearboxes. No, I'm not talking about some 1901 preselect system. I'm talking about a dry clutch operated by software, not a driver's foot. It cost Ferrari a lot of races before they got it working right.
2. MASSIVE improvement in tire construction and compound and tread designs to reduce aquaplaning. Oh, right, that happened entirely through normal R&D budgets and had nothing to do with anything learned in racing.
3. Active suspension (until it got banned).
4. I'm not going to limit myself to F1 because I think valuable things are learned in other top-level racing series. Tubocharging. Yes, aeroplanes had them before. Locomotives had them before. Trucks had them before. You didn't see them appearing on road cars until after they were used at Indy and they figured out how to achieve decent boost and lag control.
5. Multilink suspension that doesn't suddenly & unpredictably throw the car off the road.
6. High performance diesel engines. ACO couldn't even keep up with the rapid development that occurred on an 80+ year old technology once it got into the hands of racing engineers, the development was occurring so rapidly.
7. Active differential development. Now banned.

I think only going back 20 years is pointless, as for the last 20 years we have been in the spec car era, and any innovation is by definition agains the rules.

Tyre development was not driven by F1, high performance cars drove that. Inb fact Motorsport was still using cross plies way after radials became common on production cars and in some categories they are still used. Are F1 tyres radial ply construction? Genuine question as I know the slicks we use are cross ply, made by Dunlop.

Diesel was not driven by F1 and not even by motorsport, emissions needed to be reduced for the transport industry and CR did that.

Show me how active suspension has benefited a mass produced car, oh dear it hasn't.

Multilink suspension? You are joking aren't you?? Oh dear you weren't.....

Some people wear blinkers...

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Casper

Tyre development was not driven by F1, high performance cars drove that. Inb fact Motorsport was still using cross plies way after radials became common on production cars and in some categories they are still used. Are F1 tyres radial ply construction? Genuine question as I know the slicks we use are cross ply, made by Dunlop.

Diesel was not driven by F1 and not even by motorsport, emissions needed to be reduced for the transport industry and CR did that.

Show me how active suspension has benefited a mass produced car, oh dear it hasn't.

Multilink suspension? You are joking aren't you?? Oh dear you weren't.....

Some people wear blinkers...

I think the point is that these things were not INVENTED by motorsport, but were DEVELOPED by motorsport. There is a clear difference, and it's how the world works. Especially in the UK. We invent stuff, someone else develops it and makes all the money.

Whether they are valid examples I don't know.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Me too and F1 would be easier for everyone to understand if it was. However dismissing developments. Whether directly or indirectly it does. It is interesting, for some of us, to talk about and it is a reason why a lot of manufacturer support goes into F1.

It's a bit of both. Like it has always been since the first race.

Perhaps it is primarily about racing, but a significant side effect is development. It is often like University research sometimes it is about something specific, sometimes more abstract and it provides a benefit you weren't expected, other times just abstract.

Adam, your analogy here I think is excellent.

“It is often like University research sometimes it is about something specific, sometimes more abstract and it provides a benefit you weren't expected, other times just abstract.”

I think the study design is massively flawed!

What really bothers me is that the whole competition has been forced not into hybrid technology but into KERS and battery power units. This is just a cynical bid to use F1 to legitimize a flawed and heavy technology that is no good for racing despite being widely adopted by some in the auto industry! Batteries are heavy and just plain not green!

Freezing the development of the PU technology for three years is just plain ridiculous, if racing is going to improve the breed, which it will, at least let it do its job!
If you want to save money go for the aero and spec the wings, single plain front and dual plane rear.
I too enjoy talking about the technology of F1, but to claim it is hugely beneficial to road cars, and leads to massive leaps in their development is just a bridge too far!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JamesH

I think the point is that these things were not INVENTED by motorsport, but were DEVELOPED by motorsport. There is a clear difference, and it's how the world works. Especially in the UK. We invent stuff, someone else develops it and makes all the money.

Whether they are valid examples I don't know.

Let's start another diatribe about the Patent System!

[Mike Harte]

Returning to minimum weight for a moment, this rule also stops, to a degree, the use of ultra expensive, ultra lightweight exotic materials that in reality will never see the light of day in everyday motoring. Yes, you might find it in years to come in use in McLaren's or Ferrari's latest multi million dolllar supercar, but to all intents and purposes, they will have no useful application in the mass automotive industry, although it might cross over to other spheres such as aviation or space.

I am not certain of the history behind ABS braking systems, but they were, before they were yet another thing to be banned, developed in F1.

[Adam43]

On the small point of ABS, it was on road cars way before it was in F1. IIRC it was only briefly used in F1 before it was banned.
I think the modern ABS was developed by Mercedes in the '70s. Although there had been various attempts before then.

[chillibowl]

im not nearly as technically knowledgable as you guys but what about rear diffusers and seamless gearboxes?

perhaps not F1 but i thought their origins were in motorsports and both have made their way into affordably priced cars (relatively quickly in some cases).

im even starting to see 'diffuser like' plastic bits glued to the back of some cheaper cars instead of spoilers being glued to the back of them. at least stylistically, cars still take their cues from racecars imo, particularly when you start opting for the sports trim package.

[Mike Harte]

An interesting article by Mike Lawrence on Pitpass on his views re: Mr Ecclestone: http://www.pitpass.com/51248/F1-2014...the-casual-fan

Worth a read, I think.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

Miatanut do you know of an actively suspended road car?

My dad's E Class. I will confess I don't know exactly what it does and doesn't do, and I'm sure it's not equal to Colin Chapman's but I'm equally sure it is a lot more similar to Colin Chapman's than the early 1960's Citroen.

Originally Posted by wnut;3390964 [IMG

http://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/1963_Oldsmobile_F85_Jet_Fire_V8_Turbo_Engine_1.jpg[/IMG]


Oldsmobile Jetfire 1962.

Years before any racing use!

Yup. After planes and trucks had it, and it was a dud. After they got turbocharging worked out at Indy and even more so in CanAm, it became something widely used on road cars.

Originally Posted by wnut

Active diffs were developed by rally cars, who were working on real saloons and real world tracks. Not cars running around in super smooth open parking lots.

These days I would say rally racing is what's left of real racing, because they use real, road-going unibodies and drive on real roads, not billiard table smooth closed circuits.

Originally Posted by wnut

Gives credence to Casper's argument!

What is F1 actually about?
To me it is about the racing, and development is incidental, but I really wonder sometimes!

I agree. In all classes racing has been dumbed-down to spec racing entertainment.

To me, an activity which is so wasteful as racing is, is immoral if it's just about entertainment. If it's serving a greater good in advancing knowledge and technical development, then there is a place for it and it can be entertaining even as it's advancing knowledge.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

To me, an activity which is so wasteful as racing is, is immoral if it's just about entertainment. If it's serving a greater good in advancing knowledge and technical development, then there is a place for it and it can be entertaining even as it's advancing knowledge.

On that basis the public service is a nightmare - pure waste!

Anyway we agree racing is great for developing ideas, and dreaming up a random concept is way different from making it work, which is the problem with the whole patent system.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

Anyway we agree racing is great for developing ideas, and dreaming up a random concept is way different from making it work, which is the problem with the whole patent system.

Racing is very good at focusing the urge to beat the other guy. Boeing is pretty good at doing that in-house, with two different teams attacking the same problem, and harnessing their urge to beat the other team, but that's unusual. Competition between auto makers doesn't focus their engineers as well as competition on the track between racing teams where there is a clear winner and a clear loser.

I would say over 200 years, the patent system has served us very well. It just turns into a mess when computer software is involved.

[ciscotex]

Originally Posted by miatanut

...
4. I'm not going to limit myself to F1 because I think valuable things are learned in other top-level racing series. Tubocharging. Yes, aeroplanes had them before. Locomotives had them before. Trucks had them before. You didn't see them appearing on road cars until after they were used at Indy and they figured out how to achieve decent boost and lag control.

FWIW, GM had two turbocharged cars in the early sixties, before the first turbo Offy in 66; the Corvair Spyder and Corsa, and the Olds F85 Jetfire, both in 62, I think.

P

Oops, late to the party, please forgive.

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by wnut

Miatanut do you know of an actively suspended road car?

Mercedes has that very cool 'Magic Body Control' on their S class. That one uses stereo cameras to 'look' at the road ahead and then set up the active suspension for what is coming. Love to see what F1 engineers could do if let loose on this concept again... But I guess this is better discussed in the active suspension thread.

[Adam43]

That is way better than the original late '80s early '90s active suspension. That was, for want of a better expression, pre programmed or even re-active (OK for a track which is the same every few miles). The Magic body control actually reads the road ahead and adjusts. It is mightily impressive.

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Mercedes has that very cool 'Magic Body Control' on their S class. That one uses stereo cameras to 'look' at the road ahead and then set up the active suspension for what is coming. Love to see what F1 engineers could do if let loose on this concept again... But I guess this is better discussed in the active suspension thread.

I read in Top Gear Magazine a few months ago that Mercedes had licenced the use of hydropneumatic suspension technology from Citroen.Its not too hard to imagine what a bunch of German engineers with the resources of Daimler-Benz could do with the system.Rolls Royce did something similar a long time ago and their cars now have a link between the navigation system and the gearbox to select the best of the eight ratios for the road immediately ahead.If Formula One really wants to be seen as the pinnacle of technical excellence,can it overlook such things?

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I read in Top Gear Magazine a few months ago that Mercedes had licenced the use of hydropneumatic suspension technology from Citroen.Its not too hard to imagine what a bunch of German engineers with the resources of Daimler-Benz could do with the system.Rolls Royce did something similar a long time ago and their cars now have a link between the navigation system and the gearbox to select the best of the eight ratios for the road immediately ahead.If Formula One really wants to be seen as the pinnacle of technical excellence,can it overlook such things?

Yes but who would be driveing the car? The computer that controls it or................

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by ciscotex

FWIW, GM had two turbocharged cars in the early sixties, before the first turbo Offy in 66; the Corvair Spyder and Corsa, and the Olds F85 Jetfire, both in 62, I think.

P

Oops, late to the party, please forgive.

Yes, Wnut posted the Jetfire. So there were a couple others, and then not heard from again for over 10 years. After I posed that I realized it was really the Penske & Donohue effort with the 917/30, making it work on a road course and the necessary boost and lag control that goes with that, that made the concept viable for use in road cars.