|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
10 Apr 2014, 22:07 (Ref:3390907) | #76 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,598
|
Fail to see.
Quote:
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. |
|||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
10 Apr 2014, 23:04 (Ref:3390916) | #77 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
|
11 Apr 2014, 02:53 (Ref:3390950) | #78 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
11 Apr 2014, 03:42 (Ref:3390956) | #79 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
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! |
||
|
11 Apr 2014, 04:37 (Ref:3390962) | #80 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
|
11 Apr 2014, 05:12 (Ref:3390964) | #81 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
What is F1 actually about? To me it is about the racing, and development is incidental, but I really wonder sometimes! Last edited by wnut; 11 Apr 2014 at 05:17. |
|||
|
11 Apr 2014, 05:34 (Ref:3390967) | #82 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,598
|
Quote:
There is a big gap at the front at the moment, but that ain't to do with aero. |
|||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
11 Apr 2014, 05:43 (Ref:3390968) | #83 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,598
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
11 Apr 2014, 05:51 (Ref:3390970) | #84 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
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... |
||
|
11 Apr 2014, 08:36 (Ref:3390998) | #85 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Quote:
Whether they are valid examples I don't know. |
|||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
11 Apr 2014, 08:58 (Ref:3391005) | #86 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
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! Last edited by wnut; 11 Apr 2014 at 09:03. |
||
|
11 Apr 2014, 08:59 (Ref:3391006) | #87 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
|
||
|
11 Apr 2014, 11:33 (Ref:3391035) | #88 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,566
|
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. |
||
|
11 Apr 2014, 11:56 (Ref:3391041) | #89 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,598
|
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. |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
11 Apr 2014, 14:08 (Ref:3391095) | #90 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
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. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
11 Apr 2014, 16:23 (Ref:3391181) | #91 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,566
|
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. |
||
|
11 Apr 2014, 20:16 (Ref:3391258) | #92 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
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.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||||
|
12 Apr 2014, 00:39 (Ref:3391323) | #93 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
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. |
||
|
12 Apr 2014, 19:31 (Ref:3391549) | #94 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
|
16 Apr 2014, 18:33 (Ref:3393437) | #95 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
P Oops, late to the party, please forgive. Last edited by ciscotex; 16 Apr 2014 at 18:41. |
|||
|
16 Apr 2014, 19:27 (Ref:3393470) | #96 | ||
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,181
|
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.
|
||
__________________
"And the most important thing is that we, the Vettels, the Bernies, whoever, should not destroy our own sport by making stupid comments about the ******* noise." - Niki Lauda |
16 Apr 2014, 20:26 (Ref:3393496) | #97 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,598
|
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.
|
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
16 Apr 2014, 21:15 (Ref:3393535) | #98 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 813
|
Quote:
|
||
|
16 Apr 2014, 21:21 (Ref:3393539) | #99 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
Quote:
|
||
|
16 Apr 2014, 21:31 (Ref:3393547) | #100 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
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.
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I agree with Schumacher | rpolinski | Formula One | 9 | 14 Aug 2004 00:00 |
Do you agree with Lauda??? | kuchi | Formula One | 15 | 3 Apr 2001 17:53 |