David Melville wrote:
Don't have a cow man.

David Melville <spamaway (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> writes:

Brabham used one in Formula 3 in the sixties.
As I recall, they had trouble matching the power characteristics of a racing engine to the CVT.

--
Alan Jones
It is a bright cold day, and the clocks are striking thirteen.

Mike P From the North wrote:
Well of course it's going to increase some costs, but other costs will
go down (such as the overemphasis on aerodynamics in the sport). And I
think it's absolutely essential to retaining manufacturers long term in
this sport to show them that this is a viable development platform for
*real* cars. If they're developing real technology that can be used in
real cars, and not just technology that's only ever used in race cars,
then they'll want to stay in for a long time.

And I do think everything that is developed for a race car has to be
relevant to a road car in some way eventually. There's no point in doing
it otherwise. And this is what's been nagging me about F1 for several
years now: the technology has made the racing awful, the technology has
made the sport expensive, they are developing tons of this technology
every year, and yet none of this technology has the redeeming quality of
being applicable to road cars. In other words, the technology they are
developing is pointless.

We only say that race car technology doesn't have to be relevant to road
car technology, because nowadays we're used to that idea. We've been so
far off the proper path for so many decades that we now think that's
normal.

All of that stuff you mentioned above (pretty much all of it) has been
tried before -- it was called the Turbo Era of the 1980's. And you know
what? It didn't work, the racing still sucked back then. In fact, that's
when team domination first started: McLaren dominated most of that
decade. Williams dominated most of the 1990's, just as Ferrari dominates
most of the 2000's.

Well, 4WD is important mostly from my personal point of view of being in
Canada where 4WD is absolutely essential in most parts of the country.
I'd like to see 4WD systems developed that are lighter, and more fuel
economical. To the point where you can even put them in economy cars.
I'd also like to see 4WD systems developed that adjust torque balance
not just based on traction, but also based on cornering -- I still see
4WD systems where you get too much understeer or oversteer.

As for why F1 would want to use it? Well obviously, it doesn't need it
right now because they've got all of those wings. But if we get rid of
those wings, then 4WD will become the major way of transmitting all of
that torque to the ground without wheelspin (with traction control
lending assistence). But 4WD is the major method of adding traction to
road cars, not wings, so the race cars should reflect that reality.

Active suspension can be useful in real cars too. It prevents brake
dive, acceleration squat, and cornering roll. It is also used for
keeping the car absolutely level so that it presents the best
aerodynamic profile. At the very least active suspension could be a
really useful feature in real cars to prevent any sort of bouncing
action after hitting bumps.

Yousuf Khan

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:09:40 +0100, "James Hart"
<news1 (AT) jameshart (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

know how it is?

Cheers,
Dave


Heart with Webber
Money on Alonso

Yousuf Khan wrote:

I think this is a pretty decent idea (except for the 4WD thing, I've
read/heard [*somewhere*] that 4WD isn't practical in racing b/c it only
adds weight and not enough performance benefit). My response to it is
how would you put this into the regulations? No car may sport a
structure that produces downforce? That would restrict too much. No
car may carry or sport a wing? Probably too loose a definition and easy
to find loopholes through it. I suppose policing this would be easier
than policing traction control (I'm assuming it's easier to examine a
car's structure/body rather than the millions of lines of code that each
car may have).

Ian Dalziel <iandalziel (AT) lineone (DOT) net> wrote in
news:1hsue11j3mradhn0gjd0qs32h58pf73lhr (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:

Why you little...

Peter wrote:
In a roundabout way Mr Porche developed one in in WWII for the
german super-heavy tanks; electric final drive powered directly off
diesel engines. They never got it produced in numbers, but the
prototypes mostly worked.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Well, more that the cars suddenly had the power to push a wing
through the air without killing their strait line speed. '67 was return
to power wasn't it?

<snip>
Argument from false premise ignored.


Most modern performance cars are lift nuetral, a few have have some
slight downforce to aid high-speed balance. They lack wings because they
don't have the power to push them through the air, and need so much
ground clearance that low-drag downforce options aren't practical.


Agreed.

Nope. It's far more important to reduce the unsprung weight in an
F1 car, so the run-flat systems would never be worth it.
In rallying the wheels are already very heavy, and the relative
differance is worth the huge saving in time when the tires do go. They
also get alot more flats.

I really like the 2008 proposal for a small fixed weight battery to
be charged off brakes. If they'd just free that up to let them direct
drive from it and charge directly off the engine, it'd be much better.
Four engines attached off a short driveshaft to each wheel would be
great, instantly improving mechanical grip.
Gearboxes are *so* last century.

The other future proposal I liked was to limit them to a fixed
amount of downforce, and let them produce it how they please. They'd
have to regulate things that looked like wings, so the sponsors had
something to write on. 8]

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

YKhan wrote:

And while I'm thinking of it, variable front wings would instantly
solve the problem of lost downforce in fast corners. It's not like
there's any signifigant drag from them anyway.

Plus, most importantly, let them develop real engines. Limit them
to a fixed weight of fuel (determined by available burn energy, so you
can carry the same number of KJ of whichever fuels are approved for safety).
I think my old calculations where about 80kg fuel needed for a good
F1 car to do a 300km race, if you freed up engine designs and allowed
energy-recovering brakes.

Then, as you say, get rid of the restrictions. 600kg mass, 1250kg
downforce, 80kg fuel, open wheels, maximum dimensions so they don't
block the track, and a driver who can see what's around. Who needs more?

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

"tussock" <scrub (AT) clear (DOT) net.nz> wrote


The difficulty with throwing the regulations that wide open is one of driver
safety: how do you regulate where the crumple zones are, for example, in
order to specify the loads they must be able to sustain?

Paul