 | |
Technology for cars, not jetfighters!
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#51
 
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
Re: Technology for cars, not jetfighters! -
08-03-2005
, 10:40 AM
|
Mike P From the North wrote: I agree in some ways, disagree in others. F1 should be a leader in technology, but I don't think it has to be relevant to a road car - some of the technology you mention is already developed for the road and would serve no purpose in F1 other than to increase weight and more inportantly (apparently, according to the teams) costs. 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. |
Why should it be? Road cars are slow, dull machines, F1 is not. If
you're so adamant about it, make Touring cars more like road cars and
use them for development, because they are what most of us drive. Don't
see many 900BHP single seaters on my street..
The manufacturers are in F1 as it's an advertising business. They win,
they stay in. They lose, they leave. It's not good PR. ALL the major car
manufacturers worldwide spend billions each year on R&D, so to use F1 as
a test bed, when the money they put into it is comparatively little in
their overall budget makes no sense.
Quote:
|
And I do think everything that is developed for a race car has to be relevant to a road car in some way eventually. |
have no effect below 100mph or so? Hmmm I think not.. I challenge you to
name THREE mechanical "inventions" that were on an F1 car before a road
car.. ABS? No, Turbocharging and Fuel Injection? No.... Active ride? No...
There's no point in doing
Quote:
|
it otherwise. And this is what's been nagging me about F1 for several years now: the technology has made the racing awful, |
technology. The cars can't follow each other closely. That's the problem
the technology has made the sport expensive,
It's made it a lot easier to keep costs down IMO - engines last longer
as they are controlled more easily, they never get overrevved from a
missed gearchange
they are developing tons of this technology
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
connected to a 200mph missile? It's like saying the technology on the
space shuttle is relevant to a single seat 70's Cessna because they both
fly:-) (and the Cessna does it better)
Quote:
|
What I want, is to see vehicles going as fast as possible,Man and machine on the ragged edge and not artificially limited by Max for "safety" reasons. Let them have TURBOCHARGED 3.5 litre V10s, massive slicks, ground effect and small wings. Add a gearbox that can be an auto, or semi auto controlled by a "real" gearknob (like a Merc 1-series auto - real stick, no clutch) so at least the driver has to change gear. Add ABS so they can brake even harder and later than they do now.. then we'd see some serious speed and racing, because they'd be able to overtake each other too!! 1500BHP, big slicks, ABS...no traction control (it's already available on road cars,and takes away some of the "spectacle" of F1) this is what we want, fast cars at the forefront of technology!!! 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, |
domination, when Mclaren won 3 drivers titles and Benetton won 2 in the
same decade. McLaren didn't dominate the 80s either as they only won 5
drivers titles in that decade, and at least one of them was down
Team domination is not about the technology, it's about money (unless
you were Ferrari in the 80s) Period. I've watched F1 since 1979 (missed
1 since race cos I was unconcious in hospital). It works like this -
your team does well, you get more sponsors, thus have more money to
spend on development, hire better engineers, get a better engine deal
and test more. Your car therefore should be faster than a team who has
less money and can't afford these things. It's always been like this
whatever the technology.
just as Ferrari dominates
Quote:
|
most of the 2000's. |
better team, who've adjusted to the new rules in a more effective way.
Now the rules have changed again, we are seeing other teams adjust to
them better. It's just like life really!
Quote:
|
As for the technology you mention, you make a good point but I disagree - Take 4wd for example - what *is* the point in a road car in 95% of the world? Unless you want a 4WD performace car - Scooby, Mitsu Evo etc - and all these manufacturers have their 4WD systems pretty well sorted from my own experience :-) For F1 it would just add more weight, a lot more cost, and more pieces of strong metal to pierce tubs and people in the event of a big accident.. 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. |
my old 1986 Audi Quattro Coupe, hardly a modern vehicle itself, has ABS,
lockable torsen diffs. OK, we don't get 6ft of snow, but on the road,
driveable snow is driveable snow wherever you are. The Quat handles it
brilliantly, and it'd do 100 mph easy. Anyone who wishes to go faster
than that in snow on a public road needs their head examining IMO :-)
and IME if you're getting snap understeer/oversteer, then you're not
driving it right either :-p
Quote:
|
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. |
The mechanicals of providing drive to all wheels mean that you need
driveshafts and diffs, and they weigh - there's no tech to make them
lighter on a 2WD car yet, so why not develop that first?
Quote:
|
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. I don't think active suspension adds anything to F1 either, or a road car for that matter - again, those manufacturers who already supply these options on road cars are top-end manufacturers who make cars 95% of us will never afford:-) Active suspension can be useful in real cars too. It prevents brake dive, acceleration squat, and cornering roll. |
it is too. Makes no real difference in day to day driving, but at
100+mph down a country lane, it really makes a amazing difference. Which
is my point - these things are not NEEDED on a road car, so why develop
them.
It is also used for
Quote:
|
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. |
diesel and A Ford Mondeo. For most purposes, the Mondeo with it's 2
litre N/A engine, 2WD, ABS and TC and 5 speed 'box is brilliant. It
doesn't need active ride or a CVT, it would make it more expensive,
complex and unreliable.
Quote:
|
Yousuf Khan |
#52
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:09:40 +0100, "James Hart" news1 (AT) jameshart (DOT) co.uk> wrote: David Melville wrote: On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:31:26 GMT, Andy Hawkins <andy (AT) gently (DOT) org.uk wrote: Hi, In article <Xns96A6C495EF769popematthewatbigpond (AT) 61 (DOT) 9.191.5>, Matthew Pope<popematthew (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: They're wrong. Well, Phil agrees with me...care to post a source to backup your statement? Andy Let's not get into all this fucking name calling again, and citing cites and cites of cites and cites of sites. Can we just fucking stay on thread for a bit (Sorry, I've been upset about other stuff). Don't have a cow man. sorry. I was upset about other stuff and couldn't find backspace. you know how it is? |
#53
| |||
| |||
|
|
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). |
were looking at 4WD as a solution for the lack of traction (I believe
some even tried it, not sure). Then wings came, and 4WD became the less
desirable solution, because of its weight and complexity. Wings were
essentially free traction. They didn't add too much weight or
complexity to the cars. However, if you get rid of the wings, and then
4WD comes back forward as a solution again.
We've had 40 years to evaluate if wings will have any practical value
on real cars. After 40 years, I think we're now pretty certain they'll
never have any practical value on real cars. Time to give it the old
heave-ho.
Quote:
|
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. |
find may actually be practical on a real car eventually, something that
won't obstruct rearward or forward vision. The idea should be to find
new technology for real cars, not for race cars.
I'm also not saying they shouldn't continue to make downforce with the
body of the car itself.
Quote:
|
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). |
when a few hundred new lines of C++ code has been inserted into a
million other lines of C++.
Yousuf Khan
#54
| |||
| |||
|
|
David Melville wrote: On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:09:40 +0100, "James Hart" news1 (AT) jameshart (DOT) co.uk> wrote: David Melville wrote: On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:31:26 GMT, Andy Hawkins <andy (AT) gently (DOT) org.uk wrote: Hi, In article <Xns96A6C495EF769popematthewatbigpond (AT) 61 (DOT) 9.191.5>, Matthew Pope<popematthew (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: They're wrong. Well, Phil agrees with me...care to post a source to backup your statement? Andy Let's not get into all this fucking name calling again, and citing cites and cites of cites and cites of sites. Can we just fucking stay on thread for a bit (Sorry, I've been upset about other stuff). Don't have a cow man. sorry. I was upset about other stuff and couldn't find backspace. you know how it is? No worries Dave, I was just trying to sneak a Simpsons reference in. |
You are going to be in SO much trouble...
--
Ian
#55
| |||
| |||
|
|
Yousuf Khan wrote: At the risk of sounding like a Luddite, I think it's high time we got rid of some technology from cars. But unlike other people, I don't think we should be getting rid of the computer technology, but the aerodynamic technology! They introduced wings on cars back in 1968, because engines were getting so powerful (400HP) that it was getting difficult to keep from spinning out. And of course they've gotten even more powerful since then. But wings were an answer for the 1960's to the 1980's, prior to the advent of computer-control technology like traction control and anti-lock brakes. And most of those technologies actually were developed on road cars first, and then were introduced to F1! How's that for showing that F1 has completely lost its way as being a technology development platform for real cars. In the 40 years since wings have been around, there is still not one practical use for wings on road cars other than for bling-bling. Remove the wings completely! I know a lot of you can't imagine race cars without wings, but try. Let them work on body-effects again -- I don't necessarily mean full-skirt ground-effects like in the late 70's, as even those have no practical use in road cars. Body effects could eventually filter into real road cars, without having to have a skirt seal the body to the road. I also like this rule about not changing tires. It simply means tire manufacturers have to try to make sure that these tires last longer, which is much more practical to road cars. Also means that there's less marbling on the track which is making passing easier. I mean what data did tire manufacturers get about roadcar tires when they made those tires that shed most of their tread mass even before the half-way point of a race? Next thing they should be developing for F1 are run-flat tires that'll allow a car to limp back to the pits after a cut tire. Other things they should introduce are Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVTs), 4WD systems, and gas-electric hybrid motors. These are all areas of current development in roadcars, and F1 can be valuable testing ground for these technologies. But F1 hasn't been a testing ground for real cars for a long time -- decades. In the case of CVTs for example, CVTs have a bad reputation for reliability still, mating a CVT to an 800HP F1 engine will iron out all of those kinks quite quickly. 4WD has been developed quite extensively for off-road purposes by rally cars, but now it might be time to refine the technology for road applications; 4WD is very practical for slippery wintery road conditions, but the current systems are rather unrefined for the road -- you end up going from understeer to oversteer and vice-versa pretty quickly during turns -- another area that could use refinement. Hybrid motors are all of the rage these days for fuel economy, why not make them the high-performance choice too? You'll get engines that are both economical and fast as the need arises. That's why I think we need to wind the clock back a little to get back on a proper technology footing again. Rethink the whole jetfighter approach that we're on now. Yousuf Khan 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). |
front of it. You set the speed of the fan, the size of the blades and
you measure the weight of the car at certain fan speeds. Then you set
a maximum weight in the rules for a certain fan speed. Test each car
at the end of the race - the FIA could set up a mini wind tunnel using
an enclosed truck trailer.
- Jones
FORZA!
#56
| |||
| |||
|
|
All you have to do is sit the car on a scale and run a large fan in front of it. You set the speed of the fan, the size of the blades and you measure the weight of the car at certain fan speeds. Then you set a maximum weight in the rules for a certain fan speed. Test each car at the end of the race - the FIA could set up a mini wind tunnel using an enclosed truck trailer. |
front and rear, but make the rules such that they are flush with the
body. Here's my inspiration for what I mean, take a look at the Ford
GT:
Ford GT: Home
http://www.fordvehicles.com/fordgt/home.asp
Notice that there are a number of hidden wings in this design, both at
the front and rear. Behind the front air intake there's a couple of big
NACA output ducts, it looks like they are the exhaust ducts of a wing
that's hidden into the body. Then there is a couple of NACA intakes
behind the cab, which look like they are the intakes for a hidden wing
that exhausts out to the back of the car. And a big advantage of this
flush design is that there is no way that it could be as efficient as
tthe obvious wings on today's cars, so you'll automatically have
reduced downforce.
Yousuf Khan
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.