Technology for cars, not jetfighters!

#1

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

#2

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:41:11 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67 (AT) ezrs (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

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
Top post. AOL!

Not too sure about CVTs though. I'm not sure any team would want to
"develop" such an untested method during a championship season.

However, given his (team's) realiability record, they'd probably try
this on Kimi.

Cheers,
Dave

Heart with Webber
Money on Alonso

#3

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:41:11 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67 (AT) ezrs (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

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

Top post! Could not agree more.

Fred.

#4

Hi,

In article <ve8ue1le3mua963drlpphgfij5s15ofurp (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
David Melville<spamaway (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

Quote:

Not too sure about CVTs though. I'm not sure any team would want to
"develop" such an untested method during a championship season.

One of the teams (I think it was Williams, cos I seem to remember Coulthard
testing it) was developing CVT some years ago. Just as they got it working,
it was banned by the FIA (I think).

Andy

#5

Andy Hawkins <andy (AT) gently (DOT) org.uk> wrote in
news:slrndeuao8.1r9.andy (AT) gently (DOT) org.uk:

Quote:

Hi,

In article <ve8ue1le3mua963drlpphgfij5s15ofurp (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
David Melville<spamaway (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:
Not too sure about CVTs though. I'm not sure any team would want to
"develop" such an untested method during a championship season.

One of the teams (I think it was Williams, cos I seem to remember
Coulthard testing it) was developing CVT some years ago. Just as they
got it working, it was banned by the FIA (I think).

Andy

McLaren, protested by Ferrari. Or the other way around.

#6

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 08:20:53 GMT, Andy Hawkins <andy (AT) gently (DOT) org.uk>
wrote:

Quote:

Hi,

In article <ve8ue1le3mua963drlpphgfij5s15ofurp (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
David Melville<spamaway (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:
Not too sure about CVTs though. I'm not sure any team would want to
"develop" such an untested method during a championship season.

One of the teams (I think it was Williams, cos I seem to remember Coulthard
testing it) was developing CVT some years ago. Just as they got it working,
it was banned by the FIA (I think).

Andy
Ta. Didn't know that.

Why banned?

Cheers,
Dave

Heart with Webber
Money on Alonso

#7

Matthew Pope wrote:

Quote:

McLaren, protested by Ferrari. Or the other way around.

Williams.

http://www.cke-tech.com/cvpst.htm (down the bottom)

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

#8

Hi,

In article <Xns96A6BBF5DA5DBpopematthewatbigpond (AT) 61 (DOT) 9.191.5>,
Matthew Pope<popematthew (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

McLaren, protested by Ferrari. Or the other way around.

Are you sure?

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14206.html

Quote:

CVT was developed in the early 1990s by Williams and banned almost
immediately.

Andy

#9

Andy Hawkins <andy (AT) gently (DOT) org.uk> wrote in
news:slrndeucdd.2kn.andy (AT) gently (DOT) org.uk:

Quote:

Hi,

In article <Xns96A6BBF5DA5DBpopematthewatbigpond (AT) 61 (DOT) 9.191.5>,
Matthew Pope<popematthew (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
McLaren, protested by Ferrari. Or the other way around.

Are you sure?

Yes.

Quote:

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14206.html

Quote:

CVT was developed in the early 1990s by Williams and banned almost
immediately.

They're wrong.

Quote:

Andy

:-p

#10

Hi,

In article <Xns96A6C495EF769popematthewatbigpond (AT) 61 (DOT) 9.191.5>,
Matthew Pope<popematthew (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

They're wrong.

Well, Phil agrees with me...care to post a source to backup your statement?

Andy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Technology for cars, not jetfighters!

Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)

Technology for cars, not jetfighters! - 08-01-2005 , 11:41 PM

Re: Technology for cars, not jetfighters! - 08-02-2005 , 03:36 AM

Re: Technology for cars, not jetfighters! - 08-02-2005 , 03:55 AM

Re: Technology for cars, not jetfighters! - 08-02-2005 , 04:20 AM

Re: Technology for cars, not jetfighters! - 08-02-2005 , 04:28 AM

Re: Technology for cars, not jetfighters! - 08-02-2005 , 04:31 AM

Re: Technology for cars, not jetfighters! - 08-02-2005 , 04:40 AM

Re: Technology for cars, not jetfighters! - 08-02-2005 , 04:48 AM

Re: Technology for cars, not jetfighters! - 08-02-2005 , 05:19 AM

Re: Technology for cars, not jetfighters! - 08-02-2005 , 05:31 AM