Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:54 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8813 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174 ... 221  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
spookly wrote:
No.6 wrote:
Saint wrote:
No.6 wrote:
nuffsaid wrote:
Just a thought before I turn in. One of the safety worries with GE and "sucker cars" with fans was that drivers were passing out after driving them (and maybe whilst driving them) because of the excessive G forces they were subjected to on cornering - there were even driver protests about it. Why don't we get that now? Just fitness levels?

Good discussion :thumbup:
An interesting discussion



Yes, it is an interesting discussion but unfortunately, the internet tends to make some people feel more emboldened and they become ill-mannered very quickly. Don't they Saint?


This really isn't ill-mannered. If you talk rubbish be prepared to be called out on it.



I just take your word for it, is that how it works? Forgive me I put more faith in 40 years of wind tunnel research - or even just 30 years as F1 cars in 2008 produced more downforce than they probably do now.


Don't take his word for it. Go and do some research, then you can figure out you were wrong all on your own.

Ground effect was banned due to the huge amounts of downforce it produced, and it produced far more than the current aero regulations allow by a very big margin.




Would you believe Ross Brawn? :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11166
Saint wrote:
wilber wrote:
The new owners are looking for ways to improve the show - Hamilton & to an extent Danny Ric showed them a way yesterday.

On tracks where lots of overtaking is possible make a car or two from the leading contenders (say all of the top ten once per season) start from the pit lane with no parc ferme rules - whatever tyres you want and a brand new engine outside of the standard allocation


We have no need to fiddle about with artificial stuff like this.

Simply limit the aero rules so that following the car in front is much easier.

Agree, good post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
Down force is only a product of air moving over or around the vehicle and the Speed of the air flow.

The statement which produces "more" ground effect or modern Aero is only about the measure of what is meant by more, with the same air flow ground effect produces more as Ross Brawn explains wings and stuff are much more draggy and without modern power applications would slow the car (and in turn lower the down force).

At a consistent application of power skirts would produce more down force more efficiently.

I think No6 is an obvious multi and to ignore the application of power in an argument about an F1 car an obvious troll.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15739
Location: South Oxfordshire
Really difficult to get exact figures on any of this.

However, all the approximate figures published are that a current f1 car generates between 2.5G and 3G of downforce. The maximum generated under the post ground-effect rules has been around 3.5G

The final ground effect cars in '82 were generating downforce estimated to be between 5G and 8G (estimated because they dodn't have sifficiently accurate data from back then, and because the ground effect increases significantly with speed).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
Saint wrote:
Really difficult to get exact figures on any of this.

However, all the approximate figures published are that a current f1 car generates between 2.5G and 3G of downforce. The maximum generated under the post ground-effect rules has been around 3.5G

The final ground effect cars in '82 were generating downforce estimated to be between 5G and 8G (estimated because they dodn't have sifficiently accurate data from back then, and because the ground effect increases significantly with speed).



And can you imagine what they'd produce with more modern power units.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9229
Location: hovering over the red button
spookly wrote:
No.6 wrote:
Saint wrote:
No.6 wrote:
nuffsaid wrote:
Just a thought before I turn in. One of the safety worries with GE and "sucker cars" with fans was that drivers were passing out after driving them (and maybe whilst driving them) because of the excessive G forces they were subjected to on cornering - there were even driver protests about it. Why don't we get that now? Just fitness levels?

Good discussion :thumbup:
An interesting discussion



Yes, it is an interesting discussion but unfortunately, the internet tends to make some people feel more emboldened and they become ill-mannered very quickly. Don't they Saint?


This really isn't ill-mannered. If you talk rubbish be prepared to be called out on it.



I just take your word for it, is that how it works? Forgive me I put more faith in 40 years of wind tunnel research - or even just 30 years as F1 cars in 2008 produced more downforce than they probably do now.


Don't take his word for it. Go and do some research, then you can figure out you were wrong all on your own.

Ground effect was banned due to the huge amounts of downforce it produced, and it produced far more than the current aero regulations allow by a very big margin.


I work in Aerodynamics (although the other way up!) and Saint is right on the money on this one. Bernoulli and Couette (viscosity) flow principles explain it rather well, The Couette effect with the viscosity of the moving air between the surfaces effectively increases the Ground effect and the resultant downforce. In other downforce/lift creating surfaces their surface area of the airfoil in the airstream is the key, given the limited size of the wings in F1 they shouldn't get close to the ground effect forces


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23509
bimboman wrote:
Saint wrote:
Really difficult to get exact figures on any of this.

However, all the approximate figures published are that a current f1 car generates between 2.5G and 3G of downforce. The maximum generated under the post ground-effect rules has been around 3.5G

The final ground effect cars in '82 were generating downforce estimated to be between 5G and 8G (estimated because they dodn't have sifficiently accurate data from back then, and because the ground effect increases significantly with speed).



And can you imagine what they'd produce with more modern power units.

And chassis and suspension that could handle it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
bimboman wrote:
Down force is only a product of air moving over or around the vehicle and the Speed of the air flow.

The statement which produces "more" ground effect or modern Aero is only about the measure of what is meant by more, with the same air flow ground effect produces more as Ross Brawn explains wings and stuff are much more draggy and without modern power applications would slow the car (and in turn lower the down force).

At a consistent application of power skirts would produce more down force more efficiently.

I think No6 is an obvious multi and to ignore the application of power in an argument about an F1 car an obvious troll.


Yes of course. If you ask for proof and you get it then either change the question or simply ignore the proof and call someone a troll.

Nice one. Very clever.

Pig-headed it is then.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
No.6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Down force is only a product of air moving over or around the vehicle and the Speed of the air flow.

The statement which produces "more" ground effect or modern Aero is only about the measure of what is meant by more, with the same air flow ground effect produces more as Ross Brawn explains wings and stuff are much more draggy and without modern power applications would slow the car (and in turn lower the down force).

At a consistent application of power skirts would produce more down force more efficiently.

I think No6 is an obvious multi and to ignore the application of power in an argument about an F1 car an obvious troll.


Yes of course. If you ask for proof and you get it then either change the question or simply ignore the proof and call someone a troll.

Nice one. Very clever.

Pig-headed it is then.



You provided proof that you were wrong, that much more power needs to be applied to produce similar downforce on a particular car. I explained why that not "more". So yes pig headed it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
Mick Mannock wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Saint wrote:
Really difficult to get exact figures on any of this.

However, all the approximate figures published are that a current f1 car generates between 2.5G and 3G of downforce. The maximum generated under the post ground-effect rules has been around 3.5G

The final ground effect cars in '82 were generating downforce estimated to be between 5G and 8G (estimated because they dodn't have sifficiently accurate data from back then, and because the ground effect increases significantly with speed).



And can you imagine what they'd produce with more modern power units.

And chassis and suspension that could handle it



The twisting etc on corners ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15739
Location: South Oxfordshire
Mick Mannock wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Saint wrote:
Really difficult to get exact figures on any of this.

However, all the approximate figures published are that a current f1 car generates between 2.5G and 3G of downforce. The maximum generated under the post ground-effect rules has been around 3.5G

The final ground effect cars in '82 were generating downforce estimated to be between 5G and 8G (estimated because they dodn't have sifficiently accurate data from back then, and because the ground effect increases significantly with speed).



And can you imagine what they'd produce with more modern power units.

And chassis and suspension that could handle it


Actually, I don't think that the suspension or even the chassis would be the problem; those are areas that modern technology would overcome (in the caee of the suspension, you don't even need modern tech, just solid linkage from the wheels to the chassis).

The driver would suffer immensely though; either through the lateral G through the corners or the fact that they would likely just shake apart.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
bimboman wrote:
No.6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Down force is only a product of air moving over or around the vehicle and the Speed of the air flow.

The statement which produces "more" ground effect or modern Aero is only about the measure of what is meant by more, with the same air flow ground effect produces more as Ross Brawn explains wings and stuff are much more draggy and without modern power applications would slow the car (and in turn lower the down force).

At a consistent application of power skirts would produce more down force more efficiently.

I think No6 is an obvious multi and to ignore the application of power in an argument about an F1 car an obvious troll.


Yes of course. If you ask for proof and you get it then either change the question or simply ignore the proof and call someone a troll.

Nice one. Very clever.

Pig-headed it is then.



You provided proof that you were wrong, that much more power needs to be applied to produce similar downforce on a particular car. I explained why that not "more". So yes pig headed it is.




Read the thread you revisionist dullard. I said a modern F1 car produces more downforce than a 1979 Lotus F1 car. I was told it didn't by 'huge amounts'. It turns out that F1 cars in 1987 were producing the same downforce. At no point did you say, I know let's put a 1979 DFV engine in Lewis Hamilton's Mercedes and see how much downforce he gets then shall we.

Just watch the Brawn video on a constant loop for an hour and you might finally get it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
Saint wrote:

The driver would suffer immensely though; either through the lateral G through the corners or the fact that they would likely just shake apart.


Jesus wept

😂


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
blindcider wrote:
In other downforce/lift creating surfaces their surface area of the airfoil in the airstream is the key, given the limited size of the wings in F1 they shouldn't get close to the ground effect forces



They were the same in 1987. Clever engineers in F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
Quote:
Read the thread you revisionist dullard. I said a modern F1 car produces more downforce than a 1979 Lotus F1 car. I was told it didn't by 'huge amounts'. It turns out that F1 cars in 1987 were producing the same downforce. At no point did you say, I know let's pu



I see your an absolutist. Well done, at the same power input a lotus 1979 would produce a lot "more" down force.

other posters have clearly explained why as well. You might be a bit slow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
No.6 wrote:
blindcider wrote:
In other downforce/lift creating surfaces their surface area of the airfoil in the airstream is the key, given the limited size of the wings in F1 they shouldn't get close to the ground effect forces



They were the same in 1987. Clever engineers in F1.



They were still using ground effect for 1/2 that


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Read the thread you revisionist dullard. I said a modern F1 car produces more downforce than a 1979 Lotus F1 car. I was told it didn't by 'huge amounts'. It turns out that F1 cars in 1987 were producing the same downforce. At no point did you say, I know let's pu



I see your an absolutist. Well done, at the same power input a lotus 1979 would produce a lot "more" down force.

other posters have clearly explained why as well. You might be a bit slow.



The aero on modern F1 cars reached a peak in 2008 before many of the devices were banned. Even with a DFV engine, a modern F1 car would still produce quicker lap times than a 1979 Lotus.

Now, if current engineers designed an F1 car from scratch with ground effect then you might have an argument. But you didn't and you don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
bimboman wrote:
No.6 wrote:
blindcider wrote:
In other downforce/lift creating surfaces their surface area of the airfoil in the airstream is the key, given the limited size of the wings in F1 they shouldn't get close to the ground effect forces



They were the same in 1987. Clever engineers in F1.



They were still using ground effect for 1/2 that


They weren't banned in 1983 then? Your revisionism has reached peak.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
No.6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Read the thread you revisionist dullard. I said a modern F1 car produces more downforce than a 1979 Lotus F1 car. I was told it didn't by 'huge amounts'. It turns out that F1 cars in 1987 were producing the same downforce. At no point did you say, I know let's pu



I see your an absolutist. Well done, at the same power input a lotus 1979 would produce a lot "more" down force.

other posters have clearly explained why as well. You might be a bit slow.



The aero on modern F1 cars reached a peak in 2008 before many of the devices were banned. Even with a DFV engine, a modern F1 car would still produce quicker lap times than a 1979 Lotus.

Now, if current engineers designed an F1 car from scratch with ground effect then you might have an argument. But you didn't and you don't.



Now you gone and conflated lots of arguments to tyranny get out of stuff, if you're going to be an absolutist stick with it, other wise you will end up looking even sillier. Take it from someone who knows.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
No.6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
No.6 wrote:
blindcider wrote:
In other downforce/lift creating surfaces their surface area of the airfoil in the airstream is the key, given the limited size of the wings in F1 they shouldn't get close to the ground effect forces



They were the same in 1987. Clever engineers in F1.



They were still using ground effect for 1/2 that


They weren't banned in 1983 then? Your revisionism has reached peak.


"They" is an odd thing to write. Aspects of creating ground effect was banned not cars themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
bimboman wrote:
No.6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Read the thread you revisionist dullard. I said a modern F1 car produces more downforce than a 1979 Lotus F1 car. I was told it didn't by 'huge amounts'. It turns out that F1 cars in 1987 were producing the same downforce. At no point did you say, I know let's pu



I see your an absolutist. Well done, at the same power input a lotus 1979 would produce a lot "more" down force.

other posters have clearly explained why as well. You might be a bit slow.



The aero on modern F1 cars reached a peak in 2008 before many of the devices were banned. Even with a DFV engine, a modern F1 car would still produce quicker lap times than a 1979 Lotus.

Now, if current engineers designed an F1 car from scratch with ground effect then you might have an argument. But you didn't and you don't.



Now you gone and conflated lots of arguments to tyranny get out of stuff, if you're going to be an absolutist stick with it, other wise you will end up looking even sillier. Take it from someone who knows.



Bit early to be drinking.

https://youtu.be/e0RvjBG4HT0

Watch it again and listen. Conventional wings were producing the same levels of downforce in 1987 as ground effect cars in 1979 albeit with more drag.

It's quite simple Baldrick.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
bimboman wrote:
No.6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
No.6 wrote:
blindcider wrote:
In other downforce/lift creating surfaces their surface area of the airfoil in the airstream is the key, given the limited size of the wings in F1 they shouldn't get close to the ground effect forces



They were the same in 1987. Clever engineers in F1.



They were still using ground effect for 1/2 that


They weren't banned in 1983 then? Your revisionism has reached peak.


"They" is an odd thing to write. Aspects of creating ground effect was banned not cars themselves.



You really are genuinely stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
The rear wing produces between 50-60%

Just over half then.

And also "produced under the car"

Even your claims for the wings are wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34917
Very punchy newbie.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
bimboman wrote:
The rear wing produces between 50-60%

Just over half then.

And also "produced under the car"

Even your claims for the wings are wrong.



Are you being intentionally stupid or is this a default state? You can't even watch a video and listen properly can you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
No.6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
The rear wing produces between 50-60%

Just over half then.

And also "produced under the car"

Even your claims for the wings are wrong.



Are you being intentionally stupid or is this a default state? You can't even watch a video and listen properly can you.



Eh? I'm quoting stuff. Glad to help.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
bimboman wrote:
No.6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
The rear wing produces between 50-60%

Just over half then.

And also "produced under the car"

Even your claims for the wings are wrong.



Are you being intentionally stupid or is this a default state? You can't even watch a video and listen properly can you.



Eh? I'm quoting stuff. Glad to help.



He says the overall downforce is the same then says it's even better as the cars are producing faster lap times. He also says the rear wing is responsible for about 60% of the 1987 cars downforce.

At no point does he say a rear wing only produces 60% of what GE produces largely because saying that would be immensely stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
Good to see you agreeing with me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
bimboman wrote:
Good to see you agreeing with me.


I understand now why so many in here regard you as stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
No.6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Good to see you agreeing with me.


I understand now why so many in here regard you as stupid.




Can you imagine their opinion of you considering How much help you've needed from me in this thread.
What a debut.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
bimboman wrote:
No.6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Good to see you agreeing with me.


I understand now why so many in here regard you as stupid.




Can you imagine their opinion of you considering How much help you've needed from me in this thread.
What a debut.



Most are still enjoying the heat from your burning corpse after I posted the Brawn clip.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
No.6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
No.6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Good to see you agreeing with me.


I understand now why so many in here regard you as stupid.




Can you imagine their opinion of you considering How much help you've needed from me in this thread.
What a debut.



Most are still enjoying the heat from your burning corpse after I posted the Brawn clip.



Only to start laughing again after they've watched it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39440
Location: in transit
henry wrote:
Very punchy newbie.


One nutted Roman, I reckon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23215
henry wrote:
Very punchy newbie.

I wonder if he supports Sarries and Arsenal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:50 am
Posts: 2549
Location: Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...
Ross Brawn on the F1 Engine debate -

"The current engine is an incredible piece of engineering but it's not a great racing engine," he said.

"It is very expensive, it doesn't make any noise, it has componentry that in order to control the number of uses is creating grid penalties that make a farce of F1, there are big differentials of performance between the competitors and we are never going to get anyone else to come in and make engines."


He goes on to say that FIA are not wedded to a particular solution. I agree with much of this, especially about the grid penalty farce, and he's the ideal guy to lead on this discussion. There must be a way of maintaining manufacturer distinctiveness, however, and an acknowledgement that manufacturers need to reap the rewards of their multi-million pound investments.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53063
Quote:
There must be a way of maintaining manufacturer distinctiveness, however, and an acknowledgement that manufacturers need to reap the rewards of their multi-million pound investments.


Toto was clearer when interviewed by sky on Saturday, he said if Liberty want the $300 million spent in another motor sport so be it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15739
Location: South Oxfordshire
It's all a balancing act; the current MGU-H/K and turbo setup was requested/required by some manufacturers (Renault being one of the prime drivers) effectively as the price of keeping them in the sport. It's now become a barrier to entry for some of the other manufacturers they want to bring into the sport, especially if they're focusing on some of the more "niche" manufacturers rather than the volume players.

As for grid penalties, it will be far worse next season

MGU-K, energy store, and control electronics will be 2 per car
ICE, turbo, and MGU-H will be 3 per car


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:46 pm
Posts: 794
nuffsaid wrote:
Ross Brawn on the F1 Engine debate -

"The current engine is an incredible piece of engineering but it's not a great racing engine," he said.

"It is very expensive, it doesn't make any noise, it has componentry that in order to control the number of uses is creating grid penalties that make a farce of F1, there are big differentials of performance between the competitors and we are never going to get anyone else to come in and make engines."


He goes on to say that FIA are not wedded to a particular solution. I agree with much of this, especially about the grid penalty farce, and he's the ideal guy to lead on this discussion. There must be a way of maintaining manufacturer distinctiveness, however, and an acknowledgement that manufacturers need to reap the rewards of their multi-million pound investments.


The difficulty being that the 'distinctiveness' that the engine manufacturers want also can lead to domination by one team, with customer teams of the same engine behind. They're between a rock and a hard place unless they allow more engine testing and modifications in season. I'd be happy to see that. I think the current restrictions on testing and development are silly. Just let them run any developments during practice at their own risk.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:17 pm
Posts: 199
Saint wrote:
It's all a balancing act; the current MGU-H/K and turbo setup was requested/required by some manufacturers (Renault being one of the prime drivers) effectively as the price of keeping them in the sport. It's now become a barrier to entry for some of the other manufacturers they want to bring into the sport, especially if they're focusing on some of the more "niche" manufacturers rather than the volume players.

As for grid penalties, it will be far worse next season

MGU-K, energy store, and control electronics will be 2 per car
ICE, turbo, and MGU-H will be 3 per car




FIA are French. Renault are French. They've been doing what Renault want since the 1.5 turbo era.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: F1 Thread
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15739
Location: South Oxfordshire
It's official - Renault have pretty much run out if all engine parts. Anything that breaks during practice or qualification at Abu Dhabi will likely result in that driver withdrawing from the race, whether a Red Bull, Torro Rosso, or Renault car.

No-one's happy, but the lawyers appear to have been called off


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8813 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174 ... 221  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bacon2, bessantj, bobs mob, BokStorm, Conspicuous, CrazyIslander, fatheralice, Frodder, Google Adsense [Bot], Harveys, HighKingLeinster, jambanja, jammy donut, jezzer, Jim Lahey, Joost, malky, maverickmak, Nabberuk, Red Revolution, Rinkals, Short Man Syndrome, Snooze, sunnybanana, Theflier, The Man Without Fear, TokenSarriesFan, topofthemoon, Wyndham Upalot and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group