Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Formula 1

Old 8th Sep 2016, 20:03
  #5161 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Originally Posted by B Fraser View Post
Big tyres add a significant amount of drag so slipstreaming plus DRS may be more beneficial.
Back in the 1960s, the chief engineer of the vehicle manufacturing company where I worked had an idea - that he could build a car without suspension other than the tyres.
A set of very large F1 wheels and tyres were acquired and a standard saloon car was 'cut about' to fit them.
The ride was satisfactory, but when the vehicle reached a corner the speed was scrubbed-off requiring a change-down to accelerate up to speed again.

There were several 'blue sky thinking' ideas of his that were shelved after initial tests proved unsatisfactory.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2016, 20:08
  #5162 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 705
yeah, tread-shuffle in the damp, castor, camber, toe -in. That was a proper setup. Now we have kilowatts and grams of CO2. whoopee !!!!
B Fraser is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2016, 23:59
  #5163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,333
Or perhaps not. Big tyres add a significant amount of drag so slipstreaming plus DRS may be more beneficial.
Problem is, that extra downforce will make it that much harder to stay close in the preceding corner in the disturbed air. Now, if they'd reduced the downforce while going to bigger tires - letting the mechanical grip compensate a bit for the loss of downforce - they might have something.
I've said this before, but if it was up to me, they'd get rid of most of the downforce - just small front and rear wings so they can aerodynamically balance the car - and put the emphasis where it belongs on mechanical grip and engine power. Instead we have this insane turd polishing exercise of tweaking the wings to get a few ounces more downforce - without more drag - that has zero real world applicability.
I really miss the scream of those high revving naturally aspirated engines (I was at Monza in 1995 when Ferrari was still running the V-12s, that sound was music to my ears ) but I'm afraid that ship has sailed. I see the current formula turbo/hybrid engine technology working its way into road cars before long
tdracer is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 05:50
  #5164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 615
What a hoot if a shed load of old gits like most of us who love the sound of music created by 8,10 or 12 pistons being fed High Octane juice, from all over the Civilised Racing world put a Grand each into a big box started Formula X just to race for the sheer fun of speed and noise......sadly something missing in F1 in its current guise............there are still plenty of circuits all over the World that are available crying out for use...??
Peter-RB is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 07:05
  #5165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by airpolice View Post
What I think that Formula One needs to get back, is the old "three pedals and a gear lever" arrangement. That'll bring back overtaking and excitement.
How?

Given that the principle things inhibiting overtaking are the aerodynamic influence of the foreplane and the tyre & engine cooling issues, both of which make it difficult to follow closely (especially through fast corners) I', genuinely mystified as to how a change of control layout will change things. Can you expand on this?

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 09:34
  #5166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,190
But even when F1 cars had foot-operated clutches* and manual shift the clutch was only used for pulling away from standing starts - mid-race gear changes didn't use the clutch even then. And if you're suggesting that the only overtaking opportunities would arrise when a driver screws up I don't see that helping much - drivers would just learn not to screw up. The most often cited "missed-gear overtakes" of prehistory were the result of gearbox faults rather than driver mistakes anyway.

The switch to semi-automatic gearboxes was originally done simply to allow a more compact cockpit for lower drag (Nigel Mansell's Ferrari, to be specific). The very rapid changes seen these days are more to do with taking damaging shocks out of the transmission, and potentially adhesion-breaking discontinuities at the wheels, than speed as such (although they do contribute to speed).

But I really don't understand why so many want the world's premier racing class to be restricted to jurassic technology that was going obsolete back when pontious was still hours-building towards his CPL. Racing should used to develop and mature the latest and best technology. Anti-lock brakes, traction control, adaptive power-steering, turbo-hybrid propulsion, turbo-compounding, semi-automatic gearboxes etc are all commonplace on many road cars, but for some reason the dinosaur contingent want F1 to be limited to technology that the Wright Brothers rejected as being too primitive...

On a more serious not - if you want close racing you need to allow the cars to get close. That means less dominant aerodynamics (smaller wings, especially the foreplane) and some way to address the overheating issue. At present the cars are not allowed to have variable cooling systems (adjustable cowl flaps etc)** for reasons that once made sense but no longer do. Allowing regulated cooling airflows would help a lot, but it's the wings and tyres that are the bigger contributor

PDR

* Whether the clutch is hand- or foot-operated is irrelevant. The reason hand-clutches were introduced (copied from US Indycar practice) related to providing a more compact nose area and better foot/leg support and protection in the event of a crash. Foot and lower-leg injuries used to be common in F1, but are now virtually unknown.

** The cooling ducts are part of the "declared configuration" which is frozen from the moment Q1 starts until the end of the race. The only thing the teams are allowed to do is add or remove tape over some cooling intakes - this was grudgingly permitted because there can be large changes in temperature/humidity conditions between practice days, qualifying and race day.
PDR1 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 11:36
  #5167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,510
Going back to jurassic techniques: Firstly I agree that F1 should also be an R&D arena for our everyday cars. The racing + R&D concept is not mutually incompatible.
I remember decades ago; I think it was Ronnie Peterson & Lotus, under the 'out of the box Colin Chapman' who first calculated that a change of tyres via a pit stop was faster than a tape to tape non-stop race. He proved correct. I can't remember if he was really the first and if he also started the refuelling save weight tactic. Either way he was looking for more speed. He was the first, I believe, to use skirts to utilise venturi downforce created by the base of the car. The rules were very skimpy & grey. Now every mm & gram is written down some where.
Now tyres are not only optimised for the track & temperatures, but it s mandatory to use multiple compounds even if they are not optimum. Why? Some go slower than the car/track is capable of and it makes it a game of chess not a car race. At least they've now got rid of refuelling, so not everything is sacred, so why not let the teams choose a start to finish tyre choice? No stops unless you want to do so. Imagine if MotoGP had to change bikes/tyres mid race? OK they are shorter races, but you get the picture.
IMHO the tyre manufacturers F1 product does not effect directly my road car. Much of the other technology will. If the tyres had top last a non-stop shorter race, say 75mins instead of 90-100mins, then the compounds might have some spinoff to the road.
I here some people think the pitstop s exciting. To me I watch the first 10 laps and the last 5. The middle stints are so changeable it's not easy to follow as they teams fiddle with their strategies.
Simple question: why is a tyre change mandatory? What purpose does it serve to the race? It distracts and distorts. A winner can lose because of a screw up by the team; bad tactic, slow ground crew, speeding in the pit lane, crossing a white line on exit, etc. etc. Why?
Let the guys go out there and race. KISS.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 12:04
  #5168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,190
The requirement to use more than one type of tyre was done essentially just to ensure that there was at least one pit stop. Before this (and refuelling) there had been a period where "non-stopper" races were becoming more common on many tracks and these were pronounced "processional" by some vocal fans. Adding a pit stop added a potential wildcard and some strategy options, which these fans decided was "more exciting". The same applies to the sudden onset of degradation exhibited by current tyres which was explicitly required by the F1 owners to prevent a leading car hanging on by omitting a final stop and coping with degraded tyres. As has been seen, these tyres can go from usable to zero-grip in about 3/4s of a lap. The fans initially deemed this "more exciting" but now see it as inhibiting the ability to race (which is why the tyres are changing again next year).

If in-race tyre-changes were required on moto-GP bikes then I would expect it to take about three months (ie one winter lay-off) for the bikes to be engineered to permit 5-second tyre changes - it's not really relevant and bike racing is like watching paint dry anyway, so nobody cares.

As to relevance to road use - F1 tyres undergo what is essentially a HALT ("Highly Accelerated Life Test") for road tyre use. Looking at how they degrade, how they respond to damage etc etc always provides useful data for the design of more mundane products. F1 has delivered so many things back to conventional road cars that people have become blase about them - from simple electronic stability and traction control systems through to the entire Euro-NCAP programme. F1 is currently doing a rapid-development and technology maturation programme for hybrid systems and advanced engine concepts (synthetic turbo-compounding, Turbulent Jet Ignition etc) that will become common and reliable features of road cars within the next five to ten years. That's what it's for.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 12:23
  #5169 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Within my lifetime, disc brakes are, possibly, the most useful safety measure that came from 'motor racing' - though actually from Le Mans rather than, initially, F1.

The early Jaguar car disc brakes were based on Dunlop aircraft brakes.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 14:18
  #5170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 351
Yes and as I've said before, possibly here, in my view the fewer rules the better. The minutely defined effone of today leaves no opportunity for the truly innovative engineer.
I and my contemporaries remember the V16 BRM and the Lotus 16 as examples of two very different approaches to race-winning and point out that they couldn't happen in today's over-regulated money-grinding show!

In the 1950s or '60s Joe Lowrey suggested just one rule which was that all the air to be consumed by the engine had to pass through an orifice of defined, and easily checked, size - all else being free.
My equivalent is 200 litres of fuel for a 200 mile race, to be used however the designers thought best - any size and configuration of engine, supercharged or atmospheric, any number of refuelling/tyre change stops (including zero), etc. but with current crashworthiness rules as we don't want to return to the 1950s death rate.
I would claim that either formula would encourage innovation and therefore probably permit developments that would affect road cars. Bet they'd not use RunFlatTyres though.
Allan Lupton is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2016, 14:32
  #5171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 71
Posts: 143
Whilst I can understand the argument about real-world spinoffs from F1, at the end of the day it is a sport, not an automotive R+D exercise. Personally, I would like to see refuelling brought back.


And to add to the Max Verstappen debate; OK he can be a bit crazy but he is a breath of fresh air !! He makes moves no-one else dares - bad? I don't think so.
Geordie_Expat is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2016, 14:28
  #5172 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Formula One takeover leaves Bernie Ecclestone in driver's seat, Chase Carey as chairman.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2016, 01:04
  #5173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
As to Max Verstappen being a "breath of fresh air," I must admit that seeing a high-speed collision will certainly make for a fascinating viewing experience.

Yes, Max, keep jinking at the last second as someone is closing at a high rate overtaking you, especially when you are both traveling at high speed. It can't be that the fellow overtaking manages to avoid a collision every time you do this.

We haven't seen a really good high-speed collision in quite a while now. I want one of those where the car overtaking launches off a rear wheel of the car being overtaken, to go airborne. I bet a car could clear the catch fencing if this is done correctly, at the right place, at the right speed. Won't that be a sight!
chuks is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2016, 03:44
  #5174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Verstappen reminds me a lot of Marco Simoncelli. Exciting to watch, on the edge racing. But you know he's just an accident waiting to happen.
Hempy is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2016, 06:55
  #5175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
I think Jos needs to watch this every day for a few weeks - this is what happens when you are slower than the guy behind you, and you weave, causing him to have to gues where you might (or might not go) next:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSD-KLtN8jA
david1300 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2016, 10:09
  #5176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,775
If in-race tyre-changes were required on moto-GP bikes then I would expect it to take about three months (ie one winter lay-off) for the bikes to be engineered to permit 5-second tyre changes - it's not really relevant and bike racing is like watching paint dry anyway, so nobody cares.
You don't appear to have ever watched the Isle of Man TT races then. They change the rear tyres every 2nd lap, albeit, the laps are over 37 miles each but the tyre changes are done in seconds. As to paint drying, well over 200 MPH on basically a narrow public road with every kind of obstruction that can kill does not put you to sleep, even as a spectator.
PLovett is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2016, 13:21
  #5177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by PLovett View Post
You don't appear to have ever watched the Isle of Man TT races then. They change the rear tyres every 2nd lap, albeit, the laps are over 37 miles each but the tyre changes are done in seconds.
Which rather proves my point - but I was responding to Rat5's comments about MotoGP where (IFAIK) they don't routinely change tyres.

As to paint drying, well over 200 MPH on basically a narrow public road with every kind of obstruction that can kill does not put you to sleep, even as a spectator.
That's a description that applies just as much to many F1 circuits (especially the street circuits), but people claim these are boring. So clearly it's not just the speed and the narrow track that kill the paint-drying analogy.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2016, 13:55
  #5178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Geordie_Expat View Post
Whilst I can understand the argument about real-world spinoffs from F1, at the end of the day it is a sport, not an automotive R+D exercise...
Sport - no, it hasn't been a sport for many decades. It's a business, and sometimes not a very entertaining one
david1300 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2016, 19:31
  #5179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,137
If you want something a bit different,google/utube,`Mark Higgins TT lap record in Prodrive Subaru`.
Would be nice to see an F1` car doing the same....
sycamore is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2016, 19:48
  #5180 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Originally Posted by sycamore View Post
If you want something a bit different,google/utube,`Mark Higgins TT lap record in Prodrive Subaru`.
Would be nice to see an F1` car doing the same....
Indeed - I shared it with my daughter (a Subaru owner) a week or so ago.

A shame that the Scooby is rev-limited in top gear.
G-CPTN is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.