What if the breakaway happens?

[Paul]

I just love the "spend as much as you like as long as you share some with us" part. I propose for the sake of economy for FIA just to auction off both titles.

[paused]

KERS is the biggest "green" hoax so far, a gimmick which can only be appreciated by engineering-wannabees.

One liter of gasoline holds 34 000 kJ, of which an F1 car consumes four per lap, a total of 136 000 kJ.
KERS recycles 400, think about it.

Xpensive, yes I agree that is stricltly correct, but don't forget it is the "regulations" that specify how much can be used, not how much is stored. Theorectically these systems could harvest many times that if it were allowed.

In my view, the regulation was framed around a performance element, that may have some application in road cars and hence Max could claim that all those millions of $$ of R&D would have some benfit in the real world. Yes it was kinda a fruity idea in the first place but this was at a time they were trying to justify all those C02 emmissions with nice marketing blanket

[Ogami musashi]

4WD innovative in what? There's no innovation in 4WD. There's f**king Hyundai 4WD.
Yet, implementation of 4WD would cost them tremendous money because in this day of age it is not like "hey we're building a 4WD!" it is research, testing, research, testing, research, testing = money, money, money! Very logical in this day and age.

I don't see your point. Technical competition (the F1 DNA) is about research-test and money yes...

And 4WD not innovative? so because there's 4WD road cars we shouldn't use it?
And what about electric cars? there's out for years now and yet you would label any electric car attemp in racing as useless???

Once again - system cost the tremendous money and produced a little yield. Even BMW which were the main KERS enthusiasts dumped it.
And the "FIA for technical innovation" thing is laughable. Is it now FIA which implements innovation? Old fart can propose "cryophotonic Bose-Einstein condensate" fuel for 2010 and happily proclaim himself the biggest innovator in history of F1. But so what?

1/ the First purpose of budget cap is to decrease the ratio of research-test/result; that's the very goal of it.

2/Do you realize that now thanks to fota the old complain about overtaking and never ending refinement is to be continuated??

the FIA would have let those thing happen, the moveable wings were on the FIA wishlist for overtaking purposes and yes it was an effective manner to help with that problem.
Unlimited rev would have been constrained by the budget cap because you have to put a lot of ressource into refinement.

And 4Wd would have allowed innovative functions because it was mainly 4WD with a KERS, and yet the front wing was to be able to move automatically and assmetrically creating new ways of turning.

And the rear wing main flap would have helped reduce the drag.


But no...no the FOTA came with their superb ideas: let's take the 2009 regulations, put homogalted chassis (yes that was what they offered! homologated chassis for 3 years!), more standard part and restriction on testing, so even less technical freedom and more "go for the refinement".

In the end, we, enthusiast will get worse of both: no new work done for overtaking , even less freedom, and a refinement that will be constrained by the budget cap so that even if you're a technology freak you won't be able to enjoy the small front flap's corner trailing edge new curvature which gives nothing but a mere hundredth of a second.


And yet FOTA is speaking of DNA, do not want spec F1 etc...that's BS, what they want is to win and any change in regulations make them in the possibility of being outpaced by a new entrant which was clever in its interpretation of the new rules (just like brawn).

But hey..that's cool, like everytime, the FIA's the devil and FOTA is zorro.

[timbo]

I don't see your point. Technical competition (the F1 DNA) is about research-test and money yes...

Yes the money. Not the budget cap. You CAN'T have both as you said.
I accentuated research and money because now there is a demand for a new technology to be successful AND reliable straight from the box! That increases expenses A LOT.
Ferrari was laughed for its KERS problems. Now by the same token we could have never seen semi-automatic gearboxes.
How many failures DFV had at the start of its career and how much failures combined had the entire new brethren of V8s in 2006?

And 4WD not innovative? so because there's 4WD road cars we shouldn't use it?
And what about electric cars? there's out for years now and yet you would label any electric car attemp in racing as useless???

I would call it "fancy". And yes, useless if it is not pushing technology. Because innovation is something new. Something we haven't seen. It doesn't mean it has to be NASCAR.

Do you realize that now thanks to fota the old complain about overtaking and never ending refinement is to be continuated??

Refinement is a basis of todays technology because unless a new breakthrough happens the best ideas are already here. Compare 737 and Dreamliner - is it a revolution? Yes, in the refinement.

the FIA would have let those thing happen, the moveable wings were on the FIA wishlist for overtaking purposes and yes it was an effective manner to help with that problem.

It was calculated that movable wings would dramatically increase speed. How long FIA would tolerate it in your opinion?

Unlimited rev would have been constrained by the budget cap because you have to put a lot of ressource into refinement.

Not only refinement. Unlimited revs mean less engine life = more money for manufacturing.

In the end, we, enthusiast will get worse of both: no new work done for overtaking , even less freedom, and a refinement that will be constrained by the budget cap so that even if you're a technology freak you won't be able to enjoy the small front flap's corner trailing edge new curvature which gives nothing but a mere hundredth of a second.

OK. So you see extraordinary innovation in 4WD and movable wings.
That "gadgets" initially were just a help for new teams, so they won't horribly suck. It may as well be 3.0 V10. It never changed anything with the way how regulation is written. It wasn't about "innovation". The whole "innovation" things is Max's bullsh*t rhetorics.

And yet FOTA is speaking of DNA, do not want spec F1 etc...that's BS, what they want is to win and any change in regulations make them in the possibility of being outpaced by a new entrant which was clever in its interpretation of the new rules (just like brawn).

Brawn is not a new entry. And BTW Brawn seems to be quite committed to FOTA.

[u401768]

Coming back on to subject - dose any one think that FOTA will go for this, or is this last gasp try by the FIA to get them back on board by going for the regs pretty much as FOTA put in for their compromise? I really do not know any more if FOTA are interested. I think the only plus point to FOTA is with 100 mil cap they can go racing at LM, and still have money left over....plus it blows a big hole in the cap as well, that will be legal - how much cross pollination could they get from LM?

[Ogami musashi]

First of all; Innovation is one thing, technical freedom another. Innovation may come from technical freedom.

And to clear things, the problem is not about innovation, it is about technical freedom so to have possibility to innovate.

Last but not least, the question is also to have good racing.

I accentuated research and money because now there is a demand for a new technology to be successful AND reliable straight from the box! That increases expenses A LOT.
Ferrari was laughed for its KERS problems. Now by the same token we could have never seen semi-automatic gearboxes.
How many failures DFV had at the start of its career and how much failures combined had the entire new brethren of V8s in 2006?

But what's your point? Now we have a budget cap (restriction on money) over a regulation that pushed for refinement.

It is totally incompatible.

Budget cap do not restrict technical freedom, it may hampers some very costly things, but not all programs are costly.

Aerospace recent examples showed many innovative project (like the advanced composite aircraft with only 200 rifts instead of 3000+, or boeing bird of prey) for very few compared to big programs run in the 90's.

I would call it "fancy". And yes, useless if it is not pushing technology. Because innovation is something new. Something we haven't seen. It doesn't mean it has to be NASCAR.

I think you're playing a bit on words. Putting a new 4WD with KERS is something new..and interesting.

Refinement is a basis of todays technology because unless a new breakthrough happens the best ideas are already here. Compare 737 and Dreamliner - is it a revolution? Yes, in the refinement.

Your talking a small square of the world and declare it to be the norm.
Dreamliner may be only evolutionnary, F-22's not; so do UCAVS, Quiet Supersonic Platforms to quote a few in the aerospace.

In computing industry, raw grid computers, cloud computing, fusion computing are all things that are new and change to way some process are run.

It was calculated that movable wings would dramatically increase speed. How long FIA would tolerate it in your opinion?

The first thing FIA would have changed is engine output, and that's exactly what they want (read the 2011 workframe documents for that).

Not only refinement. Unlimited revs mean less engine life = more money for manufacturing.

That is your assumption. You're neglecting the progresses on reliability;

OK. So you see extraordinary innovation in 4WD and movable wings.
That "gadgets" initially were just a help for new teams, so they won't horribly suck. It may as well be 3.0 V10. It never changed anything with the way how regulation is written. It wasn't about "innovation". The whole "innovation" things is Max's bullsh*t rhetorics.

No..actually "innovation" is your word. The whole word is "technical freedom" to allow innovative things.

I don't sse extraordinary innovation in 4WD, i see that those fields could have been explored to give interesting technologies.

And yet FOTA is speaking of DNA, do not want spec F1 etc...that's BS, what they want is to win and any change in regulations make them in the possibility of being outpaced by a new entrant which was clever in its interpretation of the new rules (just like brawn).

Brawn is not a new entry. And BTW Brawn seems to be quite committed to FOTA.[/quote]

What's the point? i said that regulations changes upset order and that teams do not want that. Brawn is an example. That's why they don't want that. If a teams dominate in year 1, they want to built on their success in year 2.


And what about the whole overtaking aspect???? Moveable wings were an easy solution to give more overtaking just as no rev limit would have allowed to better use of slipstream.

So to sum up...according to your points: with regulations we need refinement and so big money, but budget cap can't allow for that.

Which means you'll see the same cars with little evolution for the whole 2010 season.

Where is the good thing about that?

[xpensive]

For paused;
This is not so much about being correct or not, as about stating technical realities.
Spending hundreds of millions of EUR to recover 400 kJ per lap, when the car is spending 136 000, is plain stupid.

If you wanna go "green", you need to look at the big picture of where the energy goes.
With the poor aerodynamics of an F1 car, it needs almost 20 000 kJ just to MAINTAIN 200 km/h for 80 seconds and when considering a 20% efficiency of the engine, it will cost you 100 000 kJ for that lap.

400 or 4000 kJ KERS, it's peanuts just the same. Better aerodynamics and engine-efficiency would do so much more.

[kilcoo316]

For paused;
Better aerodynamics and engine-efficiency would do so much more.

Indeed.



But how would you all feel if F1 engines were 1 litre and turbo'ed?

Or downforce was effectively removed (that flat floor again) - it would no longer be the fastest motor racing on the planet.

[xpensive]

I think the by far and away biggest gain would be full-bodied cars, reducing Cv from some 1.5 to 0.4 or so.

Remember, at Le Mans in 1971, the Porsche 917 reached 400 km/h (250 mph) with less than 600 Hp.
A modern one liter turbo would easily produce that, even on methanol.

[timbo]

First of all; Innovation is one thing, technical freedom another. Innovation may come from technical freedom.

And to clear things, the problem is not about innovation, it is about technical freedom so to have possibility to innovate.

Agreed. I just don't see dramatically enhanced technical freedom in proposed 2010 regulations.

Last but not least, the question is also to have good racing.

Good racing is great. But there's no direct relation of good racing to technical freedom. In good ole' days racing was not dramatically better, it was mostly spiced up by technical failures that were much more frequent.

But what's your point? Now we have a budget cap (restriction on money) over a regulation that pushed for refinement.

It is totally incompatible.

Budget cap do not restrict technical freedom, it may hampers some very costly things, but not all programs are costly.

Once again, I don't see how 2010 regulations promoted technical freedom. Fully movable wings are nice but the dimensions, layout, etc is still regulated.
4WD is interesting, but it would cost a lot to make reliable and light transmission.

Aerospace recent examples showed many innovative project (like the advanced composite aircraft with only 200 rifts instead of 3000+, or boeing bird of prey) for very few compared to big programs run in the 90's.

Bird of prey is great! Yet, I don't see that happening with 2010 regulations either.

I think you're playing a bit on words. Putting a new 4WD with KERS is something new..and interesting.

Lexus RX Hybrid.
Yes it's interesting to see in F1, but I just don't see anything groundbreaking.

Your talking a small square of the world and declare it to be the norm.
Dreamliner may be only evolutionnary, F-22's not; so do UCAVS, Quiet Supersonic platforms to quote a few in the aerospace.

Still don't see anything truly new - F22 is not first stealth, nor fist supercruise. UCAVs? Fi 103 or soviet shuttle-Buran. Quiet Supersonic? Yes, very interesting.

In computing industry, raw grid computers, cloud computing, fusion computing are all things that are new and change to way some process are run.

Wholeheartedly agree. Yet, I think, there's little relevance of computer technology for F1 fan. For example, it is possible to create unmanned F1 car. Wouldn't it be interesting? I guess so. But would fans like the idea?

The first thing FIA would have changed is engine output, and that's exactly what they want (read the 2011 workframe documents for that).

So you'd have underpowered car with lots of grip. Is it exciting for motor racing (for one, I believe current cars are underpowered for the grip they have).

That is your assumption. You're neglecting the progresses on reliability;

Won't they cost money?

I don't sse extraordinary innovation in 4WD, i see that those fields could have been explored to give interesting technologies.

Well, yes.

What's the point? i said that regulations changes upset order and that teams do not want that. Brawn is an example. That's why they don't want that. If a teams dominate in year 1, they want to built on their success in year 2.

Let's enforce mandatory regulation flip-flop every two years then.

And what about the whole overtaking aspect???? Moveable wings were an easy solution to give more overtaking just as no rev limit would have allowed to better use of slipstream.

By allowing DDD FIA already rendered OWG proposals useless, because the cars have dramatically different aero balance than what OWG proposed.

So to sum up...according to your points: with regulations we need refinement and so big money, but budget cap can't allow for that.

Which means you'll see the same cars with little evolution for the whole 2010 season.

Where is the good thing about that?

There's no. Because I only see that 2010 allow more places to spend.
And I will repeat - Max's original idea for 2010 regulation was to give some help for capped teams.

And here's my idea of "regulations for technical freedom". Cap, safety measures (survival cell), no bodywork regulations except for the floor (I believe too much ground effect is dangerous), no engine regulations except the amount of fuel per race.
But I believe this is as realistic as communism.

[ISLAMATRON]

For paused;
This is not so much about being correct or not, as about stating technical realities.
Spending hundreds of millions of EUR to recover 400 kJ per lap, when the car is spending 136 000, is plain stupid.

If you wanna go "green", you need to look at the big picture of where the energy goes.
With the poor aerodynamics of an F1 car, it needs almost 20 000 kJ just to MAINTAIN 200 km/h for 80 seconds and when considering a 20% efficiency of the engine, it will cost you 100 000 kJ for that lap.

400 or 4000 kJ KERS, it's peanuts just the same. Better aerodynamics and engine-efficiency would do so much more.

i

The 400kJ was just the first step... if it was unlimited you and I both know it would be more, but another thing you are not understanding is that once you use the fuel it is gone, but the energy put out by the KERS can be reabsorbed and put back into the batteries over and over again everytime you press the KERS button and then use the regen braking, it compounds itself, of course limited by the rules of Thermodynamics.

And yes the poor aerodynamics have been addressed by 2010 regs with moveable aero in the front & rear wings, but the FOTA teams want to get rid of that too.

and for Timbo, the 4WD would be thru KERS so no transmissions would be needed, no engine power would be transferred to the front wheels, that is what would have made it technically innovative... and the asymmetrically moveable wings is technical innovation, and no it wasn't just for the new teams it was for all the capped teams, so if everybody joined the cap then all teams would have had it but FOTA prefers that nobody has it and the fans suffer for it.

[xpensive]

Right, there are a lot of things on F1Technical I don't understand.

[kilcoo316]

The 400kJ was just the first step...

400 kW = 536.4 bhp...

That is for one second.

How many straights do you know that last one second?



No doubt your well aware that the teams will not have designed the systems to store much more than 400 kJ... otherwise it would be heavier than absolutely necessary.

Therefore, the mere suggestion of KERS induced power being recoverable (rather than recovering power from the engine) is erroneous... at best.


KERS is a farce.



Now, improving the thermodynamic efficiency of the engines by 10+% through alternative combustion methods is far more enticing.

[ISLAMATRON]

KERS recovers kenetic energy, regardless of its source, be it the engine or the output of the KERS itself, yes KERS can recover some of the same energy it has already put out.

KERS is no farce, the teams that regulated it to death are, claiming they want to "maintain the DNA of F1"

The teams have had ample time to increase the thermal efficiency of the engines, they could care less, now you want them to carry around an extra tank for water for a 5th & 6th cycle

[timbo]

KERS recovers kenetic energy, regardless of its source, be it the engine or the output of the KERS itself, yes KERS can recover some of the same energy it has already put out.

But how many energy is used for production of KERS? What about environmental effects of accumulators?

KERS is no farce, the teams that regulated it to death are, claiming they want to "maintain the DNA of F1"

Well, even this regulated KERS have problem with too much weight. You want more power or more energy stored - prepare that it would be even heavier.
It turned out that it is not a technology well suited for racing right now.

The teams have had ample time to increase the thermal efficiency of the engines, they could care less, now you want them to carry around an extra tank for water for a 5th & 6th cycle

Teams would do anything to be faster. If thermal efficiency would make'em faster they'd pursuit it. With refueling ban I expect that teams would spend some time optimizing engine maps for efficiency.