Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
xpensive wrote:On the KERS issue again, WB is obviously correct the 400kJ/12 ml gasoline comparison is net power, with a 20% efficiency of the combustion engine, we have 0.060 liters of fuel saved per lap.
Are you going to adress the issue that KERS was castrated by the politicking and could have been applied to a much bigger base value as Luca Marmorini of Toyota testified?
I would estimate that your recycling rate through current KERS would be about 75-80%. MGUs, Batteries and IGPT converters are highly efficient compared to ICEs.
I am not just speaking for KERS. I would like to see progress on internal combustion, HERS and energy efficient aero as well.
At the same time I would like to see some rules that would punish big spenders by giving those advantages away quickly that were gained by spending rather than ingenuity. So engine development could be separately audited and 6 monthly homologated. After exclusive usage of one period all blue prints and know how must be transferred to the other engine makers. Just one idea.
Why is it that whenever I speak of such things, I inevitably end up with several members crammed up my arse???
I have said this type of R&D sharing several times, and Kilcoo, Islamatron, gcdugas and a few others have consistantly cried their heads off about it.
And none seem to hold enough perspective to be able to prove it unworkable, they are very free with their opinions on the subject.
WB, I sincerely hope that you get to avoid that trash. It isn't worth the caories that you burn typing the message...
timbo wrote:
Also, with introduction of cockpit protection and HANS FIA always played catch-up game and never introduced something truly innovative.
There were tons of innovative stuff. Development of new improved helmet designs, fire protected fuel tanks with several iterations, asphalt run offs, TecPro barriers, not to speak of run off standards in track design that no other race sanctioning organization ever achieved. I'm not even talking about the standards of medical tracksite care and emergerncy transport. I do not think that Mika Hakkinen were alive if those measures had not been implemented.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
timbo wrote:
Also, with introduction of cockpit protection and HANS FIA always played catch-up game and never introduced something truly innovative.
There were tons of innovative stuff. Development of new improved helmet designs, fire protected fuel tanks with several iterations, asphalt run offs, TecPro barriers, not to speak of run off standards in track design that no other race sanctioning organization ever achieved. I'm not even talking about the standards of medical tracksite care and emergerncy transport. I do not think that Mika Hakkinen were alive if those measures had not been implemented.
How much of it was Mosley's direct influence? Of course he was supportive but won't anybody at his place be?
I don't argue that he did a lot for safety but I think it is people like Jacky Steward and Lauda which deserve most of the credit.
timbo wrote:
Also, with introduction of cockpit protection and HANS FIA always played catch-up game and never introduced something truly innovative.
There were tons of innovative stuff. Development of new improved helmet designs, fire protected fuel tanks with several iterations, asphalt run offs, TecPro barriers, not to speak of run off standards in track design that no other race sanctioning organization ever achieved. I'm not even talking about the standards of medical tracksite care and emergerncy transport. I do not think that Mika Hakkinen were alive if those measures had not been implemented.
How much of it was Mosley's direct influence? Of course he was supportive but won't anybody at his place be?
I don't argue that he did a lot for safety but I think it is people like Jacky Steward and Lauda which deserve most of the credit.
I would probably credit the engineers that actually DID the work on this one. Kubica's crash in Montreal 07 was horrific, but a testament to how far the teams have come in terms of construction and safety.
No matter who said "we need to make these cars safe", it is the engineers and the teams that produced the product, and BRAVO to them!
timbo wrote:... I think it is people like Jacky Steward and Lauda which deserve most of the credit.
Steward wasn't campaigning in the 90ties. His time was much earlier. Lauda was actually making rather silly noises by attacking Mosley for his safety campaign in Monaco 1994.
I remember that Flavio Briatore was highly critical of Mosley's safety measures but they achieved what others have not. There was no fatal driver accident for 15 years in F1 while other top racing series with lesser safety got hit with several fatalities.
If there is another person who needs to be credited with much of that achievement, one has to mention Prof. Sid Watkins, the chief medical officer of the FIA for many years and a meticulous researcher in the field of safety. He made many proposals that were pushed through by Mosley.
The other person who can never be left out when it comes to safety is John Barnard who invented and designed the first carbon fibre honeycomb chassis in 1981. He truely changed the world of motor racing by his invention.
timbo wrote:
Also, with introduction of cockpit protection and HANS FIA always played catch-up game and never introduced something truly innovative.
There were tons of innovative stuff. Development of new improved helmet designs, fire protected fuel tanks with several iterations, asphalt run offs, TecPro barriers, not to speak of run off standards in track design that no other race sanctioning organization ever achieved. I'm not even talking about the standards of medical tracksite care and emergerncy transport. I do not think that Mika Hakkinen were alive if those measures had not been implemented.
Mika is alive because he crashed 5mins away from one of the best Hospitals in Australia (RAH) and in fact the world. Had he crashed in most European countries he would be dead!
That is not the story I saw and read. Mika lives because Sid Watkins performed a tracheotomy right on track within minutes of the accident. This is testament to the excellent medical service F1 had been putting in place.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue wrote:That is not the story I saw and read. Mika lives because Sid Watkins performed a tracheotomy right on track within minutes of the accident. This is testament to the excellent medical service F1 had been putting in place.
There is no doubt that the tracheotomy was crucial but the more serious problem was that Mika had suffered a fracture around the base of his skull and some internal bleeding as a result of this. Doctors were initially worried that Hakkinen's brain might swell inside the skull and cause brain hemorrhaging. (This is what killed American F1 racer Mark Donohue two days after he crashed in Austria in August 1975.)
Some posters have expressed pleasure at the prospect of relaxing the regulations which could lead to interesting and exciting technical changes. Now for the sad reality. After going over FOTA's press releases, there is no indication about technical changes.
If the present deal holds together, one accomplishment FOTA has achieved is a freeze on technical changes. Are we to expect changes? Let us just examine a few major teams.
Ferrari is a powerhouse, and have a stellar winning record in the last decade. But there were two years where they did poor. First was when tire regulations changed drastically, and the only win they accomplished was at Indy. Second is this year, where they have struggled. And one major reason was major technical changes (KERS and slicks).
McLaren are on par with Ferrari, and they too have struggled this year. The reason? Same as Ferrari, tech changes.
Last year BMW were emerging as a winning team. But they too succumbed to the technical changes.
So what kind of technical changes do the major teams want? None. One of the major factors that contributed to Michael Schumacher and Ferrari's incredible run of dominance from 2000 to 2004 was the stability of the rules. No major changes in technical regulations during that period of time.
It has been suggested that Monty has a personal agenda concerning this entire affair. He does, but it's not to be able to outspend others, or garner money under the table from Bernie. It is to "stabilize" the technical regulations, in other words to stop sudden and major changes in the technical regulations.
The key for major team's success is the path of refinement and gradual change.
FOTA want a bigger say in determining the regulations. So far all they have done is to freeze the regulations. But it appears evident they will soon be able to influence the regulations, at least a veto power. The minor teams are aware of this, but right now that is secondary to their most pressing issue, which is this current battle which they consider critical for them.
The FOTA teams will be battling Bernie for the next three years, then once they get the commercial aspects straightened to their satisfaction, as I have stated, they will then turn upon themselves. Some teams will want no changes, others, especially smaller teams mired in the back, will want more innovations allowed in the hope they can leapfrog the competition.
So how will this impact we the tech weenies of Formula One? It will be horrible, with only refinement allowed. If any large changes occur, it will only happen after a very long time period of studies and testing. Only when the major teams are satisfied that the changes will not work against them will they allow the changes.
I have refrained about my concerns about Manufacturers running a series, because it is my personal belief they should not be allowed to run the show. Now you know why. I consider allowing manufacturers running the show as the lesser of two evils. Having Bernie and Max run the show is worse.
We are entering a new era in Formula One, but sadly, after discarding a few major problems we will inherit a new set of controversial issues.
Racing should be decided on the track, not the court room.
Well argued DaveKillens, but what do you think about:
a)The testing ban, and its implications on technical freedom and innovation, which could mean that if one team gets the upper hand at the start of the season by introducing a "novelty" the Championship might as well be already finished.
b)The costs of changing regulations every year forcing big and small teams alike to practically redesign their car every season.
c)The combined effect of a) and b) which might as well be that we will never get to see the full potential of a given design as time and money (as well as circumstance) might not allow its development to reach the max.
d)The possible reluctance of potential sponsors to invest in a sport where everything changes so often, thus making it hard (if not impossible) to even estimate the possible risks and benefits of a long term commitment.
e)The confusion of the casual spectators over even the basic rules of the sport.
Just to make it clear, I'm not of the opinion the rules should be fixed and frozen. I do believe though that some stability is necessary for the long term benefit of the sport. And I do believe that constant rule changes was exactly what killed the WRC, especially since those rules were imposed "overnight" and regardless of the competing teams' thoughts about them.
Surely, on the technical front, freedom promotes innovation and rewards the smartest, not the richest. On the sporting side though, one would think that after all these years of racing F1 should have decided on basic things like the qualifying format, refueling, tire changes, points system etc.
And last but not least, wouldn't it be appropriate to actually evaluate the effect of a major rule change itself first before proceeding to other changes which could mask that effect?
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. H.P.Lovecraft
I've watch F1 for over many years, I enjoy little technical innovations but I find if there is too much changes, it is a turn off. Feel like they are so desperate.
