Richards: F1 aero excessive and irrelevant

[Richard]

... is it safe to come out now ????

How I hate ideology and zelotry, it just polarises opinion so science and matters of fact get cast by the wayside. So, lets put expressions "green" and "road relevance" in the bin and look at what's best for F1.

I was looking at some background info about F1 in the late 70's. They had 6 wheeled cars (4/2 and 2/4), turbo and non-turbo, and some unusual water cooled brakes In 1984 54% of starters failed to finish, while in 2009 that had dropped to 12%

That's the sort of innovation and drama that we all miss. I think that is what Richards is getting at. So where did it go wrong?

In my mind, we need to mix things up a bit and open the rules to allow the ingenuity back.

So, the question is how can we stimulate ingenuity and liberate engineering? I'd say strip it back to the basics.

Why not simply set a kJ fuel limit and max power output? Why do they regulate the engine stroke, revs and dimensions?? Let teams go for turbos or boxer engines if they want. Why not see the powertrain develop, why not allow autgyro's gearbox? We want to see the engine equivalent of the 6 wheel car. Oh and KERS would be unlimited because you're limiting the total energy carried by the car, not how it is used.

I agree with Richards that the aero has been over dominant, so lets simplify that. Perhaps its time for a slightly higher ride height (the plank), ban stick out bits, make the wings smaller. That should shift the balance back to mech grip.

Add 50kg to the weight to give some space to the innovators.

Oh, and have a policy of changing the rules every 2 years. This will be planned in advance but will ensure that things get mixed up every couple of years.

I'm not precious about the particular suggestions above. The overall aim is to get to a situation where F1 teams are challenged to use their ingenuity to get around a track with a fixed amount of energy, as fast as possible. The emphasis is on ingenuity to squeeze out performance from less resource (fewer kJ and less aero).

[Richard]

...

Ciro - you're back! What happened to your close season 'activities'? Time to floss your teeth again?

[WhiteBlue]

Why not simply set a kJ fuel limit and max power output? Why do they regulate the engine stroke, revs and dimensions?? Let teams go for turbos or boxer engines if they want. We want to see the engine equivalent of the 6 wheel car. Oh and KERS would be unlimited because you're limiting the total energy carried by the car, not how it is used.

I agree that regulating power output of the primary ICE is better than revs. The main engine dimensions were standardized to create an open market for F1 engines. Before they did this Brawn would have never been able to switch from Honda to Merc engines in six weeks. So the question is a tricky one. Perhaps they can define a dimension box with a gear box and KERS interface. There would still be the problem that engine manufacturers would have to sell their engines to teams at current low prices. This effectively means the manufacturers have to be prepared to absorb development cost themselves. I reckon they will only do this if the PR effect is good. If you get 5 manufacturers to develop petrol, diesel and rotary engines to such a formula the effect will only hold for a short time. One engine config would be the best and two years later all other manufacturers will have adopted it. I think this is why the manufacturers are more looking into the world engine idea. That would obviously be a well defined engine formula with not much differences in the core ICU execution. But it could have very different injection, valves, heat exchangers, turbos, HERS and KERS.

I agree with Richards that the aero has been over dominant, so lets simplify that. Perhaps its time for a slightly higher ride height (the plank), ban stick out bits, make the wings smaller. That should shift the balance back to mech grip.

I'm afraid it would not stop the aero fiddling. Only fixing downforce would.

Add 50kg to the weight to give some space to the innovators.

They just added a lot of ballast which was meant for KERS but will not be used.

[noname]

People will buy the McLaren MP4-12C

1000 MP4-12C (planned production in 2011) may not be enough to save automotive industry. I can not call it a transfer of F1 technology into "everyone" cars.

Just another example of using F1 for PR as you can find similar technology in many other cars made by companies non-existing in F1.

[WhiteBlue]

People will buy the McLaren MP4-12C

... Just another example of using F1 for PR as you can find similar technology in many other cars made by companies non-existing in F1.

You seem to be mistaken there. The MP4-12C carbon fiber monocoque design seems to be unique. It is a one piece structure that takes its clues from F1 and sets new standards never achieved before.

At the 12C's heart lies a carbon fibre monocoque (a tub light enough for two men to lift), a structure that McLaren insists means new standards in handling, ride, performance, safety, economy and practicality.

For the MP4-12C a new, cost-effective construction method was devised that allows McLaren to construct the entire tub in a single piece instead of having to bond different parts together. Known internally as the 'MonoCell', the hollow monocoque chassis is extremely rigid yet only weighs 80 kg. In early crash-testing the same tub was used for a front and side impacts. The MonoCell survived both crashes completely unscathed and could be used again without a problem. A chassis can be produced in just 4 hours, which is a fraction of the time needed to build a conventional multi-piece carbon fibre tub. This cut in production time and costs is what enabled McLaren to use a carbon fibre tub in a market dominated by aluminium and steel constructions.

[meves]

People will buy the McLaren MP4-12C

1000 MP4-12C (planned production in 2011) may not be enough to save automotive industry. I can not call it a transfer of F1 technology into "everyone" cars.

Just another example of using F1 for PR as you can find similar technology in many other cars made by companies non-existing in F1.

That's the point, Mclaren is getting PR for using it as they are an F1 team, also they have massively reduced the production costs of the carbon tub. The only other car that uses this technology that most people will have heard of is the Bugatti Veyron and that made a loss on each car on a car costing over 1 million euros.

No it won't save the motor industry but you have to look at the transfer of technology, with the technology starting on the high end cars with it moving down the value chain. A lot of the electronics started off in F1 cars adaptive suspension, traction control, all these things started in the performance and high end cars in manufacturers portfolios and filtered down. It's not an overnight process but these things do happen.

Also not all the technology is going to make it but KERS is being commercialised by the F1 teams now (Mclaren and Williams) and not all the ideas are relevant but if we stop innovating then we may never see some of the cool technologies coming through, although I will forever pray that the Tyrrell P34 never makes it into road cars (although it could be a little late now).

[Raptor22]

Raptor, you seem the kind of guy who would try to sell a Porsche for its ride confort and then scratch the head asking why your costumer went to a Bentley dealership instead.

Allow me to repeat myself a little:

- Formula One isn't the alpha and omega of motorsports;

- The road-relevance of Formula One is just the pitch that was thrown at the boards of directors of the big manufacturing companies to convince them to put money on it;

- The need for F1 to try to fulfill its own role and the roles of all other forms of motorsport arouse when all other forms motorsport were choked to death for the glory and single domination of Formula One.

Formula One has lead to roadcar-relevant developments in powertrain technologies alone. Concerning chassis technologies:

Technologies developed in the 50's and 60's found its way onto production road cars not 10 yrs later, i.e. monocoque chassis

I give you a mass production monocoque. Dated 1934...:

wishbone suspension

If your car has double wishbone suspension, congratulations. Mine and more than 90% of street cars don't.

he concept of undertray air flow for high speed aerodynamic stability

...same as above... people's VW Golfs benefit nothing from it.


What you seem to think is that this


has to relate more to this


than this


Formula One must realize that it can't check all the boxes in motorsports.

Despite Mr. Ecclestone efforts, there are various motorsport racing series that answer different needs. Mr. Richards should know that: Prodrive worked in road-relevant disciplines like rallying and GT racing.

So what you're saying is that is that F1 needs to remain differentiated and indifferent to passenger car technology.

What other sports are relevant? Well none actually. Sport is merely a platform for people to compete, for one coach to show that their techniques, strategies and tactics is better than the next guys.
But in all sports, the top performing teams ,individuals has access to the best coaches etc but often not. Why? Because in other sports, the machinary has very little effect on the overall result whereas Formula 1 and other motorsport, the machine plays a very big role in the final outcome.

Your view on Formula 1 ia very traditionalist and I respect that. My point of view is that those days are over and if formula 1 is to survive long term and be sustainable then it has to find opportunities to be more relevant to the man in the street than merely winged pencil thin bath tubs with crazy men holding on for dear life.

why is cycling big in Holland? Everybody cycles, everybody can relate. Thats the sort of position that Formula 1 needs to get to in order to be a sustainable platform for advertising and technology development. (ok you've probably already turned your brain off and have started your rebuff already, hangon a little longer)

Where is Formula 1 currently. It's at a stage where going backto the roots of man against man whilest the machines are as limited as possible. This is a good thing if people want to watch one man fighting another in fast cars. Even so, to achieve that the formula is still wrong since overtaking is almost non existant.

So the technology can't be ignored. In order to get Formula 1 back into every household we need more than just man against man, we need man with technology against man with technology.
Most standardised formulae have very limited global viewership but perhaps the best racing. So it could be argued that people don;t turn on their tellies just for the racing. They turn on their tellies to watch Michael Schumacher in his FERRARI battle against Mika Hakkinen in His McLaren Mercedes; man and technology against man and technology.

2009 yielded some of the best racing in years. There was a rule change and it shuffled the deck so others had an opportunity to show off their technology.

However that technology was focused in the wrong area; aerodynamics. The Technological aspect of f1 needs to be focussed into other areas, hence I agree wholeheartedl with Dave Richards.

Now that the dust is settling it appears that Ferrari now wants KERS back.... how odd.
KERS is relevant as it has both marketing value as well as technological.

So what else can we change to make F1 more technological? The engine rules...

With the world Engine there exists an opportunity to develop technologies that can find its way to road cars. This is attractive to manufacturers because it means tha R&D can tap into Marketing budgets and in a cash strapped world, that is a good thing.

Is the passenger car chassis an optimised design? is there revolution that can change the way we make these today? Perhaps, present the problem to a F1 engineer and you'll have a prototype in 3 weeks with a budget to develop it within 12.
Do this via the R&D route a dn it takes 5yrs due to limited R&D budget.

Will Touring Cars allow the same opportunity? NO, because the set of rules there are very different. In fact it will be a case of a Touring car being based on a production car that uses chassis technology developed in Formula 1.

Like I said in my first post on this matter. Do not let your mind be trapped in tradition an d look for the opportunity in change. Formula 1 can be so much more than "just boring little cars running around in circles" (quotes used because that is what my wife says)

[noname]

A lot of the electronics started off in F1 cars adaptive suspension, traction control, all these things started in the performance and high end cars in manufacturers portfolios and filtered down. It's not an overnight process but these things do happen.

agree and I am not even going to try to neglect this. I am just not convinced we should made F1 responsible for solving world's biggest problems. F1's main job is to entertain us, to make the grandstand full and bring millions in front of TV screens.

of course engineering is a big factor but I think once we will made engineers free we would have a lot of bright ideas, which we would be able to use outside of F1. there is much more to get from motorsports than technology used directly in the car. what about numerical simulations, wind tunnel testing, project management (you have to excel in this to design and develop cars with such amazing speed as F1 team), strategy and many others.

Raptor22 gave an example of the speed of executing tasks by F1 and car manufacturers although I think (basing on my personal experience) it's not the size of the budget what makes difference but terrible management you will find in big corporations. even those competing in F1.

we can be impressed by MP4-12C composite passenger cell but I think Aston went much further with One-77. we should not forget, also, all this composite designs created by motorsports (btw, impressive) heavily rely on hands-job, there is not much automation involved. aviation is much more advanced in this matter.

I am also a little bit skeptic once "green" arguments are being used. apart from the fact I am finding all this C02 hysteria unproven, amount of C02 created during manufacturing of composite sports car, as well as during it servicing, greatly outpaces benefits of decreased emissions. especially as those cars are not supposed to be exposed to high mileage.

unleash innovation and let F1 engineers do the fastest possible cars, with limits coming from safety of drivers, marshals and spectators and there would be a lot to take from F1.

[machin]

There are two things that people associate with F1:- Entertainment and Technology, F1 rules should be written such that they (in order):-

1, Improve the entertainment, without substantially increasing the cost.
2, Improve the technology, (if it doesn't detract from the entertainment, or add significantly to the costs).

As I see it pouring £millions into improving the aerodynamic efficiency of the cars under the current set of rules (i.e. no flexibility, and not "active") neither improves the entertainment nor the technology, so its not adding anything to the sport in the two areas we care about... so its just a big waste time!

The FIA need to do something, and I think that potentially means standard underfloors and possibly front and rear wings too.....

[Richard]

They just added a lot of ballast which was meant for KERS but will not be used.

Unfortunately the rules don't give much scope to take advantage of that weight allowance with some radical innovation

[mx_tifoso]

Why is cycling big in Holland? Everybody cycles, everybody can relate. Thats the sort of position that Formula 1 needs to get to in order to be a sustainable platform for advertising and technology development.

This has never been a common mans sport nor should it be. I'm not trying to be elitist but with the 'technicality' level you can't expect the common man to be interested.

But I agree with the sustainability concept, although not by diluting and making the formula relate to road cars in respect to overall parts design.

[CMSMJ1]

I've tried not to get involved in this thread..it boils my wee too much.

The bottom line is that F1 is excessive and totally irrelevant and so what?

All of this eco bleating is a waste of oxygen and brain power. Let F1 be - if it dies a death due to over consumption and irrelevance then so be it. It was never conceived as anything other than a frivolous spend of resource and manpower and the challenge of going as fast as can be.

Let WTCC be relevant to the road cars.
Let WRC be relevant to the road cars
Let Le Mans with the economy drive be relevant to road cars.

F1 is the pinnacle of excessive car design. It is not relevant to road cars and if you want something that is relevant to road cars..then whatever you want, it is not F1.

[mx_tifoso]

Enough said CMSMJ1. Good thing you got involved...

[woohoo]

Why do people think that F1 need to contribute ANYTHING to the world ???

What does kicking a ball around a grass field contribute to the civilizations of the world ?

[edit: I see it has allready been said...]

[djos]

I've tried not to get involved in this thread..it boils my wee too much.

The bottom line is that F1 is excessive and totally irrelevant and so what?

All of this eco bleating is a waste of oxygen and brain power. Let F1 be - if it dies a death due to over consumption and irrelevance then so be it. It was never conceived as anything other than a frivolous spend of resource and manpower and the challenge of going as fast as can be.

Let WTCC be relevant to the road cars.
Let WRC be relevant to the road cars
Let Le Mans with the economy drive be relevant to road cars.

F1 is the pinnacle of excessive car design. It is not relevant to road cars and if you want something that is relevant to road cars..then whatever you want, it is not F1.

Well said!