Richards: F1 aero excessive and irrelevant

[StrFerrari4Ever]

CMSMJ1

Post subject: Re: Richards: F1 aero excessive and irrelevant

* Quote 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.

Thank you very much this sums up what some of us outspoken F1 fans think. We don't care about the road relevance F1 is supposed to be a showcase of unbelievable engineering that makes those 20+ vehicles fly around circuits at amazing speeds.
I personally hate all those people who say F1 needs to get eco friendly all I can say is suck my(you get the picture)F1 should continue to create insanely fast cars with beastly engines(outputting insane horsepower) breathtaking innovations(hopefully the rulebook can be made a little bit more open to provide this) & continue to give us real F1 fans the hypnotising speed & awe inspiring moments we love!

[PlatinumZealot]

It's just entertainment to me. I don't care if it relates to road cars. F1 cars could have flux capacitors for all i care. Yes there are technologies that are trickled down into the passenger car industry but I just want to see the fastest cars and the fastest drivers battle it out. It's just entertainment!

[tok-tokkie]

I agree that F1 is pretty irrelevant to road cars. What I would like to see is some interesting engineering innovation & differentiation between the competing cars and challenges to the design engineers. Vast amounts of money spent on wind tunnel tests delivers nothing that interests me - build a decent aircraft if you want to go down that route. I acknowledge that the cars have incredible cornering ability because of the wind tunnel work but that has gone on for long enough so lets close that blind path and open up other interesting fields. Which is why I would like there to be a simple kJ limit for the weekend and the race but a cap on the aerodynamics so that the wind tunnels are unnecessary & thereby that expense is eliminated.

[CMSMJ1]

Firstly - thanks for the support all the F1 fans! Humbled I am!

@ Tok Tokkie - you point about the wind tunnels is the point - Why does it matter that theyspend money on it? It is not your money...it is their money and if they want to "waste" it chasing tenths of performance here and there then good luck to them.

The sport/entertainment of F1 is a meritocracy. The best win. The people that work hard will win. IMO working hard also relates to sourcing money as we all know it does not grow on trees and you have to work to get it before you can waste it.

I am not even slightly bothered that the manufacturers have been and gone. You have to play the long game. Does it bother you that there are so few manufacturer teams in F3, GP2, IRL, ALMS or even Nascar?

They don't need to be there as it is nothing ot do with road relevant technology.
Motorsport is willy waving and advertising.

An energy cap limit might be useful for an endurance series where there are mutliple engine technologies in effect. Presently we have a strict V8 formula for F1 and so without changing that there is no point to enforce a fuel/engery limit. You an bet your left leg that the teams will be looking to balance speed and efficiency this season as it is a performance differentiator.

I digressed a touch there.. strictly on topic and ref DR's comments.

Why the hell do WRC cars have such enormous wings etc...

[Pandamasque]

An energy cap limit might be useful for an endurance series where there are mutliple engine technologies in effect. Presently we have a strict V8 formula for F1 and so without changing that there is no point to enforce a fuel/engery limit.

That's the problem. F1 either goes road-relevant-ish so that massive spending w/o wins could be justified, or F1 goes spec. where massive spending is not necessary.... or F1 becomes a small and far less glamorous series where the garagistes have more engineering freedom than money to exploit it.

PS: I'm honestly with you guys! I want F1 to be THE most high tech, THE fastest, THE loudest THE most extreme series, THE pinnacle.
But it just not going to happen. Even someone as dumb as Toyota realised it was money all down the drain without wins. SO did BMW, and Honda. And Renault. Result? We're on the brink of engine monopoly!

[CMSMJ1]

No - what we have is a natural shake up. If the oney is not there t be spent then it won't be spent. The cheap teams will have to think harder...

Road relevance is just horseshit that the manufacturers came out with to justify the losses to the board.

Do you think Williams or even Force India care at all about road relevance?

@ Panda - You quote> ".... or F1 becomes a small and far less glamorous series where the garagistes have more engineering freedom than money to exploit it."

What is the problem with that? F1 cut by 90% is still bigger than any other open wheel series and probably faster too. Glamour I can live without.

[noname]

That's the problem. F1 either goes road-relevant-ish so that massive spending w/o wins could be justified, or F1 goes spec. where massive spending is not necessary.... or F1 becomes a small and far less glamorous series where the garagistes have more engineering freedom than money to exploit it.

or F1 will show it does not have to be so expensive.

Burt Rutan and Co. needed just 25 million $ to sent "SpaceShipOne" into the space, if it was corporation the cost would be probably at least 10 times bigger.

[WhiteBlue]

Result? We're on the brink of engine monopoly!

Thanks to Max Mosley we aren't.

Cosworth will keep Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault honest while VW and Aston Martin will probably be sniffing at the FIA's world engine. I just don't see how the eternal factions will agree on a new propulsion formula without the FIA pushing the issue. Is Todt strong enough to get this going?

[Pandamasque]

Thanks to Max Mosley we aren't.

Cosworth will keep Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault honest while VW and Aston Martin will probably be sniffing at the FIA's world engine. I just don't see how the eternal factions will agree on a new propulsion formula without the FIA pushing the issue. Is Todt strong enough to get this going?

Ave Mosley! So World Engine is not monopoly? There's no difference between spec. cars from multiple brands or a single supplier. F1 is dead without constructor competition. It's on life support already, imo. If the plan is to keep it alive by amputating all major parts, then it's not worth it (for me as someone who ha$ no intere$t in its survival at any co$t).

What is the problem with that? F1 cut by 90% is still bigger than any other open wheel series and probably faster too. Glamour I can live without.

Probably you're right. I guess it's better than what we have atm. On the other hand
1. F1 won't be the pinnacle by far (like euroBOSS for example) even being faster than anything else out there.
2. by drastic cost-cutting (as if it would be possible w/o banning everything) F1 would lose a lot of revenues, less 'glamour' = less media coverage less fans, etc etc.
3. because people like BE wouldn't willingly let it happen, this ^^ is not going to happen, unless F1 will burst like subprime bubble (this thread can be merged into that one)

I can see some more manufacturers coming to Le Mans after 2011-2012. Porsche are talking about battling for the overall victory in LM, Luca M. mentioned again the probability competing at LM after 2012, Honda will probably compete in LMP2 as soon as in 2010, Toyota/Lexus in 2011, BMW announced their enhanced GT programme for 2010.......they all want to spend money to showcase their road-relevant technology.

Meanwhile F1 is becoming a glamorous spec series with a few (2-3?) old F1 names and some random brands (RedBull, Virgin etc) trying to outcheat each other. It's a good show of course, with a lot of money involved, but with not much F1 left underneath the gloss.
Wait.... F1 is effectively becoming NASCAR!

/rant

[WhiteBlue]

James Allan has spoken with many F1 engineers about his series of blogs on F1 in the future.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2009/12/f ... e-engines/

Most engineers agree that twenty years from now the prime mover of a Formula 1 car will probably still be fossil-fuel powered, but with a strong element of electrical assistance from hybrid technology, which recovers energy from braking and recycles it into motive power through electricity.

They all agree that the engine will probably be just 500cc, with a development of today’s turbos attached to the exhaust to harness the exhaust energy. The unit will probably develop around 300-400 horsepower, with boosts coming from energy regeneration. Scavenging energy to convert into power will be a vital part of the story. They will have direct fuel injection, variable valve timing and small motor generators on each wheel making the most efficient recovery of energy. Currently engines are only about 30% efficient. Engineers believe that by then they should have improved to be around 50% efficient or more.
F1 has to fit in with the developing process of man’s reaction to global warming and this presents its major threat. Between then and now F1 has the chance to present itself as the laboratory for the drive towards fuel efficiency and sustainability.

If indeed in 20 years we had a 500 cc turbo engine the next 2013 iteration will probably have 800 cc. This is about half of the turbos of the past which used to crank out 1400 bhp in qualifying mode. For todays high efficiency chassis about half that primary power and capacity would probably be enough.

If we are to have AWKERS they probably need a major break through in MGU technology to get the weight down. This could perhaps be done the way the Williams fly wheel works with composites. If not they would still have to have drive shafts to keep the MGUs in board.

[Giblet]

You guys know that most of the news that has come out and write ups have been saying that the GRE, or Global Race Engine (World Engine is not what the concept is called any more or being referred to by the FIA, but that is not important) is a concept that has been somewhat dropped by Formula 1, right?

WRC, IRL, and some Tin Tops want the GRE pushed forward, but F1 is expected to have it's own bespoke engine formula that is not based on the GRE.

This is not for sure how it is going to be, but there are a number of car engineering magazine articles in the last couple of months talking about this in great detail.

Everyone is still talking about it like we just the first news article from last year and have ingested no more info since then.

[WhiteBlue]

I agree that the prospect of a new engine formula in 2013 remains shaky but there seems to be a lot of consensus about a sub 1L turbo engine. What would that do to the chassis design?

[Pandamasque]

Anyone else on here finding that story by James Allen utter rubbish? It's just as credible as that article about dead-zones on a Ferrari fansite. Why did he just assume that by year 20** F1 cars will have that amount of power, using this and that technology (currently banned btw) and achieve precisely 100 mpg.

[Ted68]

That's the problem. F1 either goes road-relevant-ish so that massive spending w/o wins could be justified, or F1 goes spec. where massive spending is not necessary.... or F1 becomes a small and far less glamorous series where the garagistes have more engineering freedom than money to exploit it.

or F1 will show it does not have to be so expensive.

Burt Rutan and Co. needed just 25 million $ to sent "SpaceShipOne" into the space, if it was corporation the cost would be probably at least 10 times bigger.

But Scaled Composites is a big corporation with funding from Virgin and Apple principals for the Space Ship One program.

The difference is Burt is capable of doing more with less because he hires smart people and gets out of their way. There is an almost complete lack of ego there. F1 rarely does the same because ego seems to saturate all.

The only real recent example in F1 would be Super Aguri-Brawn. Mark Preston had a scrappy bunch of engineers with a no-holds-barred attitude to put the team as far from the back as they could--even beating their step-parent Honda with their own year-old car. But being given free reign, SA engineers developed the DDD to jump through a hole in the '09 regs which Brawn, being broke, took advantage of. Neither Brawn nor SA combined spent as much as the front runners but put up hellacious effort that took the champonship.

So it's corporate attitude that makes the difference. Would those same SA engineers developed as much at Williams, Toyota, Honda or McLaren? Probably not.

BTW, here's Space Ship Two
http://www.scaled.com/

[SZ]

Anyone else on here finding that story by James Allen utter rubbish? It's just as credible as that article about dead-zones on a Ferrari fansite. Why did he just assume that by year 20** F1 cars will have that amount of power, using this and that technology (currently banned btw) and achieve precisely 100 mpg.

There are people here that take James Allen seriously ?