Please discuss here all your remarks and pose your questions about all racing series, except Formula One. Both technical and other questions about GP2, Touring cars, IRL, LMS, ...
autogyro wrote:
then it will be goodbye to the greedy energy wasting ic technology for good.
only when you have found a suitably vast and economically viable source of electricity
no-one has managed to do this
you give us no particular confidence of improvement in this matter, since you provide neither evidence or reason
autogyro wrote:
then it will be goodbye to the greedy energy wasting ic technology for good.
only when you have found a suitably vast and economically viable source of electricity
no-one has managed to do this
you give us no particular confidence of improvement in this matter, since you provide neither evidence or reason
This!
I see it similar to the irony of a place I used to live... known as a very liberal and progressive city, green focus, electric vehicles, etc. Electric vehicles producing no emissions... and being charged by power coming from the coal-burning power plant just outside of town.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
It is different here in some activist towns. People start to store surplus wind energy in hydrogen and use that to generate electricity and power their cars. Some also use their cars as storage for electric energy when they are not in use. So the collective electric vehicles are one big virtual energy storage device. Cool.
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)
The on topic point is that F1 has to evolve or die. It won't be one of the peaks of motorsport if it is stuck with some antiquated propulsion system in 25 years time.
IMHO To be credible as adopting modern technology they will need to have a more integrated propulsion system (inc drivertrain) to succeed the V6 turbos. So one can imagine the cars will have hyrbid technology integrated with the whole car instead of KERS bolted onto a flywheel. That would include 4 wheel harvesting and possibly electric boost. That would lead to different thinking for the drivetrain. We can also add improved energy recovery from the ICE.
My thinking is that we'll see engine capacity dropping but lap times remaining the same.
Lets say the current V6 turbo lasts 4-6 years, then we'll have a next generation propulsion in 2020 ish? Personally I expect that will be hybrid rather than full EV. However I'd bet my house that the ICE in the 2100 will be like carriage riding is today.
I agree, in the future F1 will continue to be hybrid propulsion restricted by market demands via the FIA, if its lucky.
The top technology will be much faster, with lightweight electric cars with NO energy carried in the chassis, driven by energy from under track (road) inductive technology.
All we are waiting on is for sponsors and team owners to wake up.
FE is supposed to start in 2014 if you want to be involved in the worlds future give me a call.
Who is to say F1 is "peak" of motorsport even now? Or ever? What makes one series or another the "pinnacle"?
F1 has historically lagged the consumer world in propulsion technology... for decades! Fuel injection, ECU development, direct injection, tires (if you want to consider them part of propulsion, i.e. radial vs bias), powertrain (no AWD, traction control banned, etc).
Why all of the sudden are we to expect F1 to be cutting edge when it's always tended to be antiquated in one form or another?
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
To understand where we will wind up, we need to know where we came from. As soon as the motor car became a reality, racing soon followed, and sprang up wherever there were cars. Tracks of all kinds sprang up everywhere, and there was great enthusiasm for many different forms of motorsport. There were wooden oval tracks, ultra-marathons, road courses, and they were all pleasant diversions with no regard for society and funded by excess money. It was nothing but toys for boys, loud, dirty, dangerous, and exciting.
Millionaires and companies wishing to cash in on the publicity tried their hand in it. Henry Ford built 999 and from that point went on to build a formidable auto manufacturing organization. Rolls Royce built their Silver Ghost and suddenly found themselves very successful.
Sponsorship and advertising became necessary to race successfully, and motor racing changed from a sport of millionaire playboys to serious business. There were countless racing series everywhere, and just like the tracks that died off, so did many series as the years went by. Throughout it all there was the Grand Prix, the ultimate race for a nation. One race per nation, bragging rights went to the winner.
Then along came Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley, they grabbed power and transformed Formula One into a professional business, and it grew like weeds. It went from a million dollar business into a billion dollar business, and a few people became very rich.
But the world was changing, and slowly there grew an understanding by many people that the resources of this planet were being wasted. Flash back to the 80's and we see the cars were loud, incredibly quick and dangerous, burned toxic fuels, and most of the sponsorship revenue came from tobacco companies.
Individual nations became more responsible towards the environment and the health of it's citizens, and changes started to happen. In many nations tobacco advertising was banned, and they slowly faded away. The cars had reached a level of performance that was becoming dangerous, and a plateau of performance was established, and kept to this day (by way of restrictive regulations). Toxic fuels went into the bin, and many tracks came under attack by organizations seeking less noise, and less pollution.
While all this was happening, Bernie built his kingdom of greed, raising the financial commitment of everyone involved, to see more of that money flow into his bank account. Eventually he sold off the rights to Formula One to an investment company, and became a billionaire.
With the demise of tobacco advertising, the money flowing from auto manufacturers became more relevant, and they became to assert themselves in the running of Formula One. No longer were they just participants cashing in on the publicity, they had influence in the running of the sport.
So now we arrive at 2012, where everyone has their finger in the pie. The rights of Formula One are owned by an investment company, who's sole goal is to maximize revenue. We have auto manufacturers having a say in the business, hoping to turn it into their own benefit. Formula One is marketed around the globe, and enjoys a level of exposure and publicity no other series can contest.
And in the middle of it all, huge and obscene amounts of money is being spent, demanded, and being paid out. Formula One stands at the top because of the money involved, the ability to go fast hit a plateau many decades ago. And that's what we are seeing, cheaper technology is trickling down to other series, and they have become quicker, while Formula One is stuck at a specific level of performance.
But they have managed to find ways to keep spending huge amounts of money, chasing diminishing returns in performance with no real application to the real world. So what if a team spends 20 million getting the front wing just right, because the only reason for such expenditure is to win races, and cash in on the publicity and money that comes from success.
The world is changing, and Formula One has to keep up. Formula One has to meet the desire for a greener earth, it has to not only put on the appearance of responsibility, but actually practice it, and Formula One has to match with the shrinking dollar, where there's less easy money.
Formula One sits at the pinnacle of motorsport only because of the publicity and money involved. As a result of that it attracts the best minds and drivers. That's it, that's it's only claim to fame.
As a fan of racing, I have really enjoyed 2012 and believe that the introduction of the Pirelli tires is the best thing to happen to the sport in decades. No longer boring races, but instead exciting racing, lots more strategy involved, and truly respectable drama and action have injected new life into what was becoming a substitute for sleeping pills.
In the last few decades the quality of "racing" has declined to being pathetic. For a few years, a pass manufactured by pit stop strategy was the highlight of the day, and after the last series of predictable pit stops, you may as well go somewhere else, because little changed after that. I'm a fan of racing, I want to sit on the edge of my seat, I want to be amazed, and nudge my buddy and say to him, "wow, did you see that?" And to be honest, I saw a lot more action and interesting racing in many other series. But 2012 changed all that, and it's definitely a step in the right direction.
I watched the last race of the Indycar series and at that time thought that it was one of the best ways to cap off a season. But after Brazil, and what was one of the most drama-filled and exciting races Formula One has hosted in years, things are looking up.
Racing should be decided on the track, not the court room.
DaveKillens wrote: and they were all pleasant diversions with no regard for society and funded by excess money.
To me, this is still the state of the sport... because it is just that - sport. Not R&D, not making the world a better place, it is a sport. A diversion. There are considerations which must be made as far as accessibility and the "flavor" of the sport but it is fundamentally no more and no less.
I would agree with the sentiment of F1 being a "peak" of open wheel racing in that it is the highest stakes game around. As a result, the best open wheel engineers and drivers find their way there. But IMO it has never been nor will ever be "cutting edge" in an absolute sense as the consumer world is well ahead in many areas.
In any event, this...
As a fan of racing, I have really enjoyed 2012 and believe that the introduction of the Pirelli tires is the best thing to happen to the sport in decades.
...just drives me nuts, particularly given my previous employment. Praise is piled on a poor product. Or more to the point, a poor product (far from the pinnacle of tire development!) is the crutch that's been necessary to make for a "show" worth watching. In open competition I feel quite confident that a Bridgestone or Michelin would drive away from anything Pirelli could bring to the table. Yet those who produce an excellent product are condemned, and a second rate manufacturer is the holy grail of excitement. To me that's embarrassing. I'd rather make the racing better and more competitive by itself than relying on tires falling apart and teams telling the drivers to back off their pace after 5 laps to conserve.
In my mind it's no different than if F1 went to a spec engine supplier which would drop a cylinder or blow up if ran at 100% for a whole race. Imagine the excitement of cars going up in smoke and flames! And teams playing the game of how many laps they can have their drivers push vs conserve to try to outlast their opponents in an attrition battle.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
The world is changing, and Formula One has to keep up. Formula One has to meet the desire for a greener earth, it has to not only put on the appearance of responsibility, but actually practice it, and Formula One has to match with the shrinking dollar, where there's less easy money.
[...]
As a fan of racing, I have really enjoyed 2012 and believe that the introduction of the Pirelli tires is the best thing to happen to the sport in decades.
[...]
First off, I enjoyed reading your considerate thoughts here, as I always have. But, for once, I don't know that I agree with them.
What's "green" about a series that uses tires like napkins? That forces inefficiency through a standard weight distribution, counter-productive minimum weight increases, a refueling ban, and very tight restrictions on the implementation of the "green" technology the sport is supposed to champion? That travels around the globe with a huge fleet of carbon-burning support vehicles of all types and sizes? That uses gobs and gobs of electricity for wind tunnels?
You know, I'm pretty sure the racing itself is probably the least environmentally offensive aspect of Formula One. So, why is it the only part of this whole deal that people seem to be concerned about changing?
Maybe it's because I'm a cynic. I just can't help but think of those things as much more than incredibly expensive PR exercises that don't really mean anything in the end, except when we're served the bill for it through insane ticket prices and cable fees.
Jersey Tom wrote:...just drives me nuts, particularly given my previous employment. Praise is piled on a poor product. Or more to the point, a poor product (far from the pinnacle of tire development!) is the crutch that's been necessary to make for a "show" worth watching. In open competition I feel quite confident that a Bridgestone or Michelin would drive away from anything Pirelli could bring to the table. Yet those who produce an excellent product are condemned, and a second rate manufacturer is the holy grail of excitement. To me that's embarrassing. I'd rather make the racing better and more competitive by itself than relying on tires falling apart and teams telling the drivers to back off their pace after 5 laps to conserve.
In my mind it's no different than if F1 went to a spec engine supplier which would drop a cylinder or blow up if ran at 100% for a whole race. Imagine the excitement of cars going up in smoke and flames! And teams playing the game of how many laps they can have their drivers push vs conserve to try to outlast their opponents in an attrition battle.
Because earlier (especially during the Schumacher/Ferrari era) the sport had developed to the point where many variables had been eliminated (through genius and hard work) but the actual competition on the track had become predictable and boring. I don't think of PIrelli as delivering a crappy product, but instead being asked to deliver a product with crappy characteristics, and did so.
Please remember Tom, that in the end, it's not about solving wonderful technical problems or making the cars efficient or freaking quick, but delivering action and excitement to the TV audience. You or I, and most in this wonderful forum are capable of recognizing and appreciating the technical genius that is wrapped around a Formula One car, but that's not what they are selling.
Racing should be decided on the track, not the court room.
DaveKillens wrote:I don't think of PIrelli as delivering a crappy product, but instead being asked to deliver a product with crappy characteristics, and did so.
I see that as a half truth.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
DaveKillens wrote:I don't think of PIrelli as delivering a crappy product, but instead being asked to deliver a product with crappy characteristics, and did so.
I see that as a half truth.
Howcome?
Wasn't the spectacle put before anything when the FIA was looking for tyre suppliers? Everything I have read thus far seems to indicate that.
If Pirelli wanted to make an grippy F1 tyre that lasted 80 laps, I'm sure they could do that. But of what benefit would this be to the sport?
FoxHound wrote:If Pirelli wanted to make an grippy F1 tyre that lasted 80 laps, I'm sure they could do that. But of what benefit would this be to the sport?
This is why I call it a half truth, because if they wanted to come into the sport with a "grippy tire that could last 80 laps" or comparable to a Bridgestone or Michelin, I don't think they could have come remotely close.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
FoxHound wrote:If Pirelli wanted to make an grippy F1 tyre that lasted 80 laps, I'm sure they could do that. But of what benefit would this be to the sport?
This is why I call it a half truth, because if they wanted to come into the sport with a "grippy tire that could last 80 laps" or comparable to a Bridgestone or Michelin, I don't think they could have come remotely close.
Well, we have your considerable reputation as a tyre expert for that opinion. But how are we ever to know? Pirelli were never briefed for an 80 laps tyre and this puts the question into the realm of speculation or educated guesses. We all love to speculate - without being much wiser in the end.
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)
Jersey Tom wrote:if they wanted to come into the sport with a "grippy tire that could last 80 laps" or comparable to a Bridgestone or Michelin, I don't think they could have come remotely close.
