The outrageous Formula 1 wishful thinking thread.

[xpensive]

Just Like Luca back in the 70s, cool as ice;

[Morteza]

Just Like Luca back in the 70s, cool as ice;

http://www.livef1.it/images/immagini/Fe ... ri1974.jpg

Ferrari were wearing blue?!

[xpensive]

Just Like Luca back in the 70s, cool as ice;

http://www.livef1.it/images/immagini/Fe ... ri1974.jpg

Ferrari were wearing blue?!

With Luca's 1974 tie , !'d wear any color.

[zeph]

I don't understand threads like these in a forum called F1Technical. From a tech POV, 2014 cars are lightyears ahead of what was before.

Finally the RBR hegemony has been broken, driver skill is a more decisive factor than before, yet here you are wishing for them good ole days...

I think Joe Saward said it best here:

Formula 1 is in the process of a brilliant technical revolution that has a real value to the world at large and the people in the sport are all whining and griping and trying to get things changed, because they have other agendas. It is incredibly depressing that the sport is delivering such a poor message to the public at a time when there is such a positive story to be told: the F1 cars of 2014 cover the same distance at the same sort of speed as the cars of 2013, but they do it using 35 percent less fuel. That’s impressive. But where is this great story being broadcast? Why can no-one remember the word HYBRID? The teams are squabbling as ever, the Formula One group does not do promotion (an odd stance for a promoter) and the FIA’s idea about communication is about as useful as a Trappist Debating Society.

It is as if everyone is working to bring down the value of the sport. Some may be, some may wish to drive away the investors so that they can buy the shares. The investors are, sadly, completely clueless. They look only at the bottom line and do not care how it is arrived at. And they don’t have the nous (nor the balls) to run the business as it could (and should) be run and they just don’t care whether the sport spins off into a wall and catches fire, so long as they have their pockets bulging with fivers when they depart. If they had any clue they would realise that there is still plenty of milk left inside this old cash cow.

What happened to the sport that we love? Why are the teams trying to get rules they like rather than buckling down and building better racing cars as racers do? The culprit today is Ferrari, and it is clear that the folk in Maranello have not mastered the new engines as successfully as Mercedes-Benz (major ooops). Yesterday it was Red Bull. They are not winning, so they are whingeing instead. They are trying to change the rules as Red Bull did last year.

They have no respect for the sport.

Well, as a fan of F1, my view is very simple: if you don’t like it, go away. There will always be other racers who will step in to replace these prima donnas. It is just a question of money. If we wish to see the sport destroy itself then we need to let everyone spend as much as they like. The dinosaurs can have a final party, but if we want to go forward, we need to do so with rules that restrict money and ego, just as they restrict wing size and tyre width.

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/04/ ... the-flops/

[flynfrog]

I don't understand threads like these in a forum called F1Technical. From a tech POV, 2014 cars are lightyears ahead of what was before.

Finally the RBR hegemony has been broken, driver skill is a more decisive factor than before, yet here you are wishing for them good ole days...

I think Joe Saward said it best here:

Formula 1 is in the process of a brilliant technical revolution that has a real value to the world at large and the people in the sport are all whining and griping and trying to get things changed, because they have other agendas. It is incredibly depressing that the sport is delivering such a poor message to the public at a time when there is such a positive story to be told: the F1 cars of 2014 cover the same distance at the same sort of speed as the cars of 2013, but they do it using 35 percent less fuel. That’s impressive. But where is this great story being broadcast? Why can no-one remember the word HYBRID? The teams are squabbling as ever, the Formula One group does not do promotion (an odd stance for a promoter) and the FIA’s idea about communication is about as useful as a Trappist Debating Society.

It is as if everyone is working to bring down the value of the sport. Some may be, some may wish to drive away the investors so that they can buy the shares. The investors are, sadly, completely clueless. They look only at the bottom line and do not care how it is arrived at. And they don’t have the nous (nor the balls) to run the business as it could (and should) be run and they just don’t care whether the sport spins off into a wall and catches fire, so long as they have their pockets bulging with fivers when they depart. If they had any clue they would realise that there is still plenty of milk left inside this old cash cow.

What happened to the sport that we love? Why are the teams trying to get rules they like rather than buckling down and building better racing cars as racers do? The culprit today is Ferrari, and it is clear that the folk in Maranello have not mastered the new engines as successfully as Mercedes-Benz (major ooops). Yesterday it was Red Bull. They are not winning, so they are whingeing instead. They are trying to change the rules as Red Bull did last year.

They have no respect for the sport.

Well, as a fan of F1, my view is very simple: if you don’t like it, go away. There will always be other racers who will step in to replace these prima donnas. It is just a question of money. If we wish to see the sport destroy itself then we need to let everyone spend as much as they like. The dinosaurs can have a final party, but if we want to go forward, we need to do so with rules that restrict money and ego, just as they restrict wing size and tyre width.

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/04/ ... the-flops/

From a tech point of view the new series is almost insulting. Rules so tight that you cant change the vee angle or even the gear ratios. Pinnacle of racing has to run pump gas? A top level race engine that has to last for more than a weekend. You must be joking. I forgot we added a bunch of electric geewizz that is restricted so that almost no gains can be made from development. Testing ban.... Joke tires push to past gimmicks.

Ill take a tire war an one race engines anyday.

[bhall]

I don't understand threads like these in a forum called F1Technical. From a tech POV, 2014 cars are lightyears ahead of what was before.

Finally the RBR hegemony has been broken, driver skill is a more decisive factor than before, yet here you are wishing for them good ole days...

I think Joe Saward said it best here:

[...]

Respectfully, Joe Saward is one of the most naive individuals ever associated with F1 "journalism." I mean, this is the guy who was majorly hoodwinked by Bahraini propaganda throughout the troublesome 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix.

After being invited for coffee by a "normal" Bahraini citizen, Hasan Emad, and his "professor" friend, Salman Mohamed "Yacoub" Al-Slaise, to a Manama-area Starbucks, Mr. Saward was given a tour of the so-called "real" Bahrain by those men. Subsequent to that indoctrination, Saward wrote a glowing article in support of the establishment and admonished press organizations such as the New York Times for inflaming what he insisted was a non-existent situation.

The trouble is that it was all bullshit perpetuated by those loyal to the controlling regime.


(For some reason the Twitter tag isn't working for me. So, you can find those tweets here, here, and here.)

I'm not saying that to tread on anyone's sensibilities; it's merely to point out the power of PR/marketing/bullshit. Joe Saward believes what other people tell him he should believe, and the overwhelming majority of F1 "journalists" are no different.

Don't be afraid to question sources. Trust yourself to discover the facts on your own.

If a company comes out in favor of any proposed initiative, it's simply because that company feels like it can profit from it. After all, that's the sole function of every company on the planet: to increase shareholder value. Everything a company does or produces is part of a strategy designed to support that singular goal. Full stop.

Renault was a staunch advocate of the proposed four-cylinder engine, because it sells a ----ton of cars with four-cylinder engines. Mercedes favored any formula with regenerative-energy technology, because "innovation" is a key selling point for Mercedes-Benz road cars. Honda decided to re-enter the sport under the current formula, because hybrid-powered vehicles constitute the single-largest segment of its entire lineup. Each of those manufacturers wanted a way to draw a solid line between what they do in F1 and the products they sell, even if that line is tenuous at best.

Why? Because F1 is a global enterprise that reaches hundreds of millions of potential customers.

Ferrari, on the other hand, wanted nothing to do with the new rules, because they don't fit its business strategy. But, even if it's only by coincidence alone, Ferrari's business philosophy is the one most directly related to how F1 has always billed itself: fast cars at any cost.

I think this whole thing is a marketing exercise. The technology employed in current F1 cars has been used in road cars for years. Even the new-ish, ostensibly "unlimited" MGU-H is restricted, because the only components it's allowed to power are highly controlled. That it's all being sold as "the future" is insulting to me, because it's just not. It's fodder for a PR machine.

That's all.

Oh, and to be on-topic: I wish F1 would stop pissing on me and telling me it's raining.

EDIT: Because I edit damn-near everything.

[GitanesBlondes]

Joe Sewer wrote that drivel for no other reason than to bolster his press credentials in the paddock, and to get a few "atta-boys" from the higher-ups who quickly snigger when he is out of range at his gullibility.

[Lycoming]

Formula 1 is in the process of a brilliant technical revolution that has a real value to the world at large...

Well, good thing the first sentence tells me that I don't need to read the rest of the article. I'm still not sure whether or not this guy is worse than Richard Eisenbeis.

From a tech POV, 2014 cars are lightyears ahead of what was before.

How so? What makes them significantly more advanced than what came before?

[xpensive]

Yeah, when a thread engages and angers, it's a good sign, right richard?

But what was wrong with this?

[joseff]

But what was wrong with this?

http://www.automotiveillustrations.com/ ... e_v10.jpeg

It's missing 2 cylinders

[xpensive]

Better like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTeZRlpVweo?



Now we hve this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmNDGoGwhi4

[zeph]

I don't understand threads like these in a forum called F1Technical. From a tech POV, 2014 cars are lightyears ahead of what was before.

Finally the RBR hegemony has been broken, driver skill is a more decisive factor than before, yet here you are wishing for them good ole days...

I think Joe Saward said it best here:

[...]

Respectfully, Joe Saward is one of the most naive individuals ever associated with F1 "journalism." I mean, this is the guy who was majorly hoodwinked by Bahraini propaganda throughout the troublesome 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix.

I don't know about that, or why that matters for this particular op-ed. He voices his opinion, and for once I agree with him.

I'm not saying that to tread on anyone's sensibilities; it's merely to point out the power of PR/marketing/bullshit. Joe Saward believes what other people tell him he should believe, and the overwhelming majority of F1 "journalists" are no different.

Again, I don't know about that. From what I have seen on his blog for the last three years, he is possibly the last independent journo who travels to every GP. On his blog he often offers a divergent view, seldom in line with the official view of the F1 PR machine.
For all his faults, he lets me criticize him on his own blog, I rarely agree with him but he does not censor whatever I have to say. To me, that shows character.

And I don't mean to tread on anyone's sensibilities either, but I am uncertain as to whether the opinion of nameless and faceless pundits on an internet forum should be valued over the opinion of a man who has a proven track record, even if he gets it wrong occasionally.

Renault was a staunch advocate of the proposed four-cylinder engine, because it sells a ----ton of cars with four-cylinder engines. Mercedes favored any formula with regenerative-energy technology, because "innovation" is a key selling point for Mercedes-Benz road cars. Honda decided to re-enter the sport under the current formula, because hybrid-powered vehicles constitute the single-largest segment of its entire lineup. Each of those manufacturers wanted a way to draw a solid line between what they do in F1 and the products they sell, even if that line is tenuous at best.

Why? Because F1 is a global enterprise that reaches hundreds of millions of potential customers.

Ferrari, on the other hand, wanted nothing to do with the new rules, because they don't fit its business strategy. But, even if it's only by coincidence alone, Ferrari's business philosophy is the one most directly related to how F1 has always billed itself: fast cars at any cost.

What is your point? Yes, Renault threatened to quit the sport if the engine formula wasn't changed. Yes, Mercedes-Benz joined as a works team for the same reason (although the budget cap was more important to them at the time). Yes, Honda returns only because of the new engine formula. Ferrari needs to quit whining and build a better car.

And this bad/good, why? I repeat, RBR hegemony finally broken, more emphasis on driver skill, the PU’s will be more powerful and faster than the old V8’s before long. I see it as all good.

I think this whole thing is a marketing exercise. The technology employed in current F1 cars has been used in road cars for years. Even the new-ish, ostensibly "unlimited" MGU-H is restricted, because the only components it's allowed to power are highly controlled. That it's all being sold as "the future" is insulting to me, because it's just not.

Do you think the F1 PU is anything like a Prius? Not so much. As for ‘tightly controlled’, how is that different from previous years? F1 has always been regulated to the last nanometer. This year is not different than any other in that respect.

Like Saward says, F1 cars are running roughly as fast as last year (over a race distance), and use 35% LESS fuel. How is that not an amazing feat of engineering? And why is that not promoted more? I agree with him that F1 is doing a lousy PR job this year.

[Lycoming]

Like Saward says, F1 cars are running roughly as fast as last year (over a race distance), and use 35% LESS fuel. How is that not an amazing feat of engineering? And why is that not promoted more?

Because it's just a rule change. It's not like they made a staggering advance in technology overnight. The tech was all there already, they just weren't allowed to use it until now.

[scuderiafan]

I wish there wasn't a fixation about the "show" of Formula One.

[outer_bongolia]

My dream regulations would be:

• Max car length: 420 cm including the wings
• Max width: 190 cm
• Max height: 95cm at parc ferme at the end of the race/qual without the driver. Min height of the highest spot on the car: 90cm before lining up for the race/qual start.
• Max weight: 620kg without the driver and fuel. All other fluids included.
• Flat bottom excluding front and rear wing areas. Anywhere there is body work, there has to be a bottom plane. No holes or anything else allowed.
• Rear wing cannot be wider than the gap between the two rear tires.
• Front wing cannot be wider than the mid sections of the front tires.
• There will be an area allowed at the bottom of the rear wing that will form the diffuser.
• 80kg fuel limit per race. Exceeding that brings 0.5sec/kg (or something reasonable) added to your total race time. Refueling allowed - i.e. you don't need to have all of the 80kg in the car at the beginning of the race.
• Any punishment will be based on the difference between the fastest time in qual to Q2 cut-off time. Let's call it qual punishment time. All punishments are additive.
• Any aero change (or call it any change to outside shape) adds one qual punishment time to your final qual time. Even if you just test it. The only aero changes allowed are adjustment of angle of attack of one element in the rear wing and one element on either side of the front wing.
• 4 engines allowed per season. Any additional engine adds one qual punishment time to your final qual time for every race you use the new engine.
• Any changes to innards of the car other than engine (battery, radiator, what not): half qual punishment time.
• Any gear box change adds half qual punishment time.
• No other limits to the engines, ERS, etc. If you can make a V12 or straight 3 work, be my guest.
• No limits to the aero.
• Single tire source. Larger rims and wider rear tires.
• Of course: a lot of driver safety regulations and blah.

The reason why I would like to add punishment for aero changes is not allowing the rich teams to bring a gazillion updates to every race without any repercussions while the poor ones have to struggle.

Of course, this is not a full list. But it'll do for now.