Aero testing and workforce limitations

[mx_tifoso]

Yes, there are many things in Formula One that most people do not agree with, but thats life, its never going to be the way you want it. So if you do not like whats going on, leave and don´t look back, but please don´t whine and moan nonstop about it. Do us that favour if you will, or at least for me.

After all, this is a Formula One forum, dedicated to Formula One, for Formula One fans by Formula One fans..at least thats why I´m here.

[PNSD]

do not ever say F1 is like NASCAR

lets face it, nascar drivers are in a rollcage, and it would be mighty hard to have a shunt above 160 mph as the cars are wank and anyone who has managed to do it must either be --- or be david coulthard

F1 pisses all over any other form of motorsport and thats the bottom line

cos waynes said so

An extremley narrow minded and incorrect view.
Funnily enough the cars often run at a higher top speed than your beloved F1 cars.
Also you clearly display a huge lack of knowledge of the cars, so therefore your opinion can not be taken seriously.

Iam by no means a NASCAR fan, infact I despise it. Before you post a load of sh*t first make sure it's correct sh*t at least!

[modbaraban]

Before you post a load of sh*t first make sure it's correct sh*t at least!

May I suggest a corrected signature for Tomba:

Help building this site: Send feedback! - Motivate your posts!! Correct your sh*t!!!

[Conceptual]

Yes there is Chris - A totally open formula with a single rule. Simple, elegant, open to every innovation and every concept. Use any material and all technology available to mankind. One rule. All vehicles 'powered' solely by GRAVITY.


Enjoy your new sport.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/4681/
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/r ... /index.htm
http://www.formulagravity.co.uk/
http://www.skatelog.com/countries/us/ca ... series.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/gravityracing/

I guess that would be rather contrary the concept of "motor racing" that I am interested in.

I'll tell you what Carlos, since this is like the 6th patronizing post that you have made that was directed at me in the last few days, how about you simply disregard any post that I make from now on, and if I feel that it needs some degredation and patronizing, I'll be absolutely certain to specifically ask for you to make a reply. Until then however, I would ask that you ignore me and my posts completely.

Thanks!

[Carlos]

You've drawn a line on the floor. Neither of us will step across it. No more comments from either of us. We have a gentleman's agreement. I'll stand by this deal as long as you do.

[AeroGT3]

Very Machiavellian.

F1 is becoming NASCAR. Really. What next, all races run on high-banked ovals? (For safety, natch.)

No sarcasm meant, IF these rules were to be implemented and enforced, Indy-style cars would begin approaching F1 performance and even beat it in certain parameters.

UGH!

With these rules implemented Champ cars will definately be faster. They are already within less than a second.

[Ciro Pabón]

Before you post a load of sh*t first make sure it's correct sh*t at least!

May I suggest a corrected signature for Tomba:

Help building this site: Send feedback! - Motivate your posts!! Correct your sh*t!!!

Well, thanks, modbaraban. I laughed for 15 seconds or so... chévere.

@AeroGT: damn, you're right.

I agree with some of you about the consequences: yes, there are going to be some engineers without work and some wind tunnels that no longer will work on F1.

On the other hand, I heartily agree with the regulations.

First, the cars are ugly. I know I'm not alone here, c'mon, raise your hands those that think that winglets, chicken wings and the such are things that deserve to be designed in a car, because they improve the line. How many of you? Yes, I imagined that.

Second, about top speed: the electric sharpener motors that the europeans call "engines" are, to an american, things to be used in chainsaws and grass mowing equipment. I've seen akward smiles in the faces of my american friends when confronted with things like a Renault Dauphiné. They wonder if it's for humans... So, to be brief, if NASCAR cars weren't properly regulated, they would reach a gazillion kilometers per hour. Simple: they run in ovals with tens of degrees of banking.

Dragsters reach 450 kph in 4 blocks. Why? They run in a straight line.

You have seen a NASCAR race in a circuit. So, you know these cars, that I love, have the gracility of an elephant. Watch it and then we talk about how you compare series and the tracks where they develop.

It's like an ecosystem, or so I think. What's better, the savanna or the artic? Is that a question that has an answer? I don't think so.

You all know perfectly well that no one of these racing concepts is superior: every one has more power, more speed or more cornering. You cannot design a car that does all of the above in a perfect way: if you do, then patent it and let's be done with design!

Well, I've taken some impulse, so here I go: what causes shivers in you, that is, the fact that what the series does better has to be limited, it's a nice and decent fact of racing.

If you don't then you get:

- 1.500 bhp cars at CANAM
- 50 kg turbo engines rated at 800 hp and cars with three times its weight in aerodynamic force at F1
- 600 cubic inches engines at NASCAR
- Cars with a trillion hp and kilometer-high wheels at NHRL
- Dangerously unstable and ugly (yes, ugliness, the crux of the good designer!) cars at Le Mans.

We've all seen the accidents you get with that line of development. Drivers are still humans, fans shoud have mercy with them...

Besides, evolution has its problems: some dinosaurs were too big. All these designs were impractical. So, another testy question for a designer: is aerodynamical design practical? And I don't mean practical as in "applicable to the general public", but practical as in "it works well".

I predict happily that the excess in aerodynamic design in 1990-2005 will be one day just a footnote in encyclopedias, along with triple boiler locomotives of the 1930's: rococo design, an evolutionary dead end. So, one day all the "aero" will be wiped by a new, powerful idea, as the designs of the past were outmoded by the invention of the ground effect.

Pacific RR Q-2, the most powerful steam locomotive in history.


Finally, I believe, respectfully, that only those of you that have never raced have not had the opportunity of blaming your defeat on the fact that your adversary is a rich kid with all the gadgets, a kid that maybe learned to drive with a mortuary, but throws a pile of money into the car. Is that just? Yeah, sure.

I know I'm a little lonely here, but the money thrown into wind tunnels is obscene, not just a waste.

Look, my country spend roughly half of what F1 invests in 22 cars, for heavens sake, in building and maintaining its entire road network. Maybe a cap on spending would be rational, or you risk creating a "bubble" of salaries and prices that can easily explode in the face of the investors, unless carefully tuned by FIA.

You could think I'm arguing for investing that money on roads for the poor. No. That's not my problem with F1 aerodynamics: I'm with Ogami Mushashi here. It's just that I don't see any return on that chicken wings, or whatever its name is, to be sincere. And, as the example of the road network shows, it's a huge amount.

My last point: are you really for innovation, Mr. Gates? Then, if you complain about restrictions, cover the damn wheels, which are a huge turbulence factor, a danger to drivers and a fun killer because of the difficulty to overtake they create, and "throw the wings into the wind", once and for all. How much simpler could be aerodynamic research with that kind of regulations?

I'm sure you can think of better ideas here before accepting covering the wheels, but I'd say that the basic requirements of aero design seem inflated by other factors based in tradition and not in engineering.

[Ogami musashi]

AeroGT3, you may be refering to the laguna seca post times, but an F1 car is still about 4,5 seconds faster than a champ car.

There're several elements to take off the LS time by Sebastian bourdais.

Race lap times in Champ car are over 7 seconds slower than the qualifying times while in F1 this year we've seen Race lap times better than the qualifying ones!
(And usually are only 2 seconds faster than the Race lap times).

This year DP01 is surprisingly just about 1 second faster on the tracks than the previous lola chassis.
And still it depends on the track, some of them the lap times are the same.


So it's a bit of pessimism to think Champ car is faster than F1.

To me however, the problem you quote is real at short term.
The problem is not a question of necessity, i mean i want F1 cars to be fast in corners and straight line, well i want them to have greater accelerations than other series, this is what make F1 different, but for a great spectacle it is not necessary...
BUT credibility wise i think so. What about the day a 250 000$ superleague formula or new Formula nippon will come within 2,3 seconds of a 2M$ F1 car?


Now about the situation and those regulations.

In my opinion, those rules are necessary, yet ridiculous.
They're ridiculous because they're the consequence of the previous regulations...

Teams would not need to spend millions if technology was not so tightened.
Also if FOM/FIA did managed better the income from F1, sustainability would be less a problem.

Well all in one i think we need those regulations to come for a more efficient F1, but in the absolute we shouldn't need them..but hey we can't get back to the past.

[donskar]

Getting back to the topic: Aero testing and workforce limitations.

It's just somehow very WRONG to have restrictions on F1 that are equal to or even tighter than those applied to the "junior" formulae.

I don't think many of us see F1 as a place to develop "green" technologies. There are other venues better equipped and totally focused on such efforts. Instead F1 is supposed (?) to be the pinnacle of auto racing. The ultimate combination of acceleration, handling, braking - not NVH, or MPG.

The fact that intelligent people in this forum question whether F1 is still supreme makes the point very forcibly. There should be no question.

Why does an F1 engine, gearbox or whatever component have to last X number of races? What other top line racing class has that sort of rule?

Limit aero testing? Who is unaware that aerodynamics is very important to reducing energy consumption? (Ever seen a Prius' Cd?)

Limit CFD? Perhaps we should mandate slide rules and drafting tables?

(This forum is saving my marriage - I don't vent at my wife any more!)

[PNSD]

(This forum is saving my marriage - I don't vent at my wife any more!)

ROFL
post of the week, maybe even year!

[Carlos]

DEFINITELY

[ackzsel]

At first my apologize for digging up a "heavy" thread that had been quiet for a few months now.

Second, is this thing still going on? Will wind tunnel time be limited for the 2008 season? I haven't heard (or read) anything about this matter since this thread went for a nap. I'd really like to know what's the status on this thing right now.

Can somebody give me an update? Thanks in advance!

[humble sabot]

What is FIA going

to do? Have a representative standing by at each wind tunnel to be found on Earth just in case someone comes in with F1 parts to test? The CFD restrictions are even more ludicrous, completely unenforceable and will only drive a significant and growing industry away from F1. There's no perceivable beneficial framework to these suggestions, not when it has anything to do with what F1 aspired to be. Perhaps the the owners of F1 are planning a series for the über rich (there are ~ 10.000.000 dollar millionaires in the World) where all the fancy tech will go (surronded by wonderland playgrounds in areas far from any threat of mass unrest), and the rest will have to do with some mass produced overhyped fare.

Congrats dude, i just read your letter based on this post in Racecar Engineering.
I'm with you 100%