planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:27 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:10 am
Posts: 59
An interesting article which popped up in my FB feed. Not sure if it's been shared already or if I'm allowed to post it here. But the article I feel is very relevant to the current debate surrounding the future of F1 and the direction of motorsports in general.

I agree with the article whole heartedly

https://holding93.com/2017/08/21/racing-has-gone-wrong/

Apologies to the admins if I've broken any rules regarding the post. Feel free to delete if need be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
Beautiful article, full of many reasons why I think F1 has gone off the rails ever since these horrible hybrid engines appeared.

" F1 has never in its history been road relevant. Could you ever go out and buy a road car with a DFV in it? What about a 3.0L V10 that revs to 19,000rpm? Why do we have to project road relevance onto it now?"

I agree completely. F1 has NEVER been road relevant to the manufacturers. Never.

"We want 1000hp barely tamable monsters that are loud, brash and twitch in a straight line a-la Ayrton Senna’s Lotus. Not the silent hybrids we’ve been watching that have a tenuous link to potential future road car technology that won’t eventuate anyway because road cars will be driverless and fully electric by that time."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3031
Let's go through that article point by point.

Fuel Samples
Fuel samples are not a new thing, and a very necessary thing. The article stating that finishing without enough fuel in the car was perfectly judged is a logical fallacy. Ending the race with exactly the weight of fuel needed is perfectly judged - that is the 'zero' needed. If the 1kg fuel sample wasn't needed -
they would have put 1kg less fuel in his car and then he would have run out.

Without taking a fuel sample at the end of the race it is very easy for teams to cheat and add additives and do weird and wonderful things with the fuel mixtures. That's why it's illegal. It would be like not weighing the car at the end of the race.

Engine Road Relevance
The new hybrids are not road relevant, this idea that we are putting in Toyota Prius engines in the cars is incorrect. The new engines are technological marvels and are far more difficult to drive than the V8s they have replaced. In terms of driving challenge, the new engines are far more powerful, have far, far, far more torque, require tactical management in terms of harvesting and deployment of the electrical energy. In every quantifiable way, the new engines make driving the cars more of a challenge than the V8s ever did. The only way in which they are inferior is cost and noise - and the noise is a debate that has people split anyway.

The article even states "F1 is a place for companies to prove their technological prowess" - these engines have been the single most significant area in which companies have demonstrated their technical prowess since 1994 when the sport ditched most of the technology, that coincidentally had evolved as a consequence of the onboard computers developed for managing the previous turbo era.

And... that's really it (talking about the article).

Its fairly evident that this was an article who had a personal annoyance of Marco Wittman being disqualified for running out of fuel and tried to - and failed spectacularly - to write an article. I mean, the exactly same article could have been written after Austin by a disgruntled Max Verstappen fan, with the opening section replaced to discuss how ridiculous they felt his penalty was and how the bureaucracy of the stewards interfering was ruining the sport. And then tacked it on with a same old story moaning about the hybrid engines and road relevance (which is an argument people have been going on since before we even had the V8s)

Take away the hipster Wordpress theme decorating the text and you've got the body of an OP for a less than mediocre thread on this forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
I agree with Christian Horner...the hybrid engines are the worst thing to happen to F1 in recent memory. They (his words) have done *nothing* but damage F1.

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/21193057/christian-horner-says-f1-scrap-current-engines-soon-enough


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:10 am
Posts: 59
[quote="Alienturnedhuman"][color=#000057]Let's go through that article point by point.

[b]Fuel Samples[/b]
Fuel samples are not a new thing, and a very necessary thing. The article stating that finishing without enough fuel in the car was perfectly judged is a logical fallacy. Ending the race with exactly the weight of fuel needed is perfectly judged - that is the 'zero' needed. If the 1kg fuel sample wasn't needed -
they would have put 1kg less fuel in his car and then he would have run out.

Without taking a fuel sample at the end of the race it is very easy for teams to cheat and add additives and do weird and wonderful things with the fuel mixtures. That's why it's illegal. It would be like not weighing the car at the end of the race [quote]

Thats the crux of the issue though isn't it... the fact that teams are willing to cheat ( in this case with fuels):
With regard to the context of the racing
category its kinda of a fasle dichotomy
why not have a control fuel for all teams or just allow teams to add whatever the hell they want? Why walk the line and add extra buocracy (spelling?) By telling teams they can design their own fuels but they have to meet "x" standards.. all thats doing is throttling performance/progress... either let them show their engeering prowess and design super awesome/efficient fuel at their discretion or place a control fuel in the category.

Whats the point of telling teams they can design their own fuels if it has to all meet the same performance standards anyway.

This article is very relevant to the dominant series here in Australia, the v8 supercars.. which started as a production series.. at one point in the categories history manufacturers had to have sold a minimum number of units in road car sales to compete... now days the series is in the same boat... wanting to be a mix of "the every man series that allows you to drive the same cars at home" and an "exam plenty of motorsport engeering at it's best" now the cars are nothing more than the road variants in the shape of the shell.

Tbh I don't think any major category can walk the line between road realvent and engeering marvel anymore. and adding rules to "even out performance" adds buocracy and furthermore just pulls the basic concept of racing further from it's intended purpose of "who can make and race the fastest or the furthest"

To sum up I think that alot ( not all) semi-spec series are misleading in their racing philosophy and the motorsport industry world wide needs a racing Renaissance.
Anyway just my opinion.
Thanks for reading my rant. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3031
Glasnost wrote:
Thats the crux of the issue though isn't it... the fact that teams are willing to cheat ( in this case with fuels):
With regard to the context of the racing category its kinda of a fasle dichotomy why not have a control fuel for all teams or just allow teams to add whatever the hell they want? Why walk the line and add extra buocracy (spelling?) By telling teams they can design their own fuels but they have to meet "x" standards.. all thats doing is throttling performance/progress... either let them show their engeering prowess and design super awesome/efficient fuel at their discretion or place a control fuel in the category.

Whats the point of telling teams they can design their own fuels if it has to all meet the same performance standards anyway.

If you have a control fuel but don't sample the fuel during the race how can you test that the fuel was not tampered with after it was put in the car?

If you allow teams to develop fuels without a specification then the sport will become a fuel arms race. It would be like saying that suddenly all doping was allowed in the olympics, let anything go. You'd have an arms race on developing the best steroids regardless of the health of the athletes and the winner would be the country with the most money.

Rules on fuel samples have existed in the sport since as long as I can remember, longer than most of the rules in the book. Raikkonen was going slowly at the end of the last race because of them, Hamilton stopped on the track in the qualifying for Canada 2010 to ensure he had a sample.

The author's piece demonstrates both their ignorance and their logical fallacy. He's painting it like this driver "skillfully" drove so there was no fuel left in his tank. Well, if that's the case, he could have used that exact same "skill" to have driven so there was exactly 1kg of fuel left in the tank for a sample.
The fact is, it was just blind luck, good or bad, whether he had 50g of fuel or 1050g of fuel left in the tank.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:10 am
Posts: 59
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Glasnost wrote:
Thats the crux of the issue though isn't it... the fact that teams are willing to cheat ( in this case with fuels):
With regard to the context of the racing category its kinda of a fasle dichotomy why not have a control fuel for all teams or just allow teams to add whatever the hell they want? Why walk the line and add extra buocracy (spelling?) By telling teams they can design their own fuels but they have to meet "x" standards.. all thats doing is throttling performance/progress... either let them show their engeering prowess and design super awesome/efficient fuel at their discretion or place a control fuel in the category.

Whats the point of telling teams they can design their own fuels if it has to all meet the same performance standards anyway.

If you have a control fuel but don't sample the fuel during the race how can you test that the fuel was not tampered with after it was put in the car?

If you allow teams to develop fuels without a specification then the sport will become a fuel arms race. It would be like saying that suddenly all doping was allowed in the olympics, let anything go. You'd have an arms race on developing the best steroids regardless of the health of the athletes and the winner would be the country with the most money.

Rules on fuel samples have existed in the sport since as long as I can remember, longer than most of the rules in the book. Raikkonen was going slowly at the end of the last race because of them, Hamilton stopped on the track in the qualifying for Canada 2010 to ensure he had a sample.

The author's piece demonstrates both their ignorance and their logical fallacy. He's painting it like this driver "skillfully" drove so there was no fuel left in his tank. Well, if that's the case, he could have used that exact same "skill" to have driven so there was exactly 1kg of fuel left in the tank for a sample.
The fact is, it was just blind luck, good or bad, whether he had 50g of fuel or 1050g of fuel left in the tank.


Valid point. Thanks for the clarification.

Surely a process could be implemented with regards to control fuels. i.e only at "x" mins before the race by "x" stewards. Though I guess that is in effect another form of buocracy.

I'd have no issues with a racing category that was no-holds bared with fuel or areo development. Just give limitations on basic stuff like chassis dimensions, open wheel or closed wheel etc. Then I guess saftey becomes an issue.

Thanks for the serious reply, you've given me alot to think about. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:18 am
Posts: 20
People have a lot of hate for hybrid engines but I really quite like them. It's simple, ugly technology to just stick a big, loud V10 in something to make it go fast and please the yahoos who want "DA LOUD NOIZEZ". It actually takes engineering skill to develop something that produces the maximum amount of power for the least amount of wasted energy. If they totally liberalised the engine regs and let teams run whatever they want, I could easily see something like a hybrid winning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: UK
Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Engine Road Relevance
The new hybrids are not road relevant, this idea that we are putting in Toyota Prius engines in the cars is incorrect. The new engines are technological marvels and are far more difficult to drive than the V8s they have replaced. In terms of driving challenge, the new engines are far more powerful, have far, far, far more torque, require tactical management in terms of harvesting and deployment of the electrical energy. In every quantifiable way, the new engines make driving the cars more of a challenge than the V8s ever did. The only way in which they are inferior is cost and noise - and the noise is a debate that has people split anyway.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I loathe the Toyota Prius. I hold it primarily responsible for perpetuating the fallacy that hybrids are all about being 'green'. In pure performance terms these current engines surpass the old V8s by any meaningful measure I can think of.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 702
Location: UK
Christian Horner may well not like hybrids but realistically can F1 stay relevant when petrol only vehicles will cease to be manufactured in the future (2040).

What does it do, become an historical formula or revert to petrol and postpone the introduction for 5, 10, 15 years?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 418
Location: illinois
Herb Tarlik wrote:
I agree with Christian Horner...the hybrid engines are the worst thing to happen to F1 in recent memory. They (his words) have done *nothing* but damage F1.

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/21193057/christian-horner-says-f1-scrap-current-engines-soon-enough


if the renault was as dominant as the mercedes, horner would be singing a different tune


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1725
Herb Tarlik wrote:
I agree with Christian Horner...the hybrid engines are the worst thing to happen to F1 in recent memory. They (his words) have done *nothing* but damage F1.

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/21193057/christian-horner-says-f1-scrap-current-engines-soon-enough


I'm massively surprised that Christian Horner, who seen his team lose dominance when the hybrids were introduced, and you, who seen your team completely fall apart when the hybrids were introduced, would share this view.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2016 1:00 pm
Posts: 72
pc27b wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
I agree with Christian Horner...the hybrid engines are the worst thing to happen to F1 in recent memory. They (his words) have done *nothing* but damage F1.

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/21193057/christian-horner-says-f1-scrap-current-engines-soon-enough


if the renault was as dominant as the mercedes, horner would be singing a different tune


I fully agree. Even through I like the way Horner manage his team, you can't take seriously this kind of statement as it is hugely influenced by what Red Bull experienced since early 2014.

_________________
« Violent delights have violent ends »


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21105
Fantaribo wrote:
pc27b wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
I agree with Christian Horner...the hybrid engines are the worst thing to happen to F1 in recent memory. They (his words) have done *nothing* but damage F1.

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/21193057/christian-horner-says-f1-scrap-current-engines-soon-enough


if the renault was as dominant as the mercedes, horner would be singing a different tune


I fully agree. Even through I like the way Horner manage his team, you can't take seriously this kind of statement as it is hugely influenced by what Red Bull experienced since early 2014.

Agree that Horner will say whatever suits Red Bull and that if they'd been regularly winning he'd be singing a different tune

having said that, I agree with him on this, even if I find his motives suspect


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
Ennis wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
I agree with Christian Horner...the hybrid engines are the worst thing to happen to F1 in recent memory. They (his words) have done *nothing* but damage F1.

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/21193057/christian-horner-says-f1-scrap-current-engines-soon-enough


I'm massively surprised that Christian Horner, who seen his team lose dominance when the hybrids were introduced, and you, who seen your team completely fall apart when the hybrids were introduced, would share this view.


I'm a Hamilton/Mercedes fan and would be ecstatic if the hybrids were resigned to the dust bin of history. I have zero interest whatsoever in retaining them, even if it means Mercedes loses one of their most competitive advantages.

The hybrid engines have been an abject disaster for Formula One.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
People have a lot of hate for hybrid engines but I really quite like them. It's simple, ugly technology to just stick a big, loud V10 in something to make it go fast and please the yahoos who want "DA LOUD NOIZEZ". It actually takes engineering skill to develop something that produces the maximum amount of power for the least amount of wasted energy. If they totally liberalised the engine regs and let teams run whatever they want, I could easily see something like a hybrid winning.


Formula One has never been about saving energy. Never. That's science, not a sport. Caring about fuel mileage during motorsports is about as exciting as watching grass grow. It's boring. It's not exciting. It doesnt sell tickets. And it costs an order of magnitude over conventional engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
j man wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Engine Road Relevance
The new hybrids are not road relevant, this idea that we are putting in Toyota Prius engines in the cars is incorrect. The new engines are technological marvels and are far more difficult to drive than the V8s they have replaced. In terms of driving challenge, the new engines are far more powerful, have far, far, far more torque, require tactical management in terms of harvesting and deployment of the electrical energy. In every quantifiable way, the new engines make driving the cars more of a challenge than the V8s ever did. The only way in which they are inferior is cost and noise - and the noise is a debate that has people split anyway.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I loathe the Toyota Prius. I hold it primarily responsible for perpetuating the fallacy that hybrids are all about being 'green'. In pure performance terms these current engines surpass the old V8s by any meaningful measure I can think of.


The V-8 engines were limited by the regulations. Release those limitations and then watch what happens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2016 1:00 pm
Posts: 72
Herb Tarlik wrote:
The hybrid engines have been an abject disaster for Formula One.

Do you care to explain your point of view ?

_________________
« Violent delights have violent ends »


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1618
Fantaribo wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
The hybrid engines have been an abject disaster for Formula One.

Do you care to explain your point of view ?


The engines were sold to the teams that they would be lower cost. Instead, they are massively higher in cost. We've seen several teams fold up shop due to the explosion in higher costs, all due to these engines.

The hybrids are much less noisy, causing fans, teams, drivers, and the FIA to call for louder engines. There is 100% unanimity from those in power at F1 that the quietness of these engines reflects poorly on the sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2247
Herb Tarlik wrote:
BackwardsInFlames wrote:
People have a lot of hate for hybrid engines but I really quite like them. It's simple, ugly technology to just stick a big, loud V10 in something to make it go fast and please the yahoos who want "DA LOUD NOIZEZ". It actually takes engineering skill to develop something that produces the maximum amount of power for the least amount of wasted energy. If they totally liberalised the engine regs and let teams run whatever they want, I could easily see something like a hybrid winning.


Formula One has never been about saving energy. Never. That's science, not a sport. Caring about fuel mileage during motorsports is about as exciting as watching grass grow. It's boring. It's not exciting. It doesnt sell tickets. And it costs an order of magnitude over conventional engines.


I'm not disagreeing with you, but here's where you get into the whole debate of 'entertainment' vs 'sport'... that forums love to argue about.

Essentially there's a lot about F1 that isn't 'entertaining' but could be considered 'sport', if you consider 'sport' to include weight saving, creating fractions of a % of downforce, etc... people hate the idea of standard wings but for what they cost they bring nothing to the 'entertainment' of the audience and there is zero reason why they need to be made of carbon fibre that causes punctures.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2016 1:00 pm
Posts: 72
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Fantaribo wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
The hybrid engines have been an abject disaster for Formula One.

Do you care to explain your point of view ?


The engines were sold to the teams that they would be lower cost. Instead, they are massively higher in cost. We've seen several teams fold up shop due to the explosion in higher costs, all due to these engines.

The hybrids are much less noisy, causing fans, teams, drivers, and the FIA to call for louder engines. There is 100% unanimity from those in power at F1 that the quietness of these engines reflects poorly on the sport.


While I agree with you about the financial issues of theses engines, you can not input Caterham, Manor and kinda Lotus breaking down because of them. Yes, the new engine regulations have not helped them to get out of trouble, but, sticking to V8s would not either : Caterham was already out of money, Lotus too (remember the Raikkonen salary saga).

The next sentences of your post are wrong : you are saying that the quietness is an important issue, and it is true, but not related to the engine itself or its layout, but much more to the fuel usage rules and stuff resulting in a low ideal RPM range. Moreover, the engines were much less noisy in march 2014 compared to the V8s, but they went louder and louder each year, and will continue to do so until the new regs.

So no, I don't agree that the hybrid V6s are a disaster : the regulations were not really adapted. Now, they are powerful units with a lot of torque, they sounds cool and are difficult to drive and manage, ideal for F1.

_________________
« Violent delights have violent ends »


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1630
I've been saying this for a while, at least 15 years.

There's no reason for a sport to be road-relevant.

It has a dual effect 1) You have manufacturers who ruin the sport for their advantage. 2) There's too. much. money.

Take away manufacturers, put in indy engine builders, and you have still have an epic sport, with team budgets of $75-$100million max, since no manufacturer will be there to write blank cheques.

It's a sport, not a proving ground for big corporations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3031
Herb Tarlik wrote:
The engines were sold to the teams that they would be lower cost. Instead, they are massively higher in cost.

No they weren't. Anyone who thought the new engines would be cheaper prior to the change was either misinformed or foolish.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1158
Fantaribo wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
The hybrid engines have been an abject disaster for Formula One.

Do you care to explain your point of view ?


The hybrid program in it's totality has been a bust. Max Mosley started the impetus, but we now have engines far more expensive and complicated than in the past. The engines all have similar dimensions and even mounting points, so more manufacturers could be enticed to enter. But after watching Honda's misery, no engine manufacturer is now willing to enter. Everything the program was designed to attain it has failed on.

Additionally, they are too complicated. I want to see brave young men showing off on track, not systems engineers managing a complex vehicle.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1242
Herb Tarlik wrote:
j man wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Engine Road Relevance
The new hybrids are not road relevant, this idea that we are putting in Toyota Prius engines in the cars is incorrect. The new engines are technological marvels and are far more difficult to drive than the V8s they have replaced. In terms of driving challenge, the new engines are far more powerful, have far, far, far more torque, require tactical management in terms of harvesting and deployment of the electrical energy. In every quantifiable way, the new engines make driving the cars more of a challenge than the V8s ever did. The only way in which they are inferior is cost and noise - and the noise is a debate that has people split anyway.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I loathe the Toyota Prius. I hold it primarily responsible for perpetuating the fallacy that hybrids are all about being 'green'. In pure performance terms these current engines surpass the old V8s by any meaningful measure I can think of.


The V-8 engines were limited by the regulations. Release those limitations and then watch what happens.

Release the fuel flow limitations on the current hybrids too, then see what happens vs. any normally aspirated V-8. These are among the most (arguably the most) powerful race engines in the history of the sport and they're barely being pushed when if comes to outright capabilities.

We had it in the late 80s. 1.6L V-6 turbos were banned because 3.5L NA engines couldn't get close. Efficiency generally equals performance, or at least can be engineered to equal performance. So the same thing that makes your average road hybrid super efficient can, and does, make hybrid F1 engines super powerful.

And regarding "road relevance": While we might demonise "marketing", ultimately that is why car/engine manufacturers plough money into the sport. It's a prestige thing rather than direct road relevance. If you're increasingly trying to sell hybrids/electric cars in place of you traditional petrol/diesel models then the value of performing at the top level of motorsport with a hybrid/electric formula is greater than one with the NA technology you are starting to move away from (even if that tech is popular with fans). This is why you find Red Bull more or less alone at the top level of F1 arguing for big NA engines: Ultimately it's because they want to sell energy drinks, not modern road cars.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: UK
Herb Tarlik wrote:
j man wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Engine Road Relevance
The new hybrids are not road relevant, this idea that we are putting in Toyota Prius engines in the cars is incorrect. The new engines are technological marvels and are far more difficult to drive than the V8s they have replaced. In terms of driving challenge, the new engines are far more powerful, have far, far, far more torque, require tactical management in terms of harvesting and deployment of the electrical energy. In every quantifiable way, the new engines make driving the cars more of a challenge than the V8s ever did. The only way in which they are inferior is cost and noise - and the noise is a debate that has people split anyway.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I loathe the Toyota Prius. I hold it primarily responsible for perpetuating the fallacy that hybrids are all about being 'green'. In pure performance terms these current engines surpass the old V8s by any meaningful measure I can think of.


The V-8 engines were limited by the regulations. Release those limitations and then watch what happens.

And the current engines aren't? They have a fuel flow limit! I would argue this hobbles the current engines considerably more than an 18k rev limit on a naturally aspirated engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1242
Just for the record I think for F1 the elephant in the room is aero, or more specifically wake, and has been for a long time.

Engine power, softer tyres and DRS have masked it somewhat, but there has been times this season where sustantually faster cars can't stay within 2 seconds of another car for more than a lap or so because of the aero effect of the car in front.

Reducing this effect should be the priority, far above "fixing" the 1000bhp PUs.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:18 am
Posts: 20
wolfticket wrote:
Just for the record I think for F1 the elephant in the room is aero, or more specifically wake, and has been for a long time.

Engine power, softer tyres and DRS have masked it somewhat, but there has been times this season where sustantually faster cars can't stay within 2 seconds of another car for more than a lap or so because of the aero effect of the car in front.

Reducing this effect should be the priority, far above "fixing" the 1000bhp PUs.

THIS

Two words;

Ground. Effect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 552
They are generally looking for ways to slow the cars down and using fuel restrictions and energy recovery seems a perfect way of killing two birds with one stone. They absolutely should have placed tighter restrictions around how much the manufacturers could, and can charge their customers following the rules update, but thats the fault of the commercial regulations around the engines, not the technical ones.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], owenmahamilton and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group