The death of F1...
10-26-2007, 04:29 AM
#21
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Oct 25 2007, 01:50 PM
You guys are delusional. F1 has never been an unlimited technology series. It's just marketed as such.
Some of the things you type just leave me baffled.
Maybe not unlimited in the most extreme definition of the word, but clearly F1 has been a series that has pushed the envelope of technology.
Next thing you will be saying is that NASCAR is superior to F1...
10-26-2007, 06:59 AM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These days teams in formula 1 is spending millions of dollars to squeeze the last 0.01 percent of the performance "within the rule". There are very little true innovation like moving the engine from the front to behind the driver; adding wings; ground effect; four front wheels; all wheel drive; using turbo, turbine, diesel, or rotary engine; active suspension; etc.
The sad fact is that auto-racing is becoming more of a carnival than a technology competition. The major story for this year is the spying scandal, and the LH vs. FA vs. Ron Dennis. When is the last time we hear about a ground-breaking innovation from F1? These days, there will be a protest if you let the wings flex a little.
A few days ago I was reading the news about China sending a space probe to the moon. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7060347.stm
It says that China spent about $134 million on the project. It occured to me that each of the top five teams spent twice that much money per year to run around in circle. We could have a real space race if they want to, and we can see some real useful innovation for a change.
The sad fact is that auto-racing is becoming more of a carnival than a technology competition. The major story for this year is the spying scandal, and the LH vs. FA vs. Ron Dennis. When is the last time we hear about a ground-breaking innovation from F1? These days, there will be a protest if you let the wings flex a little.
A few days ago I was reading the news about China sending a space probe to the moon. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7060347.stm
It says that China spent about $134 million on the project. It occured to me that each of the top five teams spent twice that much money per year to run around in circle. We could have a real space race if they want to, and we can see some real useful innovation for a change.
10-26-2007, 07:32 AM
#24
Registered User
There is one item that disputes lack of innovation. Lap times.
Most folks say the V10 engines made about 200 HP more than the V8's, and had less intrinsic vibration to deal with. Along with the engine we had the change to controlled tires. No more tire war. So there is no way these tires are as optimized "by track" as the old ones.
Despite those handicaps the best lap times are awfully close to prior best lap times. There was a lot more going on than chasing the last 0.01% improvement to do that.
Most folks say the V10 engines made about 200 HP more than the V8's, and had less intrinsic vibration to deal with. Along with the engine we had the change to controlled tires. No more tire war. So there is no way these tires are as optimized "by track" as the old ones.
Despite those handicaps the best lap times are awfully close to prior best lap times. There was a lot more going on than chasing the last 0.01% improvement to do that.
10-26-2007, 09:22 AM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lap time goes down for NASCAR too. Sure, there are progress. It is done by clever engineering and very little advance in the science and technology. It is like the athletics run faster and jump higher today then 100 years ago. But it is due to better training and advance in biochemistry rather than evolution in the human DNA.
My opinion is that the engineers are forced to work within some very rigid rules. So they spend a lot of money and effort to get very little gain. If they are allowed more freedom like it was in the '70s, we can see a lot more interesting idea coming out from Formula 1. Like I said, for the money they spent, we should be seeing Ferrari and McLaren racing to the moon.
My opinion is that the engineers are forced to work within some very rigid rules. So they spend a lot of money and effort to get very little gain. If they are allowed more freedom like it was in the '70s, we can see a lot more interesting idea coming out from Formula 1. Like I said, for the money they spent, we should be seeing Ferrari and McLaren racing to the moon.
10-26-2007, 12:26 PM
#27
Registered User
Originally Posted by Penforhire,Oct 26 2007, 08:32 AM
There is one item that disputes lack of innovation. Lap times.
In all the major racing leagues (road and roundy round), speeds are constrained by safety requirements. They all could run faster, but they have tweaked their rulesets to keep the speeds about where they are now because the track designs require them to.
F1 has been technologically stagnant for 20 years. A really unlimited series would have active suspension, active aero devices, no limits on how light the car could be, etc. Might even have remote drivers.
These days some street cars are more technologically advanced than F1 cars, and the trend is continuing. No traction control next year, for instance. They are talking about taking out the computerized shifting mechanisms. Etc.
Face it, your "pinnacle of technology" is just like NASCAR -- with the basic technology frozen and tons and tons of money spent on trying to make tiny tweaks inside a fixed rules package.
10-26-2007, 01:16 PM
#28
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Cypher09,Oct 26 2007, 02:54 PM
Seems Fitting
I think to really fix the situation you need a 2-pack special.
Bernie is just as much at fault, if not more!
