PedalFaster

Your implicit assertion is that restrictive rule sets increase the cost of racing. If that's the case, why doesn't a NASCAR car cost more than an F1 car? The answer is that NASCAR builders hit the point of decreasing returns more quickly than F1 builders because the rules give them less leeway for innovation. Innovation is what costs money.

If you believe in minimizing rule restrictions on principle's sake, fine, but the "it costs more when you add more restrictive rules" argument doesn't fly.

Steve

PedalFaster

Although the underlying technology may differ, Audi's DSG provides this experience today.

Steve

s2kpdx01

This article tends to disagree: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...16/164953.html

But, I am so far from an expert on this subject I will let everyone draw their own conclusions.

edit: It is a press release so take it with a grain of salt. They say they can convert pretty much any manual transmission to use the zero shift technology...anyone wanna try it in your S2000?
http://www.zeroshift.com/

Tedow

That was my first thought as well. Gotta be a typo.

Elistan

I think that innovations fall into two categories.

1st. Innovations that cannot be applied to street cars. The main one here is aerodynamics. Who the cares if Ferrari can spend six weeks at the wind tunnel at a cost of a few hundred thousand dollars and come out with 20kg extra downforce with no increase in drag? It doesn't do diddly for me. I think every F1 car should be given a spec aero package, end of story. I am NOT excited by the latest wing or diffuser designs.

2nd. Innovations that can be applied to street cars. This should be completely unregulated. If Honda hadn't spent all that money getting their F1 engine to rev to 18k+, do you think they've had the technology to get a daily-driven street car to rev to 9k? Pneumatic valves, carbon fiber construction techniques, electromechanical gearboxes, tire technology, cooling tech, oiling tech - all these can eventually be used to improve street cars.

JonBoy

How does one increase downforce without drag? I don't see how you can, unless you modify the ENTIRE car so that the newly found drag is offset in some other way (ie, reducing drag elsewhere). Downforce is caused by drag-inducing elements...

But I'm just nitpicking. If you meant this tongue-in-cheek, just punch me and walk away. Or better yet, at the next auto-x, run me over...

Brownergy

Ferrari's technological innovations have been rejected. They recently developed an Electronically controlled differential that FIA chose to scrap. I believe the same technology is being used in the Ferrari F430.

JonBoy

Actually, thinking on it some more, you can decrease lift, which increases downforce (though that's a bit of a backwards way of thinking). In which case, I guess drag doesn't have to necessarily increase with downforce.

mikegarrison

You can't. Generating lift (or "downforce" -- negative lift) produces drag. It is inherent. You can approach a theoretical minimum, but you can't produce downforce without producing some amount of drag which is propotional to the downforce.

In airplanes we tend to talk about four different types of drag:

form drag -- due to the shape of the object and its boundary layer

surface drag -- due to the actual skin friction of the object

induced drag -- drag proportional to (and caused by) lift

wave drag -- drag due to sonic compression effects (not usually applicable at the speeds F1 cars run)

If you reduce form drag or surface drag you can increase downforce (and thus induced drag) without increasing drag overall.

mikegarrison

You can make your downforce more efficient, and thus reduce the induced drag. However, you can't eliminate the induced drag. You asymtotically approach a minimum. With the amount of money these guys spend on aero design, I would assume they are pretty close to that minimum (given the other design constraints involved).