|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
15 Mar 2012, 11:30 (Ref:3041437) | #101 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
Interestingly, the author of the report also proposed the allow continuously variable transmissions from 2011. Last edited by Pingguest; 15 Mar 2012 at 11:38. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
15 Mar 2012, 11:41 (Ref:3041443) | #102 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,067
|
Taken from that above document:
"Improving the show: A turbulence sensor complete with an aircraft type back up system (for robustness) will be supplied by the FIA. When travelling in high turbulence levels such as those generated by the close presence of a leading car, the ride height of the car, both front and rear, must be altered in response to the output of this sensor (within a set range, at a set rate, and with appropriate hysteresis, determined from time to time by the FIA) to compensate for the degradation in performance. In free stream the car is to return to a baseline ride height. The purpose is to allow for full compensation for downforce losses due to being in the wake of another car." That's very interesting. Were they proposing automatic active ride-height instead of the DRS?! Selby |
||
__________________
Run-offs, chicanes, hairpins... Think you can do better? Let's see it! Check out the "My Tracks" forum here on Ten-Tenths. |
15 Mar 2012, 13:48 (Ref:3041514) | #103 | ||||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
What the hell! It is the real problem! Quote:
The report suggests numerous things that may or may not have been considered appropriate for F1. Obviously the adoption of CVT proved to be inappropriate. Quote:
|
||||
|
15 Mar 2012, 13:55 (Ref:3041520) | #104 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,067
|
That would have been a cool way of doing things. ie. perhaps not as openly artificial as the DRS, while still maintaining the 'cool' factor!
Selby |
||
__________________
Run-offs, chicanes, hairpins... Think you can do better? Let's see it! Check out the "My Tracks" forum here on Ten-Tenths. |
15 Mar 2012, 14:07 (Ref:3041529) | #105 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
||
|
15 Mar 2012, 15:27 (Ref:3041562) | #106 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
15 Mar 2012, 15:43 (Ref:3041568) | #107 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Yes, but whose 'deaf ears' were they? |
||
|
15 Mar 2012, 15:50 (Ref:3041575) | #108 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,067
|
|||
__________________
Run-offs, chicanes, hairpins... Think you can do better? Let's see it! Check out the "My Tracks" forum here on Ten-Tenths. |
15 Mar 2012, 15:54 (Ref:3041582) | #109 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....69&postcount=4 |
||||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
15 Mar 2012, 16:22 (Ref:3041604) | #110 | ||||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's a video of David Coulthard testing the CVT. You decide if it's a good thing for F1 or not. It's difficult not to think of a moped or scooter when listening to the car going along the track. The impression of speed seems to have taken a back seat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3UpBKXMRto Last edited by Marbot; 15 Mar 2012 at 16:29. |
||||
|
15 Mar 2012, 16:36 (Ref:3041610) | #111 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....76&postcount=2 |
||||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
15 Mar 2012, 17:20 (Ref:3041637) | #112 | |||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
17 Mar 2012, 08:05 (Ref:3042603) | #113 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,346
|
Quote:
If you can get a car thats faster/better/cheaper than you can build one then you buy one. If you think you can build a better mousetrap you build one unless its so expensive pragmatism sets in. We don't have to assume anyone is going to put them into production.... Dallara might build a monocoque section that meets regulations and several teams buy that as their base and build around it.... STR may use RBR monocoques as a basis or last years RBR and up date it.... Force India and Marussia may use last years McLaren as their base car and upgrade it, an MP4 'B' model. Caterham may partner with 'Enstone Lotus' and share cars.... It just means the current rules regarding having to produce your own car from scratch are dumped, so we go back to what it was for nearly 40 years before Bernie decided to make it more 'professional'. I am all for that. |
||
|
17 Mar 2012, 10:09 (Ref:3042655) | #114 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
17 Mar 2012, 10:10 (Ref:3042656) | #115 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 867
|
Re comments of Teretonga - I'm all for that as well.
If a car can pass the scrutineers, then it's good enough to race.What's wrong with a 35-car entry? That's what qualifying is all about, assuming the entrants can find enough drivers with the correct licences. If the back-markers can find enough sponsorship, then good for them.The reins have been too tight for too long. |
||
|
17 Mar 2012, 10:43 (Ref:3042672) | #116 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
17 Mar 2012, 16:10 (Ref:3042965) | #117 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,718
|
i sort of feel this is covering old ground, but if this is about being pragmatic why not just let Mclaren (or any of the top teams/builders) run as many cars as they want?
surely thats more preferable then letting less able companies run old cars. personally i am against that as well as my preference leans more towards only allowing true sporting organizations in. no one should be here for short term gains but rather here to build up an organization capable of challenging for wins. customer cars wont move us toward that imo. i'll acknowledged that ideal is almost impossible now with current spending limits but a soft cap on spending, combined with contractually enforceable penalties , fines, and taxes is not only auditable but common in many other sports. granted more difficult for F1 but far from impossible. in short i would much prefer to see more movement in this direction before allowing customer cars. but after a great quali session and some unexpected results i find it myself thinking why change anything? |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
17 Mar 2012, 19:48 (Ref:3043096) | #118 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,547
|
||
|
17 Mar 2012, 20:04 (Ref:3043107) | #119 | |||||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Quote:
Just one recent example. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97624 There are many others, including the one from Bernie about budget caps. No examples of the teams wanting to spend more money can be found. Quote:
Quote:
Any idiot can make for £100 what a good engineer can make for £1. I'd like to see that...again. |
|||||
|
18 Mar 2012, 05:00 (Ref:3043686) | #120 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,346
|
Quote:
Bernie turned F1 into a closed shop for the Concorde agreement in the process making the major players very rich. Thats why they went for it. The value of the 'franchises' went astronomical. At the same time that gave f1 a financial momentum that enabled them to spend vast amounts on research that max tried vainly to limit by ever tighter regulations. That in turn meant an increasing amount of spending for ever diminishing returns that became microscopically incremental. Effectively the only way to make progress was to spend vast amounts on aero trying to find ways to beat your neighbours. if you found something everyone else had to spend vast amounts to understand it, match it and better it. So the whole system has become a race for incremental gains in ever decreasing circles. Real innovation is limited by the regulations, not by customer cars. Allowing customer cars didn't stop rear engines, monocoque development, wing development, side radiators, wider wheel and tyre development, 6 wheel experimentation, 4WD experimentation, the development of skirts and underbody wings, Brabham fan cars, carbon fibre monocoques, turbo experimentation, water cooled brakes, pnuematic valve development etc. In fact real development and innovation has stalled since customer cars were banned (but not because they were banned). Allowing customer cars will not make any difference to original innovation and development. That is a function of the regulations governing experimentation, testing and new ideas. To answer some other ideas: Creating larger teams instead of customer cars just creates imbalances in team structures. It's practical to run two equal/nearly equal cars but not three or four. Inevitably you would end up with a first tier and a second tier within the team so thats really no different than allowing a second tier team to run customer cars. They would simply be independently structured. If you allowed customer cars it would be easier to regulate the basic costs of team structures and operational spending than it is at present. That arrangement would allow limits to be openly allocated to operational spending and open testing that would create relative transparency for all the teams. Engine leases could also be limited to a degree. So a RRA would be easier police in operational aspects. The only costs that would add to a teams costs would be developmental costs. Limiting developmental costs and creating an enviroment for worthwhile innovation is a function of regulation on design and development, not centred around the customer car argument. The customer teams would compete with the leading teams on everything except development and may act in partnership with the lead teams depending on the way the regulations framed testing and experimentation. |
||
|
18 Mar 2012, 15:35 (Ref:3043951) | #121 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
If you force teams like Caterham to use customer cars because building something that is equal to a Ferrari, McLaren or a Red Bull only requires more money to be spent. Then you are stopping teams like Caterham from coming up with anything original, because first and foremost they must be competitive, and they may only be able to be competitive by using something that is tried and tested and has already had a small fortune spent on it. Then you rely solely on the better funded teams to come up with something original, which will probably not happen because they have ensured that the regulations always play to their strength (loads of cash). F1 should not be about rich teams giving the less well off teams their 'hand-me-downs'. It should be about all of the teams having an equal opportunity to come up with something original, within a simple set of regulations.
Last edited by Marbot; 18 Mar 2012 at 15:53. |
|
|
18 Mar 2012, 16:46 (Ref:3043996) | #122 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
It also worth to be mentioned, that all arguments against customer chassis could be used against customer power-trains - gearboxes, engines and kinetic energy recovery systems -, which are currently allowed. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
18 Mar 2012, 18:55 (Ref:3044087) | #123 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
Brawn were extremely fortunate that the architecture of the V8 engines was very similar across all of the teams in order that they could take part in the 2009 season. Otherwise things could have been very different, and maybe more than just one team could have been affected by Honda leaving. Currently there are just four engine manufacturers in F1. Neither of them want the rules to be so open that it will be more than likely that one will get things right and all of the others get it wrong. If you wanted a one engined series, then that would be the way to do it. That also applies to the chassis too. If you open up the rules, and one team gets it right while the others get it wrong, then that's a sure way to lose chassis makers that can't afford, like the wealthier teams can, to put wrongs right. It's a well known fact that the current engine suppliers specifically asked that the engine regulations were tight enough, so as to not allow one engine supplier to be superior to the others. They can't afford to get it wrong and spend even more money trying to get it right. The chances are that they would just cut their losses and leave the sport. It's a big urban myth that the engine suppliers think that going head to head with different designs is a good thing for the sport. |
||
|
19 Mar 2012, 06:43 (Ref:3044409) | #124 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,346
|
Quote:
Because aero is so important the teams that have their own aero facilities have an advantage and the cost of building wind tunnels is significant. Originality is creative not fully dependent on financial input. The arguments above about not be able to build in innovation is true now. They are a function of regulation not making customer chassis available. Ther eis no reason why a major team cannot enter a relationship with a second tier team that provided support and use of facilities, cooperation and collaboration. Oh Dear! That is happening now! Some team will always have more money, usually the more successful or better backed teams. You cannot legislate a Caterham level team to have more expensive engineering than a Ferrari.... |
||
|
19 Mar 2012, 14:15 (Ref:3044661) | #125 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
The need for customer cars would indicate that something is wrong somewhere, and this may explain Bernie's sudden change of heart from being one of the need to have customer cars to one of the need for a budget cap.
I think that maybe the idea of customer cars was quickly dismissed. By Williams, Force India, STR? Remember that these are not the new teams that Bernie was talking about by any stretch of the imagination. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/98005 http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97969 Last edited by Marbot; 19 Mar 2012 at 14:23. |
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Customer cars | cds_uk | Formula One | 21 | 2 Nov 2007 10:27 |
Bernie will be the one to solve customer car row | Champions | Formula One | 4 | 16 Apr 2007 20:21 |
Customer Cars | Alan Raine | Formula One | 18 | 24 Aug 2006 14:20 |
Customer cars way to go? | pink69 | Formula One | 23 | 13 Jun 2002 19:41 |
could we be seeing privateer's running customer cars from top teams in the future? | OVERSTEER | Formula One | 25 | 17 May 2002 23:52 |