|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
8 May 2015, 02:53 (Ref:3535356) | #1101 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Aero - BIG SPEND
|
|
|
8 May 2015, 05:36 (Ref:3535399) | #1102 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
If you have a wind tunnel it is all in house expenditure, it pays the rent and salaries of your people, confers a significant performance advantage if you get it right, and difficult voodoo for a sponsor to evaluate against costs.
Hence they control the costs and it is a nice little earner for the teams. |
|
|
8 May 2015, 05:40 (Ref:3535401) | #1103 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
|
||
|
8 May 2015, 08:47 (Ref:3535434) | #1104 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
8 May 2015, 08:59 (Ref:3535439) | #1105 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Low speed aerodynamics (as apposed to anything over 200mph) is what their businesses are based on. The question is, what incentive can you give the large teams with a controlling interest in F1 to let go of the aero side of their businesses? |
||
|
8 May 2015, 09:14 (Ref:3535443) | #1106 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
If you guys don't get rid of the aero we will so start telling us how you want to reduce it to the point it has no effect on the following car. That should be enough incentive. In turn we will open up the regs in other areas and if you invent or introduce something we won't ban it.
|
|
|
9 May 2015, 08:34 (Ref:3535740) | #1107 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,882
|
Quote:
Williams Technology has recently entered into a new partnership to supply supermarkets with aerofoils to be fitted (and retro-fitted) to their chiller and freezer displays to reduce the overspill of cold air escaping into the shopping aisles. The technology has derived entirely from their aeronautical work in the wind-tunnel, and the use of the new aerofoils is estimated to reduce the supermarkets energy consumption substantially, which is good for the world's ecology as well as the supermarkets bottom line. I am sure that other applications have resulted from the work done by Williams and others, especially McLaren. |
|||
|
9 May 2015, 08:39 (Ref:3535743) | #1108 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
9 May 2015, 10:24 (Ref:3535761) | #1109 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,882
|
Quote:
The technological knowledge gained in motor racing often finds it's way into other disciplines, and vice-versa. This is why the teams often employ engineers and designers from the aerospace industry, and team members also leave the sport to work in aerospace and other areas such as the nautical industry. |
|||
|
9 May 2015, 10:45 (Ref:3535768) | #1110 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
10 May 2015, 01:34 (Ref:3536011) | #1111 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,742
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
10 May 2015, 14:09 (Ref:3536117) | #1112 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Last year, Mercedes-Benz said their road cars already benefit from the current technology and knowledge gained from it. However, I do believe a lot of potential in terms of relevance still remains unused.
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
10 May 2015, 15:08 (Ref:3536135) | #1113 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
I can't think of any. in fact in some parts it lags road cars by many years, road wheels and tyres sizes being one example and they haven'r out headlights on F1 cars yet
|
|
|
10 May 2015, 15:42 (Ref:3536147) | #1114 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
My take on road relevancy is that there is likely cross-over. It's a sport that is uniquely punishing to machinery and data can be accrued from that. My guess is though that such data could be obtained using other means and the boardrooms don't take nuts-and-bolts road relevancy that seriously. I think it's interesting too that we are all struggling to name contemporary examples of road relevancy and we're supposed to be dedicated fans. The average joe won't be able to name anything that's for sure. So I don't know if nuts and bolts road relevancy has any primary marketing value. It's the kind of 'fun fact' that comes in a Discovery Channel doc or a Top Gear segment and is promptly forgotten.
Road relevancy kinda remains what it was. The same ethos that won and Sunday will deliver you a car on Monday. You get to appear regular in all the sports pages and lifestyle magazines..etcetc. That in itself has strong marketing power. But it's expensive and constantly needs to be justified. |
||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
10 May 2015, 16:14 (Ref:3536153) | #1115 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
As I said before, I believe more potential remains to be unlocked. Probably against my passion and nostalgia, a part of that is making Formula One components to last a bit longer, so that the used solutions are actually creditable. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
15 May 2015, 12:46 (Ref:3537712) | #1116 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,449
|
Refuelling returns in 2017?
'Formula 1 bosses have agreed to bring back refuelling in 2017 as part of a range of measures aimed at making the sport more exciting.
There will also be higher revving and louder engines and changes aimed at making cars "five to six seconds a lap faster", governing body the FIA said. For 2016, bosses have approved a plan to allow teams free choice of the four available tyre compounds for each race. The changes still need to be approved by two further legislative stages. The changes were agreed on Thursday at a meeting of the F1 strategy group, which comprises FIA president Jean Todt, commercial supremo Bernie Ecclestone and the Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull, Williams and Force India teams. The engine manufacturers were also represented at the meeting.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32751118 |
||
|
15 May 2015, 12:54 (Ref:3537718) | #1117 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
Bring back refuelling? To make races more exciting? Do me a favour! Back to more passing in the pitlane and more risk to the mechanics in the pitlane. Someone bang their heads together
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
15 May 2015, 12:59 (Ref:3537721) | #1118 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
You hit the nail on the head but it might give the commentators something to talk about.
|
|
|
15 May 2015, 17:22 (Ref:3537792) | #1119 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 857
|
Quote:
Louder engines?Get some new hearing aids fellows. Nothing said about dumping DRS. I do wonder whether the inmates are running the asylum and what will they do when it becomes sparsely populated and falls into ruin? |
||
|
15 May 2015, 21:10 (Ref:3537849) | #1120 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,223
|
Quote:
It's only proposal though - so - let us hope it doesn't come about. |
||
|
15 May 2015, 21:48 (Ref:3537858) | #1121 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
From my reading of the new rules there is no cost savings to be seen anywhere in them. If fact all that I can see are cost increases for anybody building an F1 car.
The changes as I understand are. More powerful engines via greater fuel flow. Wider tyres. New wider wings More aggressive looking cars. The cars are to make more noise. They willl also be allowed to rev higher. A greater choice of tyres. In race refuling Will these rule changes make the cars more spectacular I doubt it, as wider wings and tyres give them more grip to harness the greater power. They will be faster is that a major advantage if they are not more spectaular as in more difficult for drivers to control? All that I see these rule changes doing is increasing costs putting furter pressure on the independant teams. To make matters worse for the independants a new team can come in, buy a customer chassis from Mercedes or whoever is the top team and blow them into the weeds. The budget of a customer team will probably be about 1/3 of a current midfield team. That means for a non CBT team the only way to survive in F1 is to become a customer team. You now have about 200 excess employees who will loose their jobs. Multiply that by the number of midfield teams becoming customers and it is a lot of jobs gone. |
|
|
15 May 2015, 22:10 (Ref:3537863) | #1122 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,101
|
Customer cars + No cost savings + A lot of change that will require costly redesign of existing solutions.
I wonder if it is all a combined strategy. Small teams can't afford the existing cost, plus the new costs so they are forced to support customer cars. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
15 May 2015, 22:28 (Ref:3537866) | #1123 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
Quote:
I think they might be better off going to the WEC than staying in F1. |
||
|
16 May 2015, 00:32 (Ref:3537884) | #1124 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 906
|
The theory is that is that, via these measures, they can lure sponsors that have been scarcer as of late, which solves the financial problems of the smaller teams.
Further, observed phenomenon 'passing during pit rotation' affecting or possibly negated by variable '100 kg/h fuel limit' which was not previously present. As for making the cars harder to drive, adding difficulty to driving the car results in more DNF's and higher potential for driver injury. |
|
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110 |
16 May 2015, 01:06 (Ref:3537890) | #1125 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
I think re-fueling could work but not as we know it. Reduce the number of pit lane personnel to about two or three and allow re-fueling then the teams have to decide if it is worth their while and what they will gain or lose. I really hope none of the existing F1 teams ever change to another category because they have collectively sought to protect their own interests and by doing so destroyed F1. Motor sport in general is losing popularity but these guys are aiding and abetting that process more than they need to.
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |