[Tech Issue] Will F1 be boring in 2014?

[chunder]

I cant think of anything more dull than watching that bloke win 10 races again in 2014, it would be bad for everyone, tv, fans, promoters and F1.

You can't take anything away from him or them, but it's about time someone else was up front for a bit, as most people I know who were closet F1 fans lost interest with all the RB domination about a year ago sadly.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Greem

I know I've said something like this before, but...

Purity? Even in athletics, where training methods have evolved almost as far as F1 design, "purity" went out of the window the moment someone realised that putting spikes on their shoes would make them quicker than everyone else.

There has *never been* "pure" racing, especially since the F1 championship was finally given world status.

Show me some examples of pure racing and I'll show you drivers, mechanics, engineers and designers who would stop at nothing to get one over on the other guy. Look at the way significant developments happened - almost always taking everyone else by surprise until everyone else realised that they had to have that thing, or get left behind...

In no particular order:

superchargers
stressed member engines
monocoque construction
disc brakes
turbo engines
wings & aero
'trick' diffusers
special fuels
magnesium bulkheads
beryllium engine parts

...the list goes on, and on, and on. It will continue to go on, and on, and on (a bit like me).

Take off the rose-tinted spectacles and look at the reality. If there's a prize involved - especially money - the people involved will push the rules as far as possible; some may cheat deliberately, some without realising, but they'll bring their interpretation of the rules to bear, and some of them will dominate.

That's racing. Pure, it isn't.

Pure racing is without the artificialities like the drag reduction system, kinetic energy recovery systems as a power-to-pass only, the artificially degrading tyres. Those phenomena are new to Formula 1.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Pure racing is without the artificialities like the drag reduction system, kinetic energy recovery systems as a power-to-pass only, the artificially degrading tyres. Those phenomena are new to Formula 1.

DRS is a "plaster" to fix the problem of the banned underbody aero. Wings are very sensitive to turbulance so current cars struggle to follow one another, DRS is to counter that with a more powerful "drafting-like" affect. Although this year in particular traction has been the biggest decider in how effective the DRS is.

The only artificial aspect of Kers is that it is limited to 80bhp over 6 seconds, teams should be able to get as much power out of it as they can and for whatever duration they wish. You might get some teams pushing out 200bhp for 3 seconds or 50bhp for the whole lap. Still would be a good differentiator and not artificial.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

DRS is a "plaster" to fix the problem of the banned underbody aero. Wings are very sensitive to turbulance so current cars struggle to follow one another, DRS is to counter that with a more powerful "drafting-like" affect. Although this year in particular traction has been the biggest decider in how effective the DRS is.

There must be a reason why underbody aero was banned in F1? I seem to remember that unregulated underbody aero was great for lap times, but the drivers never really liked driving cars with underbody aero. Mario Andretti and Alan Jones did not like the cars and both left F1 because of that.

Originally Posted by luke g28

The only artificial aspect of Kers is that it is limited to 80bhp over 6 seconds, teams should be able to get as much power out of it as they can and for whatever duration they wish. You might get some teams pushing out 200bhp for 3 seconds or 50bhp for the whole lap. Still would be a good differentiator and not artificial.

KERS, or ERS as it will be known in 2014, will have a much greater role to play. 161 bhp for 33 seconds per lap is better than the current 80 bhp for 6 seconds per lap.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Ironically, that is exactly the thinking that Ferrari and Toyota were so against, back in 09.

A golden opportunity missed because big money, personalities and politics became more important than the sport.

Agreed!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

There must be a reason why underbody aero was banned in F1? I seem to remember that unregulated underbody aero was great for lap times, but the drivers never really liked driving cars with underbody aero. Mario Andretti and Alan Jones did not like the cars and both left F1 because of that.

But then he finished his career in CART, where underbody downforce was a major part of the formula and at Indy, the wings were little things used for fine tuning with virtually all of the downforce coming from the underbody, and the tunnels were partially blocked off for drag reduction.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

But then he finished his career in CART, where underbody downforce was a major part of the formula and at Indy, the wings were little things used for fine tuning with virtually all of the downforce coming from the underbody, and the tunnels were partially blocked off for drag reduction.

The problem with under body aero, was that it was inconsistent in the event of a disturbance like running over a kerb, or that the skirts used to get stuck, and then you'd go hairing into the next corner and find you had no downforce and a BIG accident. Sports cars too, ask Webber!

In order to maintain the ride height and the aero characteristics the suspension was so stiff that the drivers were getting blurred vision and ruptured spinal discs over anything like a bump, hence the development of Chapman's twin chassis Lotus, sadly banned!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

The problem with under body aero, was that it was inconsistent in the event of a disturbance like running over a kerb, or that the skirts used to get stuck, and then you'd go hairing into the next corner and find you had no downforce and a BIG accident. Sports cars too, ask Webber!

In order to maintain the ride height and the aero characteristics the suspension was so stiff that the drivers were getting blurred vision and ruptured spinal discs over anything like a bump, hence the development of Chapman's twin chassis Lotus, sadly banned!

That was true of the way F1 did it. The way CART did it, the rules directed designers toward solutions with more benign handling characteristics.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by luke g28

DRS is a "plaster" to fix the problem of the banned underbody aero. Wings are very sensitive to turbulance so current cars struggle to follow one another, DRS is to counter that with a more powerful "drafting-like" affect. Although this year in particular traction has been the biggest decider in how effective the DRS is.

Whether ground effects care are less prone to turbulence, remains a subject of debate among experts. In 2008 Formula 1's Overtaking Working Group came to the opposite conclusion.

In my opinion limiting downforce is most important. As the amount of downforce is practically limited - the FIA has always intervened as soon as drivers came close to wearing anti-g suit - I do think that a concrete and absolute downforce limit should be enforced. As a downforce limit would affect a performance parameter, the geometric limits could be relaxed. Movable aerodynamics - including fans - and active suspensions should be allowed. In fact, if Formula 1 would become truly grip-limited, all other sorts of restrictions could be relaxed.

Originally Posted by miatanut

That was true of the way F1 did it. The way CART did it, the rules directed designers toward solutions with more benign handling characteristics.

In the early-1980's legislators in various racings series were focusing on reducing the amount of downforce, particularly the amount created by the underbody. Skirts were effectively banned in all series, but Formula 1 and its feeder series were the only series to mandate flat bottoms. Interestingly however, skirts are currently in use by GP2.

[fourWheelDrift]

I have long believed that the cars are so sensitive to following another car simply because they are so refined aerodynamically.

If you have a design which has a lot of elements that are nearly the right shape and at nearly the right angle to the airflow and you follow another car closely the change to the way the air flow hits your car means some elements work a little better and some work a little worse and overall your car probably loses a little downforce.

Now refine the design in the wind tunnel/CFD until everything is perfectly optimised in clean air and when you follow another car everything gets worse and you lose a lot of downforce.

I think this is a major, and often overlooked, reason why the current cars lose so much performance when asked to corner in the wake of another car.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In my opinion limiting downforce is most important. As the amount of downforce is practically limited - the FIA has always intervened as soon as drivers came close to wearing anti-g suit - I do think that a concrete and absolute downforce limit should be enforced. As a downforce limit would affect a performance parameter, the geometric limits could be relaxed. Movable aerodynamics - including fans - and active suspensions should be allowed. In fact, if Formula 1 would become truly grip-limited, all other sorts of restrictions could be relaxed.



In the early-1980's legislators in various racings series were focusing on reducing the amount of downforce, particularly the amount created by the underbody. Skirts were effectively banned in all series, but Formula 1 and its feeder series were the only series to mandate flat bottoms. Interestingly however, skirts are currently in use by GP2.

It is true that any governing body would find it much more practical to limit the amount of downforce by reducing the size of wings, etc. Regulating underbody aero would be much more difficult, unless it was a spec underbody, which no one seems to want.

I can't see 'fans' ever being re-introduced into F1 because of safety issues. I wouldn't want to run into the back of one whilst the thing was in operation.

Active suspension now seems very 'old hat', and it never really was something that was passed on to road cars in a big way, unless you think that Citroens xantia 'active' was a huge success (too complicated and too expensive for little gain in real world driving).

IMO, the only thing that will actually make people think outside of the box is a budget cap of some sorts, otherwise teams would just be allowed to use expensive and irrelevant 'unobtainium' in order to put one across on less well funded teams.

[Kempi]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Active suspension now seems very 'old hat', and it never really was something that was passed on to road cars in a big way, unless you think that Citroens xantia 'active' was a huge success (too complicated and too expensive for little gain in real world driving).

Actually Mercedes introduced "Magic Body Ride" in the new S-Class with active suspension very successfully. But then again it is a totally different approach with a camera reading the surface and it only works up to 120kph.

[wolfhound]

F1 only effectively had active ride working for a couple of season although it had been in development for about 10 years. If it was around for another few seasons I am sure there would have been further developments.

If you consider the first turbo era power outputs went from about 550BHP to 1300BHP in about 6 years. It will be interesting to see what the pace of development will be over the next few years.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Kempi

Actually Mercedes introduced "Magic Body Ride" in the new S-Class with active suspension very successfully. But then again it is a totally different approach with a camera reading the surface and it only works up to 120kph.

Yes, unlikely active suspension they used to have in F1 the S-Class reads the road before the car gets to it.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

If you consider the first turbo era power outputs went from about 550BHP to 1300BHP in about 6 years. It will be interesting to see what the pace of development will be over the next few years.

Well, that was mainly because they were able to get 1300 bhp by burning a huge amount of fuel in qualifying over very little distance, and then that engine was pretty much scrap metal. That can't happen in the new era of turbos because there is a fuel flow limit and it can't happen in the race because they only have 100kgs of fuel to burn. You also have only five engines to use throughout the season! But that's not to say that they won't be able to get more power or fuel efficiency from the engines by bringing regular updates to them.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Kempi

Actually Mercedes introduced "Magic Body Ride" in the new S-Class with active suspension very successfully. But then again it is a totally different approach with a camera reading the surface and it only works up to 120kph.

Well, yes. But my point was that after 20 years of it being in F1, it hasn't really caught on in a 'mass produced' sort of way. i.e. it's still not even an option on a top spec Ford Fiesta.

[JacobP]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

If you consider the first turbo era power outputs went from about 550BHP to 1300BHP in about 6 years. It will be interesting to see what the pace of development will be over the next few years.

FIA is now micromanaging the performance. Revs are limited. Fuel is limited. Turbo pressure also limited. There exists some kind of theoretical HP that you can achieve with these engines, and some engines will probably get near it eventually.

[wolfhound]

The point I have been trying to make was about the pace of development not the raw figures.

There is a preium article in Autosport that says at the start of next year to expect a lot of reliabilty problems. While on the record team staff are being positive about next year off the record there are serious worries. The first days of testing are likely to have lap counts in teens rather than 100+.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...what-f1-needs/

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

IMO, the only thing that will actually make people think outside of the box is a budget cap of some sorts, otherwise teams would just be allowed to use expensive and irrelevant 'unobtainium' in order to put one across on less well funded teams.

It is an epistemological fact that a budget cap will not be enforceable. And it is an empirical fact that not loose but tight regulations create costs: as regulations force teams to converge, teams can only win by being a step closer to the absolute point of perfection.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by JacobP

Fuel is limited.

That remains to be seen, because recently Auto, Motor und Sport reported latest version of the fuel flow sensors were too inaccurate.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

That remains to be seen, because recently Auto, Motor und Sport reported latest version of the fuel flow sensors were too inaccurate.

You get a tank of a certain size in the pit. If the flow sensor is off 100%, it really doesn't matter. Exaggerating a bit, of course, but if the flow is off, that's an engine management problem and it's probably a disadvantage to have it off to either side, because everything was designed to the correct rate. If it's too high, you have to take measures so you don't end up running out before the end of the race. If it's too low you have a horsepower disadvantage.

Either way, your allocation to go the distance is the true limit, not hard to enforce, and you have to manage that resource carefully.

[Pingguest]

As the FIA cannot trust the teams, it will use its own sensors which are independent from the engine management system. From 2014 both the fuel flow and fuel consumption will be limited, although no fuel tank size will be implemented. In fact, drivers will have to start the race with more fuel in their tank, as a specified minimum amount of fuel will have to be used for the post-race scrutineering.

For those who master the German language:
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/f...e-7832974.html

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

As the FIA cannot trust the teams, it will use its own sensors which are independent from the engine management system. From 2014 both the fuel flow and fuel consumption will be limited, although no fuel tank size will be implemented. In fact, drivers will have to start the race with more fuel in their tank, as a specified minimum amount of fuel will have to be used for the post-race scrutineering.

For those who master the German language:
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/f...e-7832974.html

The fuel flow meters only matter during qualifying.

For the race, you get 100kg. Period. Use it too fast and your driver gets to walk back to the pit (or you get DQ'ed because there wasn't enough left in the tank at the end).

LeMans and CART were allocating fuel back in the 1970's. It's not difficult.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The fuel flow meters only matter during qualifying.

For the race, you get 100kg. Period. Use it too fast and your driver gets to walk back to the pit (or you get DQ'ed because there wasn't enough left in the tank at the end).

LeMans and CART were allocating fuel back in the 1970's. It's not difficult.

I wonder how people will react to cars hobbling around at 100km/h on three cylinders with the turbo off in order to make it to end.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by davyboy

I wonder how people will react to cars hobbling around at 100km/h on three cylinders with the turbo off in order to make it to end.

They won't. The changes won't be any more noticeable than they are now when they radio the driver what engine map to use or tell him to conserve fuel. The conserve fuel part has been part of racing as long as there has been two-way communication between the pit and the car. I don't remember pit boards being used that way, but probably they were.