|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
14 Jul 2018, 19:03 (Ref:3836688) | #76 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,933
|
Quote:
Also, if you made the engines less road relevant, you'd be able to open up the regs and...go faster. It's only the "only thing left to discuss" because it's been regulated that way. Nobody has suggested "having the exact same components", so I'm not confused at all. |
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 19:10 (Ref:3836689) | #77 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,302
|
SPRINKLES. You would think that because you are technology driven. If you were sport driven you would see that the point is to be as quick as you can within a set of rules. If those rules are far too expensive for real racers to compete you lose the reason for being there.
The recent fastest Nurburgring lap by Porsche was nothing less than fantastic and you probably think it has massive validity. Well it doesn't. It was achieved with a car that was not running to any homologated regs, and it was not achieved in a race. Hence it was not a world lap record. So to go back to the point. If we can produce an engine to give good horsepower burning 100 litres for a 200 mile race it is a win-win. |
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 20:35 (Ref:3836700) | #78 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
The problem here is that you can't just ignore historical context. You bring up the halo, but the problem is that F1 cars are open topped because F1 cars are open topped. There is no logical reason. It evolved that way over the past 70 years or so. It's the same reason why F1 eclipses any other motorsport; it's famous for being famous. Also, why do you keep going on about going faster? F1 rules are NOT designed to make F1 cars go fast, they're designed to make F1 cars go as slow as the organizers deem safe. Second time I've had to explain that. Last edited by EffectiveSprinkles; 14 Jul 2018 at 20:49. |
||
|
14 Jul 2018, 20:48 (Ref:3836701) | #79 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Does anyone remember A1GP? I do, I've seen both iterations race live quite a few times. They were specifically designed to be cheap but fast, look good and have great noise. And they did. The tie-in to countries running it like a world cup was pretty smart and worked well to drum up enthusiasm at first. There were decent teams and drivers and even some decent racing! But then... it just died. Because in the end, nobody really cared. Sponsors didn't care, fans didn't either after the new shine went off. No matter how awesome that big loud NA engine was, it wasn't F1. A few years later someone else tried again with Superleague Formula, which had a big V12 that sounded even better. Tried to tie in with Football clubs this time. Nobody cared for that either. I did, because I love a big loud NA racing engine. But in the end, very very few people do. |
||||
|
14 Jul 2018, 22:21 (Ref:3836707) | #80 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
The tie in with football clubs and countries were daft, also they barely had anything in terms of marketing done to promote the sport so ofcourse nobody cared.
Putting that failure on the type of engines used is pretty silly, to be honest. |
|
|
14 Jul 2018, 22:56 (Ref:3836708) | #81 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
I'm not doing that though. Whatever engines they used, they would have failed I reckon. But in both championships the fact that they used a big noisy NA engine was very directly used in the marketing.
|
|
|
15 Jul 2018, 08:00 (Ref:3836732) | #82 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,933
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
15 Jul 2018, 08:16 (Ref:3836735) | #83 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,302
|
Hmm. Well going back to the point made concerning that alterntve series. That is also irrelevant since it was set up as a different championship that had nothing to do with Formula One.
Have to say that generally I'm learning quite a lot here. So please keep the.discussion going. Whether our position is for or against a certain type of drivetrain the technical info is very interesting. |
||
|
15 Jul 2018, 08:40 (Ref:3836738) | #84 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,092
|
Slight aside for a moment...
I think one of the most instructive points here is that we, a load of die-hard enthusiasts with literally hundreds (if not thousands!) of years of watching F1 between us, still can't agree on one fundamental thing: What F1 is, or even we think it's supposed to be. If we can't get close to an agreement on that, imagine what the turmoil must be within F1 itself as it struggles to reinvent itself to keep it attractive to the existing audience, at the same time as bringing in new casual viewers/spectators to turn them into followers, while ensuring that the existing status quo remains in terms of the money milking machine that it is (once was?). The drivetrain is but a tiny part of that! |
|
__________________
Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. When they realise you have, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes. |
15 Jul 2018, 08:45 (Ref:3836742) | #85 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,933
|
Quote:
There's not much turmoil there - they got exactly what they wanted. Ok, they may have had to compromise between themselves a tiny bit, but other than manufacturer boardrooms, I highly doubt anyone has ever said "Do you know what F1 needs? Small turbo engines that are really quiet and super expensive!" This sort of attitude can be seen in other advances too. Halo didn't have much turmoil, because they refused to even entertain other ideas. |
||
|
15 Jul 2018, 09:04 (Ref:3836746) | #86 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,941
|
Quote:
Do you really think the average Mercedes E63 AMG, Honda NSX or Civic Type R, Renault Megane RS or Ferrari 812 Superfast buyer cares even one iota about how much fuel their unnecessarily large-engined car burns? I am 100% certain they do not. Surely the mere act of purchasing a $150,000 2 tonne Mercedes "superwagon" with a four litre twin turbo V8 engine shows how sustainability is of no consideration to the purchaser of such a vehicle? The very act of going of going out for a backroads blast in their sports sedan or super GT flies in the face of enviromental conciousness. They are literally burning up finite resources for nothing more than their own personal selfish entertainment while taking their Ferrari 488 or their "humble" Megane RS (which is three times as powerful as the most economical Megane, with no good reason for being so) out for a unncessary drive in the countryside. Buyers of economical Toyota Prius or Ford Fiesta 1.0 who care about maximum efficiency and treading lightly on the planet almost certainly have no interest whatsoever in Formula One. Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 15 Jul 2018 at 09:13. |
||
|
15 Jul 2018, 09:10 (Ref:3836748) | #87 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,941
|
Quote:
The smart chaps such as Tombazis and Brawn on the FIA and FOM technical panels should be permitted to draft rules to their liking! Letting teams and mfg set their own rules (as is the case) is the worst idea possible. |
||
|
15 Jul 2018, 09:12 (Ref:3836749) | #88 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,933
|
Well, my next car will most likely be a 1L Ecoboost Fiesta (I don't see why I should spend more money to travel at the same speed on the way to work). I have an interest in F1 (and other motorsports), but I don't see why my road car has to link to F1. They are vehicles designed for different environments, and if I was a millionaire wanting a track toy, then I'd pay attention to performance vehicles and potentially how the manufacturer does on the track.
|
|
|
15 Jul 2018, 09:16 (Ref:3836750) | #89 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,406
|
Quote:
Contrary to your statement, I know of quite a few Prius and Fiesta owners who are bigtime F1 fans. |
|||
__________________
When did I do dangerous driving??? |
15 Jul 2018, 09:17 (Ref:3836751) | #90 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,941
|
That's an easy question! Such team owners and team managers such as:
Enzo Ferrari Jack Brabham Soichiro Honda Ken Tyrrell Colin Chapman Frank Williams Ron Dennis Christian Horner Alain Prost Niki Lauda Toto Wolff? Hmmm.... Not so much. |
|
|
15 Jul 2018, 12:35 (Ref:3836779) | #91 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,941
|
Quote:
A return to simple engines (see video) with principles that every car enthusiast can understand: ram air effect, a humble oiled panel filter, fat cams (any car enthusiast can understand this), strong valvesprings, big valves (ditto), forged pistons, forged rods (any car enthusiast can understand this), tuned-length extractors (just like you would order for your own car) = job done: https://youtu.be/C-2YdVn4n90?t=8m29s The execution in F1 is obviously better, but the principles are the same as what you would use to tune your humble mass produced S2000 or NSX that can run to a rather more cost effective 180,000 miles between rebuilds. Surely that is not such a bad thing? |
||
|
15 Jul 2018, 13:13 (Ref:3836789) | #92 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
And that's your strawman. By your other posts I can already see you've made up your mind anyway, manufacturers are evil. Can't really discuss anything with someone who doesn't use logical arguments but rather emotional ones.
|
|
|
15 Jul 2018, 13:20 (Ref:3836790) | #93 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
|
||
|
15 Jul 2018, 13:27 (Ref:3836791) | #94 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,933
|
Quote:
Why do we need road relevance? If we do need it, why does it only apply to engines? Why are aerodynamics and tyres not road relevant? And suspension? Historical reason? Why are engines immune to the historical argument? Why do we have the engine regulations we currently do? Who was it that demanded the regulations? Who benefits from the current regulations? Who suffers from the current regulations? What do the current regulations add to the sport? What do the current regulations detract from the sport? When you start answering these, it doesn't paint a particularly rosy picture. PS - I like manufacturers. However, unlike yourself, I don't see the world as black and white, and things I like can be open to criticism. Exactly the same as I said in the previous ACO argument. Spoiler alert - I was right. |
||
|
15 Jul 2018, 13:37 (Ref:3836793) | #95 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
And you were not even correct, because in the end they didn't apply the rule as it was written. But again, different story. Anyway once again all of this is irrelevant in this thread, you keep moving the goalposts. Post some of your questions again in the actual future rules discussion and someone might be inclined to answer them. |
||
|
15 Jul 2018, 13:47 (Ref:3836795) | #96 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,933
|
Quote:
Quote:
My stance regarding these regs has been the same since the topic began. They don't bring anything to the sport and are there to support a political and business agenda that has a detrimental impact to the series as a sport, as well as compromising the stability of the series as a business. |
|||
|
15 Jul 2018, 14:39 (Ref:3836798) | #97 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
Don't feed the troll, Akrapovic.
|
|
|
15 Jul 2018, 15:39 (Ref:3836803) | #98 | |||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,349
|
Quote:
My point previously about Liberty Media's view of what F1 is meant to be, is that their opinion carries so much weight at the moment. So shouldn't we tailor our arguments slightly to consider their view - otherwise our efforts are futile. I'm not saying that NA would be wrong for F1 (or forced air - not sure why the thread is NA/hybrid?), but that any argument for a move back to that form has to consider the likelihood that, no matter how good the argument is, it won't happen unless Liberty and the PU makers agree. Any argument for use of a certain engine type has to consider what F1 is, not what we want it to be, and currently it's a hybrid championship with an aspiration for road-relevance in the PU. |
|||
|
15 Jul 2018, 16:22 (Ref:3836808) | #99 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,933
|
Quote:
Quote:
Put simply, the current situation isn't sustainable, and that's how the current PU manufacturers like it. When Renault left in the 90s, Mecachrome were able to continue selling engines because it was possible to design and build the engines, and sell them for profit. Now, that isn't possible. |
|||
|
15 Jul 2018, 17:31 (Ref:3836817) | #100 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,563
|
Quote:
I don't know if any of you were watching Goodwood FOS this afternoon, but they had a very short interview with Ross Brawn. And during that he admitted that it is a conundrum that they are having to face currently, and there main problem at this time is trying to both please the traditional enthusiasts (I don't consider a lot of the "fans" to be true enthusiasts of F1, rather they are followers of certain drivers) and to entice and encourage new, possibly younger, enthusiasts. In the few words that time permitted, it sounded as though nothing is yet resolved. |
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Future Rule Changes | Greem | Formula One | 4371 | 24 Apr 2024 09:52 |
New LMP2 engine - and (more) rule changes | ss_collins | Sportscar & GT Racing | 42 | 4 Oct 2008 14:49 |
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 |
Engine rule changes planned for 2003 | Mark F1 | Formula One | 47 | 16 Feb 2002 13:05 |