BBC "Exclusive": Pat Head & Rory Byrne propose "biggest ... change since 1983" in '13

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Word is that the 2013 1.6 engines will have a KERS driven by the exhaust gases as well as having them drive a turbo. The KERS will also be powered in the normal way via the rear wheels, but charging smaller batteries. It is also thought that KERS will be allowed to develop as much as 4 times its current power and will be able to be used for far longer periods than the current 6.7 seconds. This should enable the cars to use up to 40% less fuel for the same sort of lap times that we are seeing now.

As I read it on Autosport.com yesterday, cars won't be enabled but restricted to at least 60% of the current fuel consumption levels. This will be enforced by a fuel flow regulator which is yet to developed. A fuel load restriction will reduce fuel consumption even further and drivers won't be able to drive flat-out during the entire race. The introduction of AWKERS is still unlikely - a big blow to Formula 1's search for a green image and road relevancy.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The introduction of AWKERS is still unlikely - a big blow to Formula 1's search for a green image and road relevancy.

I wouldn't say it was a big blow, just not really necessary on an F1 car. The green 'image' will be there in spades, which is all that really matters to the car manufacturers and their sponsors.

Note: For quite some time now, F1 cars have been driven to the end of a race using the least amount of fuel possible for the fastest time possible. Nothing new there (Renault currently have a particularly fuel efficient engine, even if it's not the most powerful). This ensures that engineers work on engine efficiency rather than outright power.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I wouldn't say it was a big blow, just not really necessary on an F1 car. The green 'image' will be there in spades, which is all that really matters to the car manufacturers and their sponsors.

In 2009 Formula 1's KERS was already described as a gimmick, inferior and far from 'green' road-relevant. If the current hybrid cars are already fitted with AWKERS, the 2013 systems are likely to be considered as inferior and far from green and road-relevant as well.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In 2009 Formula 1's KERS was already described as a gimmick, inferior and far from 'green' road-relevant. If the current hybrid cars are already fitted with AWKERS, the 2013 systems are likely to be considered as inferior and far from green and road-relevant as well.

Totally off-topice here, but I've been sent an e-mail explaining that, to most people, as long as each word has the correct letters in it, most people will understand the sentence, even if the letters are in the wrong order.
Am I the only person on here who think's that that acronym is really a mis-spelled word that's missing the letter 'N'?

[ASCII Man]

True, since only ******s drive cars like that.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In 2009 Formula 1's KERS was already described as a gimmick, inferior and far from 'green' road-relevant. If the current hybrid cars are already fitted with AWKERS, the 2013 systems are likely to be considered as inferior and far from green and road-relevant as well.

Current road systems don't have the exhaust gases directly driving the KERS (All Wheel Kenetic Energy Recovery System ).

But the technology is not important anyway, it's the image that it portrays. And, besides, F1 was never any good at keeping pace with relevant road going technology.

Ironically, only the introduction of a proper budget cap is likely to get F1 engineers thinking more about what F1 cars need as opposed to what pleases everyone else.

[duke_toaster]

Wouldn't AWKERS not be a good idea in that it would make the cars a bit too easy to driver, having effectively 4WD?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Current road systems don't have the exhaust gases directly driving the KERS (All Wheel Kenetic Energy Recovery System ).

But the technology is not important anyway, it's the image that it portrays. And, besides, F1 was never any good at keeping pace with relevant road going technology.

Ironically, only the introduction of a proper budget cap is likely to get F1 engineers thinking more about what F1 cars need as opposed to what pleases everyone else.

I fail to see how a budget cap would make Formula 1 more road relevant. A complete overhaul of the (technical) regulations could, if the right modifications are implemented, make Formula 1 more relevant. But it would require political will and courage to do that.

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Wouldn't AWKERS not be a good idea in that it would make the cars a bit too easy to driver, having effectively 4WD?

AWKERS doesn't mean all wheel are to be propelled, but that energy is recovered from all wheels. Its also known as 'full hybrid'.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I fail to see how a budget cap would make Formula 1 more road relevant.

If there was a budget cap, F1 wouldn't need to be more road relevant or even road relevant at all. Teams wouldn't be so reliant on sponsorship money from sponsors looking for a 'clean' image or a sponsor/manufacturer looking for a 'vehicle' to sell its goods.

F1 could then concentrate on its core business, which is that of innovation and entertainment, rather than having to go off down the various technical blind alleys that they have previously done, and are still continuing to do to this day.

Also, with regards to "political will and courage": Turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas, are they?

Originally Posted by Pingguest

AWKERS doesn't mean all wheel are to be propelled, but that energy is recovered from all wheels. Its also known as 'full hybrid'.

It's also possible to feed the power back out through the motors (when it is needed) that collected the energy in the first place, and there's nothing new in that!

If you also think back to the original budget cap regulations, 4WD was actually on the cards for 2010! Possibly too much of a radical change for some?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Totally off-topice here, but I've been sent an e-mail explaining that, to most people, as long as each word has the correct letters in it, most people will understand the sentence, even if the letters are in the wrong order.
Am I the only person on here who think's that that acronym is really a mis-spelled word that's missing the letter 'N'?

Perfect .

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If there was a budget cap, F1 wouldn't need to be more road relevant or even road relevant at all. Teams wouldn't be so reliant on sponsorship money from sponsors looking for a 'clean' image or a sponsor/manufacturer looking for a 'vehicle' to sell its goods.

F1 could then concentrate on its core business, which is that of innovation and entertainment, rather than having to go off down the various technical blind alleys that they have previously done, and are still continuing to do to this day.

Also, with regards to "political will and courage": Turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas, are they?




It's also possible to feed the power back out through the motors (when it is needed) that collected the energy in the first place, and there's nothing new in that!

If you also think back to the original budget cap regulations, 4WD was actually on the cards for 2010! Possibly too much of a radical change for some?

There seems to be an irony here, that a formula that prospered without the involvement of any of the manufacturers is now being destroyed by its inability to look past the money the manufacturers are now offering it to legitimise lousy products that nobody is really interested in.

F1 needs to realise that it is entertainment, and anything that detracts from the racing is wrecking the sports future. The vested interests in race preventing aerodynamics and the manufacturers with their green agenda are simply bad for the sport.

If F1 delivers fast and furious racing, it attracts viewers, and if it has viewers then the sponsors spend money to be associated with the sport.
What other sport allows the sponsors to dictate how and where the game is played.

F1 is just chasing money from the notoriously unreliable manufacturers and is bending over backwards to meet their unrealistic demand and consequently placing the sport at risk. It is the entertainment industry and needs to guard itself against misuse of its product!



Computer manufacturers make their chips faster and faster, and more and more energy efficient, yet we don't line up to watch their boxes race.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In 2009 Formula 1's KERS was already described as a gimmick, inferior and far from 'green' road-relevant. If the current hybrid cars are already fitted with AWKERS, the 2013 systems are likely to be considered as inferior and far from green and road-relevant as well.

As ASCII MAn said above, only N enhanced AWKERS drive that type of car anyway. How many on this forum would spend their own money on one of these KERS enhanced green cars?

My own opinion is that they are just a total joke and anything with a battery that tries to call itself green is just beyond comprehension!

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by wnut

F1 needs to realise that it is entertainment, and anything that detracts from the racing is wrecking the sports future. The vested interests in race preventing aerodynamics and the manufacturers with their green agenda are simply bad for the sport.

If F1 delivers fast and furious racing, it attracts viewers, and if it has viewers then the sponsors spend money to be associated with the sport.
What other sport allows the sponsors to dictate how and where the game is played.

F1 is just chasing money from the notoriously unreliable manufacturers and is bending over backwards to meet their unrealistic demand and consequently placing the sport at risk. It is the entertainment industry and needs to guard itself against misuse of its product!

I have to agree - F1 is a sport league first, and technological development second. If it was about technology first, we'd have traction control, launch control, electronic stability gizmos, active suspension, and the drivers would just be passengers. People make comments about football originating with using severed human heads. Well, motor racing began without the motors, it was called chariot racing. F1 is chariot racing, with the horses replaced by internal combustion engines. The rules of chariot racing weren't designed to be road relevant to the detriment of the racing.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

There seems to be an irony here,

F1 is full of aluminiumy, carbon fibrey, but mostly irony.

How ironic is it that the cars most F1 'fans' seem to want are to be found in another open wheel series (Superleague)!

A little tweaking of the aero and you would never know the difference.

[TF110]

Superleague is nothing to 'F1' though. The spectacle that is F1 is second to none. Bernie has built an empire. I wanted the FOTA to make a rival series. All that it took was Ferrari to say, ok, then it would have been. But F1 has the nameplate to it and that can't be replaced. When you hear 'F1' you don't think of anything less than, the fastest road racing in the world. Which it is. I really hope for more technical freedom, and hopefully these new regs will be great for that. And I really hope manufacturers come into play. Lots of them left because it was 'stale'. BMW, Toyota, Honda. Nothing compared to their road cars. Now if VW come back in. Nissan with Inifity in, who's to say BMW won't be back? Or Toyota or Honda? That's what F1 should be, the best of the best. Not HRT's struggling to get by. Or weak rules that ban refueling. Retarded in my opinion.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by TF110

Superleague is nothing to 'F1' though. The spectacle that is F1 is second to none. Bernie has built an empire. I wanted the FOTA to make a rival series. All that it took was Ferrari to say, ok, then it would have been. But F1 has the nameplate to it and that can't be replaced. When you hear 'F1' you don't think of anything less than, the fastest road racing in the world. Which it is. I really hope for more technical freedom, and hopefully these new regs will be great for that. And I really hope manufacturers come into play. Lots of them left because it was 'stale'. BMW, Toyota, Honda. Nothing compared to their road cars. Now if VW come back in. Nissan with Inifity in, who's to say BMW won't be back? Or Toyota or Honda? That's what F1 should be, the best of the best. Not HRT's struggling to get by. Or weak rules that ban refueling. Retarded in my opinion.

Some would say that F1 got "stale" because of the participation of manufacturers. They have their own agendas, which probably won't include loud V12 engines any more.

And F1 isn't the fastest open wheel series in the world because it isn't technically possible for anyone to make a faster open wheel car series. The simple fact is that it is very possible, and for just a fraction of the cost. Would it be road relevant? Who would care!

I also seem to remember that Red Bull and many others were once teams "struggling to get by", and that refuelling, along with 'perfect' tyres, just made the predictable even more predictable.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If there was a budget cap, F1 wouldn't need to be more road relevant or even road relevant at all. Teams wouldn't be so reliant on sponsorship money from sponsors looking for a 'clean' image or a sponsor/manufacturer looking for a 'vehicle' to sell its goods.

F1 could then concentrate on its core business, which is that of innovation and entertainment, rather than having to go off down the various technical blind alleys that they have previously done, and are still continuing to do to this day.

I disagree. The pressure to Formula 1's stakeholders is increasing. If Formula 1 will continue to ignore the increasing demand for environmental consciousness and social responsibility, very little stakeholders will be able to justify their presence in the series. No cost saving to going to fix that.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I disagree. The pressure to Formula 1's stakeholders is increasing. If Formula 1 will continue to ignore the increasing demand for environmental consciousness and social responsibility, very little stakeholders will be able to justify their presence in the series. No cost saving to going to fix that.

"The pressure to Formula 1's stakeholders is increasing."

Yes, you could be right. Market forces taking control of the destiny of a sport.

I doubt that the Superleague series will be thinking: 'We'd better get rid of these awesomely powerful screaming V12 engines, and sharpish! No one will like us any more if we don't. Better get some of those 4 cylinder ones to keep the crowds and the viewers happy.' The words 'foot', 'shot', and 'itself' would spring to mind.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

"The pressure to Formula 1's stakeholders is increasing."

Yes, you could be right. Market forces taking control of the destiny of a sport.

I doubt that the Superleague series will be thinking: 'We'd better get rid of these awesomely powerful screaming V12 engines, and sharpish! No one will like us any more if we don't. Better get some of those 4 cylinder ones to keep the crowds and the viewers happy.' The words 'foot', 'shot', and 'itself' would spring to mind.

Hey, I just typed a market forces post, but yours is better!

No racing = no spectators = no sponsors = no F1.

This green rubbish seems just the way to accomplish that!

[wnut]

One last aside, why have they specified a 4 cylinder turbo, if you were trying to get efficient and could not go the six route the next option should be a three! No overlap to reduce the turbo pressures.

[cmotd]

Originally Posted by wnut

If F1 delivers fast and furious racing, it attracts viewers, and if it has viewers then the sponsors spend money to be associated with the sport.

Indeed, the proof of that is called NASCAR - about as green as a coal burning power station built in a field full of flatulent cows - but sponsors line up to get involved because it's the biggest spectator sport in the US

but it isn't sponsors that are the main driving force behind the green agenda in F1, it's the desire to bring in more manufacturers and also to placate governments in areas where the races take place

What other sport allows the sponsors to dictate how and where the game is played.

World Championship Cricket, 20-20 Cricket, Rugby League and most extreme sports, which are entirely sponsor-driven