cast iron Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 I agree if you want a fixed formula then look to GP2 or F Ford goodness me Quote
pistonbroke Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 There have been several instances where Sports prototypes and other cars have been quicker than F1 Take a look at the "old" Can Am series for example and the Porche Turbo's F1 was and still should be the pinnacle of technology and development ,the problem is making it so rewards only those who have the neccassary cudos to reach that pinnacle leaving smaller teams out in the dark . But the punter (you and me) wants close racing , which means all teams and cars must be of equal performance . Take a look at the Qually times we have now , they have never been closer, yet the racing is almost always off track . We need to have cars that can slip stream and out brake each other , you will only achieve that by limiting braking technology , aero and driving aids . Take your choice , High Tech interesting technically and processional or Low tech simple chassis and good racing . Quote
Carl Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 I suspect this is the usual case of propsing a "worst case" that will have everyone up in arms (it's worked) Then when they announce a 2 year freeze (or a much less restrictive proposition) everyone will be releaved and pleased. The government are very good at this tactic Quote
Asterix Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 I'm sure discussions will go on and on .... but the real question is "what is f1"... It has become the 21st century equivalent of watching saturday afternoon wrestling with Dickie Davies Quote
Tubs Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 They should reduce the engine size further, right down to 1,500 cc but then widen the scope for engine, aero and chassis developments. 1,500 should still be able to give decent power, but not so much that big downforces can be achieved with wings etc. Also, 1,500 will use less fuel. As for any kind of budget restriction - waste of time. Just so long as the stop asking thar red team what rule they want introduced next. Tubs Quote
robthehungrymonkey Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 There have been several instances where Sports prototypes and other cars have been quicker than F1 Take a look at the "old" Can Am series for example and the Porche Turbo's F1 was and still should be the pinnacle of technology and development ,the problem is making it so rewards only those who have the neccassary cudos to reach that pinnacle leaving smaller teams out in the dark . But the punter (you and me) wants close racing , which means all teams and cars must be of equal performance . Take a look at the Qually times we have now , they have never been closer, yet the racing is almost always off track . We need to have cars that can slip stream and out brake each other , you will only achieve that by limiting braking technology , aero and driving aids . Take your choice , High Tech interesting technically and processional or Low tech simple chassis and good racing . Were the Can Ams and the Porker turbos quicker round grand prix style tracks? (before my time!) There's definitely a need for compromise. F1 HAS to be about the technology. Close racing is what we all want, but at the same time I enjoy the bits and pieces that make cars faster than other cars. As motorsports fans, we are watching the cars as much as the drivers. Eliminating driving aids is definitely a step in the right direction. If you want lots and lots of overtaking, then there are plenty of other formulas we can watch. If the FIA want to make F1 tech more relevant to everyday driving (i'm sure that's what they said earlier this year), surely Engine development would be where the benefits are. If i was the FIA, i'd be inclined to slowly change the regs, but encourage engine development. Most teams seem to be going the way of customer engines now anyway. P.S. I apologise if that doesn't read very well, i've been writing this for about 20 minutes and the phone keeps ringing!) Quote
robthehungrymonkey Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 Wahey 300 posts Does anyone else wonder what the fastest car that could be built using current tecnogoly would be like? If they removed all the regulations, how much like an F1 car would it be like? 4WD? Turbos? Open wheeled? Quote
Kevin Wood Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 QUOTE It has become the 21st century equivalent of watching saturday afternoon wrestling with Dickie Davies Or even the Eastenders omnibus. It's not worth bothering to watch the race, just read about all the gossip on 'tinternet. If I want to watch motorsport I go to my local grasstrack meet. Much more entertaining at about a billionth of the budget. QUOTE Does anyone else wonder what the fastest car that could be built using current tecnogoly would be like? If they removed all the regulations, how much like an F1 car would it be like? You've got to define fastest first. Top fuel dragster? NASCAR? F1? LMP? Thrust SSC? Rally car? They're all fastest but in a very narrow set of circumstances that suit them. Kevin Quote
robthehungrymonkey Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 Does anyone else wonder what the fastest car that could be built using current tecnogoly would be like? If they removed all the regulations, how much like an F1 car would it be like? You've got to define fastest first. Top fuel dragster? NASCAR? F1? LMP? Thrust SSC? Rally car? They're all fastest but in a very narrow set of circumstances that suit them. Kevin My apologies, i meant fastest around a race track. IE fastest around the tracks used in F1, but without the regulations. Quote
Nick P Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 Yes engines freezing for 10 years shows a bit silly, but just to clear up what their really trying to do is that they are trying to slowly move away from engines as we currently know them, or at least add other systems to them. There is so much heat energy being wasted from other parts on the car like the brakes. One itea that has been around for a little while from the FIA is that the heat from the brakes can be put through a system that could store the energy and then the drivers could use it like a push to pass button. So basically the FIA are trying to push the manufacturers into coming up with new and "Greener" systems that will in the end feed into road cars. Whether we like it or not things have got to become "Greener" and maybe this is a good starting point. Quote
Kevin Wood Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 QUOTE My apologies, i meant fastest around a race track. IE fastest around the tracks used in F1, but without the regulations. Well, it is an interesting question. Would be rather telling as to how much the current cars really are strangled by the rules and regs. QUOTE Whether we like it or not things have got to become "Greener" and maybe this is a good starting point. I'm not sure. Motorsport applications are sensitive to weight and any form of storing that sort of energy is going to cost dearly in weight. Probably better to develop it in buses, lorries and trains and scale it downwards. Of course someone's got to pay for it then, whereas that big pot of money over in F1... It'd have to go a long way before it's more efficient (lap time wise!) than just dumping the energy as heat before the corner and drinking more fuel on the way out. Petrol in a tank stores quite a bit of energy per unit of weight even though you can't put it back in when you've burnt it! Kevin Quote
robthehungrymonkey Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 I understand what you're saying, but wouldn't the time and money (it would require a lot) be better spent making the engines more efficient, wether that be alternative fuels or another way. Why didn't the fuel limit work when it was introduced before? (i never knew it was). F1 (I believe) already has a carbon neutral policy, but they need to be seen to be greener, IMO biofuels look the way forward. Even though at the moment, they're not *that* green. Quote
cast iron Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 There's definitely a need for compromise. F1 HAS to be about the technology. Eliminating driving aids is definitely a step in the right direction. bit of a contradiction me thinks? If you want close racing than back to my original statement go and watch FFord or F Renault or whatever IMHO The team who secure the biggest budget and use it efectively win thats what F1 should be Anything else is covered in other formulae Quote
lukeyboy Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 I think it's a great idea, I can see it now..... into the pit, tyres changed, ready to go and....... glug glug glug... we can't get the recycled chip fat oil in any quicker The smell of re-fried food wafting through the stands making everyone hungry What about use the F1 cars for the first 3/4 of the race and then they have to pull in, get out, do a 100 yard dash and complete the last quater in Toyota Prius, but your allowed to ram your opponents of the course? Just a though! Quote
Guest Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 They could always convert the cars to Flintstones powered? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.