| Author | Message | ||
| Steve (F1gearhead)
New member Username: F1gearhead Post Number: 8 Registered: 2-2003 |
Mitch... I misread your last statement about acceleration. Ignore the last comment of my post. | ||
| Steve (F1gearhead)
New member Username: F1gearhead Post Number: 7 Registered: 2-2003 |
I believe Jack is correct. Remember in Sepang when Montoya set the fastest top speed on that straight becuase he had no rear wing? You are right, aerodynamic drag does increase with the square of velocity, so imagine how much decelerating force is removed from the car when the rear wing (or any other aero device) is removed. This slack must then be picked up by the brakes. It will take longer to decelerate but since the brakes are working that much harder, I think the temperature arguement goes out the window. And also, acceleration time would be DECREASED... as it is easier for the engine to push the car through the air. | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 411 Registered: 4-2002 |
The amount of energy a brake system has to convert into heat is proportional to the weight of the vehicle, and the square of its velocity. The temperature rise of the rotors has to do with the amount of energy converted, the time over which it is converted, AND the cooling that occurs durring this time. So with slower rates of deceleration, there is more time for cooling, and therefore, the brakes run at lower temperatures. In addition, since acceleration is similarly decreased, there is more time for cooling on the straights also. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 664 Registered: 3-2002 |
Is that right? I was thinking the opposite, actually, since the cars would be producing much less drag, as well as the loss of aero-braking, without the wings. Anyway, I'm sure any argument there would really be about the loss of "billboard" space! | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 407 Registered: 4-2002 |
Jack: if they got rid of the wings, then the carbon brakes would not be needed because the energy input would be so much lower (traction limited). But they have to weigh less! As to blowing up engines without F1 trannies--it seems most of the field already has this problem even with the F1 trannies! | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 637 Registered: 10-2002 |
OT Alert!!! So be it. Yes, the M3 is a rocket on wheels. And beautiful and fully loaded with everything. My friend acutally paid about 60k. I wouldn't want to spend that much on a Beemer, rather on a used 355, but everybody is different. OTOH if you're a real F1 fan and must have those shift paddles, this might be just about the 'cheapest' way to get them. I'm still hoping Toyota comes out one day with a F1 inspired new release of the Supra with all the F1 gimmicks. But by then the 355 F1 might be at the same price level... (now returning to our regularly scheduled program) | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 652 Registered: 3-2002 |
A belated hello back to you, Andreas! Anyway, getting waaay off track, I was surprised to see that the new M3 costs over $50K! I'm sure it's a great car, but not my first choice for that amount. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 634 Registered: 10-2002 |
Not sure you can call it launch control, but the M3 has some nice wizardry that makes a clear getaway at the red light. Drove once one from a friend and the no wheel spin, shifting up is awesome. Also like the F1 paddles. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 651 Registered: 3-2002 |
Mitch, I agree. If you've seen an F1 or CART car that has lost its rear wing, I think they actually look kind of cool! They should eliminate carbon brakes, as well. A return to manual shifting will never happen, but it would be fun to see. I know they claim that drivers couldn't prevent blowups with the high revs, but I find it hard to believe that they couldn't develop over-rev protection. BTW, ABS isn't actually a product of racing, but from the automakers themselves. Which cars have launch control? | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 394 Registered: 4-2002 |
There are road cars with underbody aerodynamics There are road cars with ABS There are road cars with computer controlled suspensions There are road cars with moveable aerodynamic devices There are road cars with traction control There are road cars with launch control These technologies may have been developed in F1 race cars, but they exist only as memories or in road cars. ----------------but back to topic----------------- To make the F1 racing more interesting, just ban all the downforce devices. Longer braking distances, longer acceleration distances, lower corner speeds, more opportunities to pass. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 612 Registered: 10-2002 |
Sorta true, sorta not. The car manufacturers want us to believe that the Nascar GM Chevy is directly related to your Cavalier, that the Subaru Ralley monster is the same you get off your dealer's lot (even though they look radically different) and that your Deutsche Tourenwagenmeisterschaft's BMW is your M3 from around the corner. If you look what's under the hood, you're very far from it. Agreed. Same of course holds even more true for F1. However certain things still do trickle down (question is, whether they would have surfaced anyway without racing is debatable) like the F1 paddle shifts in Ferraris and Beemers (not as in that stupid Lexus make believe). And of course in more radical cars as the F50 or Enzo you have engines etc very close to the real deal. Let's put it this way: Whether a car company is successful in F1 has little to no influence on its cars technology wise. But it is a battle field to see who has the better engineers (and ultimately resources). Kinda like a trial case. OJ vs Calif. And personally I think it is just a lot more fun to drive the crest of a F1 team. I realize my 20 year old 308 has little to nothing to do with what Schumi is doing, but the emotional bond is there. And I think that is what makes the Nascar guys tick as well. BTW: These and more thoughts were presented by Derek Daily a couple years ago at a dinner speech. Some of the best stuff I ever heard about F1 and wished I had taped it. All I could do afterwards was thank the man for opening my eyes. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 647 Registered: 3-2002 |
Actually, the belief that racing serves as a proving ground for technology that trickles down to road cars isn't nearly as true as it once was. In a recent interview about F1, Bobby Rahal went so far as to say that road cars have surpassed racing cars in technology, or words to that effect. Basically, the technologies involved don't cross over like they used to (I'm yet to see an everyday road car that uses exotic metals, fuels and carbon brakes). F1 teams spend 100s of millions to make cars that go fast for 90 minutes. GM spends billions making cars that have to run for years. The current state of technology and design in F1 is a victim of its own momentum, and the heads of sport have forgotten the purpose of racing. Fans want to see drivers driving. | ||
| John A. Suarez (Futureowner)
Member Username: Futureowner Post Number: 564 Registered: 3-2002 |
"The whole point of my post was that the electronic technology being applied to race cars is far less than any electronics in road cars." Right, next time a soccer mom inadvertantly snaps out the back end of her minivan I am sure that the Ford Aerostar two-way telemetry will square her up before disaster strike. | ||
| John A. Suarez (Futureowner)
Member Username: Futureowner Post Number: 563 Registered: 3-2002 |
"Road engines have a lot more tech in them then one might realize. F1 engines have been a slow progression to where they are now, changing little over the years. Road engines have some pretty amazing systems developed in recent years." Such as...??? F1 engines are the most advanced, and fastest advancing car engines in the world. PERIOD Many of the advances you see on modern road cars are attributed to F1 technology (sans navigation systems, which in themselves are not attributed to the automobile). Why do you think the paddle shifters in roadcars are called "F1 shifters"??? | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3268 Registered: 2-2001 |
The whole point of my post was that the electronic technology being applied to race cars is far less than any electronics in road cars. I never comment on the tech behind high revving, which I allude to my agreeing with the direction they are going. So you are disagreeing with something I never said. On the topic of high revving, etc though. Road engines have a lot more tech in them then one might realize. F1 engines have been a slow progression to where they are now, changing little over the years. Road engines have some pretty amazing systems developed in recent years. Not evolutions like F1 cars, but revolutions. The same principles they used in the 60s are the principles behind making an engine rev higher for racing, these are just natural progressions. Since Renault came out with pneumatic valves there really hasn't been anything monumental in F1, at least not compared to how many monumental road car changes have occured. I am all for continued engine developments, etc. I am in no way for driver aids, which have recently all been electronic. The aids they are applying are years behind any aids out on the streets, they are in no way trickling down and helping manufacturers in road car production. In fact, these aids are trickling the other way from the road cars up to the F1 cars. | ||
| Dave Wexall (Boxerboy)
New member Username: Boxerboy Post Number: 5 Registered: 12-2002 |
My best guess is that if you think F1 is boring now, wait until the electronics are gone and watch Michael motor off into the distance, particularly in the wet. Also, look at the F1 media ,mostly british. They can't stand to see Ferrari and their drivers do well. At the start of 2002, Damon Hill said that Schumie was washed up! Moss was griping that Schumie was no good for the sport. No one was complaining when Prost and Senna were doing their best to eliminate each other on the track, and they were teamates. Right now it appears that it's Ferrari's turn for supremacy. Regardless, it is certainly better than watching the left turn dinosaurs. | ||
| Steve (F1gearhead)
New member Username: F1gearhead Post Number: 5 Registered: 2-2003 |
The technology on F1 cars is far and away superior to road cars, without question. Yes the engines are designed for certain tracks and certain conditions, but they perform phenominal feats in that narrow range of operation. Road car techonology is designed for reliablibity, and broad application, F1 technology is designed for performance, two totally separate goals. The fact that last year BMW had their qualifying engine revving at 19,050 RPMs is absolutely astounding (this year it apparently revs even higher). Its not like they just bolted together some parts out of an EdleBrock catalog and took it to the track (that's NASCAR, haha). All that being said, and despite my awe of the F1 technology we see, I do agree that it has gone too far. I love the fact that you can get a perfect launch off the grid, but that's the computer doing it, not the driver. I cannot wait until later this season, when these aids are removed. It will really be interesting to see what drivers thrive, and who will fall back. It will be nice to know that the driver held the line through the turn himself, and not the traction control. Auto gear boxes really piss me off.. how un-enthusiast is that?! In summary: for the most part, I agree with you | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3266 Registered: 2-2001 |
I'm not saying they are easy to drive, but to say they compare with the cars of say 15 years ago would be a stretch. They definitely have become easier and safer to drive as is natural with technology, but they shouldn't stray too far from the origins. If you don't agree with me about road car technology being far greater than race car tech than I can't help you other than to say pick up any racing magazine and read it. F1 cars are electronical midgets compared to a road car in every way. Their engines are also essentially dinosaurs in that they need not cope with any circumstances other than a set track in set conditions. A road car must face any possible condition on earth. Yes, they have nasty overbores and pneumatic valves, etc. but compared to the tech in a road car they are surprisingly simple. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 569 Registered: 10-2002 |
Bret, two points to consider: - I like the idea of the teams developing engines, but that also allows them to bring back driver aids. Remember how Ferrari smuggled in traction control through engine timing shifted with gear changes? - 2 times WC Lauda had to admit while test driving the Jag last year, that despite all the electronic aids, the cars were a ••••• to drive and he never really got good times. He even spun and went off I believe. Part of that is due to the impossible grooved tires, but it driving these things still ain't as easy as it looks from the inboard camera. | ||
| Taek-Ho Kwon (Stickanddice)
Junior Member Username: Stickanddice Post Number: 131 Registered: 11-2002 |
I agree with just about everything except "road car technology absolutely dwarfs any racing technology". Race cars have far more sophisticated go fast goodies. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3253 Registered: 2-2001 |
The point that we've reached now is unlike any other in the history of racing, which is why things are getting so problematic. Nowadays road car technology absolutely dwarfs any racing technology, so racing cars no longer are a technological wonder. That is why I feel the continued application of technology in the direction they're going is stupid, it will never again even come close to the electronics in a road car. What I think would be a better idea would be to make everyone use a sequential trans and a cable driven gas pedal. That will eliminate 90% of the possibility to cheat and will make people drive again. I'm all about tech, but apply it to better tires, better suspension, better aerodynamics. Don't apply it to driver's aids like has been the trend for the past few years. If you got rid of all the electronics money being pumped into that crap teams would have money to develop V12s, V8s, V6s, whatever the hell they wanted. Get rid of stupid rules that are making the cars too alike and taking the driving out of racing. The technology should be applied to make the cars faster, not to take the driver out of the equation. I don't want to watch a race and think this is bullsh_t they don't even drive anymore. I want to watch a race and sit there in awe, admiring how amazing these guys have become at driving. These guys are capable of the amazing driving, they just need the stupid organizers to let them. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 564 Registered: 10-2002 |
There is a fine line between the sides demanding rightfully that the best man wins and the technology involved. If we only want to know who's fastest, yes, we should put all F1 drivers in identical go karts. But would that be terribly interesting? The technical wizardry of a F1 car is part of the attraction, but one can overdo a good thing. So I'm all for the current reduction of electronics. Sooner or later they'll creep back in anyway, but having the axe fall down once every few years keeps things fresh and changing. Regarding rule changes: I loved last night's time trial. Kinda like ski world cup, I thought it gave a much better picture of where every driver stood. It really put the spotlight on e.g. Webber (albeit not in its best light) and Da Matta. In the past all we saw of the trials were the front runners. I'm quite sure, that this season will be more interesting and (dare I say it, Pete) ...entertaining! :-) | ||
| Bart Boonacker (Sharky666)
Junior Member Username: Sharky666 Post Number: 213 Registered: 9-2002 |
BretM, "The new rules they implement each year just make it more and more boring " They implement these rules to make it less boring to watch. "Why not get rid of all this stupidly applied technology and make it a race again" When they get rid of all the technology, the manufacturers will quit F1 aswell due to the fact they want to show they got the best car in the pinnacle of autosport, F1. When removing all technology, F1 will just be an ordinary kart-race with very fast cars, maybe not boring but completly not attractive to car-manufacturers (and they are the ones which provide the money) If you really want to see racing, then you'd better watch Formula Renault, WRC or kart races. The biggest problem is all the money that goes round because in 80's Mclaren was being lord and ruler for several years and nothing happend, and now Ferrari owns em all and suddenly it's not fair. IMO it's fair, because those with the biggest check got the best equipment. Ever was, ever will be. -Bart PS. Sorry for the bad english  | ||
| Anthony_Ferrari (Anthony_ferrari)
Junior Member Username: Anthony_ferrari Post Number: 183 Registered: 11-2002 |
I agree that the technology has gone too far. Launch control, traction control, and automatic gears shouldn't be in F1. And from July 20th they won't be! | ||
| Taek-Ho Kwon (Stickanddice)
Junior Member Username: Stickanddice Post Number: 127 Registered: 11-2002 |
A lot of the technology you see in F1 is applied to real life use. Racing is a giant test bed for some incredible technology. It improves what we drive on the street. I can't particularly blame F1 too much for what it's becoming. It's just getting to the point that technology is overwhelming. Nevertheless, I'm sure Bernie could do better if he weren't so worried about lining his pockets. I do agree that watching old footage and races is far more fun. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3252 Registered: 2-2001 |
Am I the only one that thinks Formula One is getting totally F_ed up? I have only been watching it for like 5 years now, but it was a hell of a lot better back then, I can only imagine what it was like back 20 years ago. They don't even shift anymore for goodness sake. What the hell is wrong with the organizers? Maybe I'm missing something because I'm American, but to me it is becoming ridiculous. The new rules they implement each year just make it more and more boring. It's gotten to the point now where they have to artificially give each team the same air time for sponsorship. Why not get rid of all this stupidly applied technology and make it a race again, actual racing attracts fans on its own... I'm not trying to take anything away from the drivers, they are obviously some of the best in the world. But what the hell are the organizers smoking. |