| Author | Message | ||
| Anthony_Ferrari (Anthony_ferrari)
Junior Member Username: Anthony_ferrari Post Number: 76 Registered: 11-2002 |
F1 cars will always look like all the others because the rulebook is so tight now. They have to have 4 wheels and they have to use a 3 litre V10 so a turbine engine would be illegal. If you go to the FIA website you can download all the regulations as a .pdf file. Looking at the regulations it's amazing that the cars look even slightly diferent! | ||
| Randy (Schatten)
Member Username: Schatten Post Number: 534 Registered: 4-2001 |
fyi - that was Texas Motorspeedway (TMS) and CART, who cancelled. They had scheduled two prior sessions to test out the track for the CART organizers many months before. The CART officials said, "it will be fine." Qualifying came around and people were blanking out because of the g-forces were just TOO high and too constant. Instead of braking and hitting a turn generating 3g's it was constant - for more than just a few seconds. Quite amazing, and its another reason, added to the many why I could care less about CART. /end rant. Now the loopy-loops that would be a great idea. Perhaps a more streetable style or even a more rally style here in the states could become popular? That's something I'd like to see over here. Next year in F1, I sincerely hope that Frank Williams' promises of radical designs are implimented. Perhaps going back to the radical experiments - 6 wheels, turbines, etc. from the 70's need to come back. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1694 Registered: 2-2001 |
I was referring to the race track when I mentioned the hot wheels loop & increased Gs, could b interesting in a minivan with soccer Mom driving though  | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 684 Registered: 8-2002 |
i agree with William- the interstate needs a loop-d-loop and a G barrier thingie... everyone write your congressman... | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1691 Registered: 2-2001 |
instead of making cars go faster we could add more stuff to tracks like a hotwheels upside down loop , the experts claim an Indy car can drive upside down at 100 mph + cus of their downforce so lets put them to the test , then we could run the cars upside down for a short part of the course. Then remember the Texas Indy car race in 2002 that was cancelled cus drivers were nearly fainting from too much G force, well lets get them some Gsuits & push the G barrier up farther | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 682 Registered: 8-2002 |
Tim, maybe high end cars are different... My friend's Cherokee has a digital mpg read out thingie and the faster i went, the higher the mpg went... Now on streets, it's different... if i floor it when the light turns green, just to come to a complete stop at the next light, and i do that a few times, i'm wasting some serious gas... i think my suggestion applies more to endurance... | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Intermediate Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 1833 Registered: 6-2001 |
no way, at 80 you use tons more fuel than you would at 55. in my audi my average mpg went up 4mpg when i dropped my speed from 70 to 55 becaue the gas light came on and i just wanted to get home before i fell asleep after skiing 2 weeks ago. | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 678 Registered: 8-2002 |
William, increasing the speed limits is a wonderful idea, but then the little coppers would have more trouble meeting their quota every month, those #@$%^#$^%...! ---- EDIT ---- Also, i find that travelling at, let's say 80mph for a long distance actually reduces fuel consumption, as opposed to travelling at, let's say, 55mph for a long distance... Ergo, increasing the speed limits would be a negative for the big corporate nazi oil companies... | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1685 Registered: 2-2001 |
I think that now that the airways have become so messed up & airports are such a lousy place to go that the Feds should increase speed limits so we can use our cars to get from point A to point B in the same time but with less hassle than with a plane. I can make it from Miami to CT in a nice BMW M5 cruising at a nice safe 130 mph in just around 10 hours or just maybe 3 hours more than a plane trip including the drive to & from the airport & the wait before & after the flight | ||
| Omar (Auraraptor)
Junior Member Username: Auraraptor Post Number: 141 Registered: 9-2002 |
Jeff, They ain't takin my Alissa until they pry my cold dead body out of it. :D | ||
| Jeff B. (Miltonian)
New member Username: Miltonian Post Number: 22 Registered: 12-2002 |
I think it was a few years ago during one of those infernal time wasting spots in the Indy 500, they were discussing future ways to make the cars faster, and showed the design proposal for a car with the driver faced FORWARDS, flat on his stomach, operating the car with remote hand controls. One of the drivers said, "Well, I may be crazy, but I'm not THAT crazy!!" I'm surprised manufacturers are still allowed to produce cars that can double and triple the legal speed limit. It won't last forever. We are fortunate to live while that freedom still exists, and extra fortunate to be able to enjoy Ferrari ownership. How many more years until the Government mandates "cookie cutter" transportation modules for everyone? Jeff B. | ||
| V.Z. (Ama328)
Junior Member Username: Ama328 Post Number: 64 Registered: 11-2002 |
Arlie, this is something i've wondered about in a slightly different way, and in/outside of the auto arena: * What happens when the autos are 'good enuf'? Hell, despite the crap Detroit foists on us, most cars will basically run forever, if properly maintained. I remember getting Popular Mechanics 'auto' issues that promised you COULD run a car 100k, if you religiously maintained it. Now, any econobox will do 100k+ with no sweat. * am i really gonna notice 0-60 in 4.5 secs vs 4.6234 secs? That's about what we're talking about these days. On a broader note, what happens when technology is advanced enuf to provide everyone with basic needs? It effectively already is, but politics/human nature being what it is, there's still a big diff between haves/have nots. Distribution is why some people are starving, not raw production. From a corporate global view, people are strictly replacable commodities, to be used up, then dumped(i work for one of the 'most admired' companies in the U.S., and i see this crap all the time). This is gonna be one of the BIG social issues in coming decades, and remains to be seen how this'll play out. Fortunately, an individual can still benefit from efforts of their own liking, so if I wanna build my own house, or volunteer for some local charity org, or just do sumpin' else, at least I can benefit myself/others that way. Let's face it, the car biz has always been based on marketing 'lifestyles' and 'adventure'...you are what you drive. Niche groups like Fcar types on this forum are such a small minority that we really don't matter. I like Fcars for the styling and mechanical design, not 'cause I aspire to be one of the gold chain crowd. Ferrari products from mid 1980s to the present pretty much cover anything I'd ever want(except for maybe some vintage 60s-70s goodies) that I don't know if I would/will ever buy a future Fcar, given likely pricing & what my budget would allow. Probably the only way i'm likely to ever buy any future stuff would be if my income were so high that buying an Fcar was chump change. Sorry to ramble so much, but you hit a hot spot i've had for quite a while... | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1680 Registered: 2-2001 |
Heres a thought, How about in 100 years we have racing on the Moon, a cross between Baja & F1, you could have buggies with rocket motors & you could go into orbit over big berms & use the rockets to get you back on the moon Big smelly oily dirty muscle cars are just the thing to help warm up the Martian atmosphere to help with terraforming that planet one day. Musclecars in Space, YEAH BABY!!!!!!!! | ||
| Dave328GTB (Hardtop)
Member Username: Hardtop Post Number: 375 Registered: 1-2002 |
The current HP race reminds of the 60's and muscle cars. Even though muscle cars were brutally overpowered (a 396 would actually twist a camaro's frame!) HP sold cars. HP still sells cars and not just sports cars. It sells trucks, SUV's and econo boxes. Fortunately, handling and brakes are greatly improved this time around but, still, many cars exceed the vast majority of driver's abilities and certainly the roads. Sometimes, I actually think it is more fun to have a lesser powered car with something less than 255 treadwidths, because I can drive it harder on real roads. There is more to a car being fun than just power, or even high handling limits. That's why I take my 328 to tracks instead of my M3, even though the M3 could blow it's doors off. The muscle car era was killed by insurance companies, gas lines, and toughening emissions. Hard to say what will happen this time, but I have noticed a big increase in teenagers being killed street racing locally. Sooner or later, soccer moms will demand change I think. Dave | ||
| Racer 001 (Mr_0011)
Member Username: Mr_0011 Post Number: 446 Registered: 3-2002 |
I think accelertation and top speed is fine on current cars... if they really what to go faster... they should improve handling characteristics and steering response, braking etc... | ||
| Ron R (Ronr)
Junior Member Username: Ronr Post Number: 65 Registered: 10-2002 |
To me, all those improvements can really only be measured in lap times, since you reference racing. Power and braking seems to always improve, but to take advantage of it, the tire technology has to follow. A lot of this is based on improved materials, and their applications. Suspension also improves over time, using computers and empirical data. All those add up to better lap times, maybe incremental, but better. It's pretty easy to look back every 10 years, and see pretty significant levels of improvement, based on the items I've mentioned, and others. As far as drivers, you always have these prodigies that pop up every few years, and the other types that have been involved in motorsports since they were kids due to parental influences (lucky dogs). Those are the obvious ones to take advantage of increases in performance, and they push their competition to become better, so the whole sport improves. All these improvements force higher and higher race track quality, which has got to be a pretty significant factor in lap times. The racers, teams, and fans are pretty demanding sorts. And they talk with money. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 541 Registered: 5-2002 |
In the beginning of auto racing, the quest was to go faster and faster. Of course, the speed record was 50MPH at some point in time. So the idea was to push the speed envelope. However, with today's technology, the ability to design a faster car exceeds the capability of human driving ability and the road quality available. So at what point do new Ferraris and Lamborghinis and other super cars just become a styling exercise? Current computer airflow designs and current horsepower technology already can make a car that no human can drive to the limits of its design, so what's the point or goal of future high performance design? Just because technology can make a 400MPH Ferrari doesn't mean a human can actually drive the thing. |