so how clever are the F1 engineers exactly?

That's just ridiculous. I've driven a race car, ergo your desperate point is proven false by a single example.

Look, you can pretend that F1 engineers are clever (the subject of this thread), but compared to designers in other fields that's just not reality.

F1 engineers are restricted by the sport itself, as F1 wants to keep speeds down. That's a huge blow to innovation, and you are just kidding yourself to pretend otherwise. Worse, you are taking potshots at other posters in an effort to prop up your fantasy.

That dog won't hunt.

If you want to demonstrate with examples of recent innovations that F1 engineers really are clever, then by all means post them, but wildly guessing about the background of other posters (e.g. hasn't even driven a race car) is weak tea for the soul.

In contrast, I showed innovations in other fields that haven't even been thought about by F1 engineers, such as laying the driver prone, replacing side-view and rear-view mirrors with mini-tv cameras and interior flat screen tvs, active braking, et al.

F1 engineers know their field. They've been taught well. But they aren't innovators any longer. The sport has taken that from them.

What they are doing is called "incrementalism." Little improvements over time. That's a far cry from radical innovations.

The truth is that F1 has become so stuffy that radical innovations now frighten even the fans, as evidenced by the wild-eyed lashing out in this thread as if several of you had been stung and had no way to reason through it.

Yeah, it's the internet, so anyone can say anything, and I expect several of you to abuse that very fact with nonsensical potshots at me because I dared point out that the King Has No Clothes...but there he is, King F1 is naked of recent innovations.

 

And your guess would be wrong.

 

Incorrect. Active braking has been safely used for decades by jet aircraft. It's called reverse thrust. Wheeled electric robots are already using it on college campuses and in labs.

You know...where **innovations** are occuring, as opposed to F1.

Ouch. I can see that wound from here.

 

The fact that F1 engineers have to act within a highly restrictive framework of rules doesn't mean that they can't be greatly talented. A small improvement is a very difficult thing to attain under these circumstances. Radical innovation is only one measure of engineering greatness.

 

Indeed, but making a small improvement is hardly clever or innovative, especially compared to breakthroughs in other fields.

Look at cell phones compared to F1. 2004 F1 cars are faster than 2009 F1 cars...anyone want to try to send a video over a 2004 cell phone at instead of at 2009 speeds?!


It's nonsensical to say that "we're innovative except we're being held back."

Either you are innovative or not.

 

It's entirely possible to do safely, you just aren't being innovative enough in your thinking.

 

If you can suggest or explain a way this can be done in a F1 car within the parameters of the rules, then it would not seem that you just like flying in the face of public opinion on this issue.

Seeing your so good with innovative thinking and we are not this should not be a problem to you.

 

You are a predictable case in point. The answer, however, is in the direction being laid down, with North, South, East & West all being possibilities, as well as in the knees...as in, bending them. A vastly thicker webbed harness would probably factor in, as well.

 

I am burdened with the same training: I am also an engineer.

As for this thread, I will say that I operate under the belief system that with the budgets that these racing teams control, that they have engineering/design teams that are doing incremental engineering/testing as well as engineering/design teams that are doing clean sheet engineering, all while considering the current rules, the potential future rules, and the past rules as bookends. You can bet that for every material innovation, there are at least twenty designs on the cutting room floor, and that just from the incremental engineers. The clean sheet guys? They are the free associaters of the bunch, engineers & designers with highly creative streaks that serve that function. Stones are left unturned, no doubt, because all these engineers have collective communication of ideas and above that, a manager that divies out the assignments based on experience based risk management of which ideas have developmental merit and which are likely too poetic, too romantic, too crazy or burning the "blazing new territory before it's economic time" dollars needed elsewhere.

JMHO.

 

So what's your greatest personal innovation?

 

I'am a predictable case in point..

Now I tell you what is predictable, you not coming back with a answer! so you would rather skirt the issue.

You cannot state how this can be achieved, you say F1 engineers are not clever thinking lack innovation.
So I asked you how you would resolve the issue of reasons like the others in this thread have pointed out.

And thats it ..North south east west a thick harness ...enough said.

The only thing going west is this thread.

 

I didn't skirt the issue. I told you that the answer was in which orientation you faced the driver, as well as in bending the driver's knees to avoid being a stickpole. A thicker harness restraint webbing would also be desirable.

 

Laughable.

 

You laugh only because you are refusing to accept my central premise. The truth is that you would mock, laugh, deride, chastise, ignore, and/or deny anything that exposes the obvious fact that F1 engineers aren't innovating any longer, but rather, are only making incremental improvements.

You aren't objective. You are just a fan defending your sport. Might as well be a soccer hooligan, intellectually.

 

You are bordering on being a troll IMO.

 

Thanks mate!

 

Staying out of the ditches and avoiding the land mines and scud missiles. It comes with the territory. With great innovation comes greater risk. I am personally very conservative as an engineer, and it has served me well, but I am also known as a person that has taken some very unique paths that appeared risky to most but have succeeded.

If your purpose is to somehow make this personal, I will not willingly step on that mine, either.

 

Unless you can show an F1 rule that prohibits reclining a driver or laying a driver prone, you'll have to accept that F1 engineers *arent* being clever.


Sticking big mirrors on the side of a car isn't too brilliant, either...when el cheapo $10 web cameras and flat screen interior tvs can eliminate all of that drag.

 

So you are burdened by training or rules or personal environment, and note that you have made only conservative improvements instead of radical innovations.

You could be a current F1 engineer!

 

Again put your money where your mouth is.

Show us a design of a F1 car that meets the 2009-2010 regulations. That will cater to the tallest driver currently racing. Using current technology 90 degree V-8's, will allow the driver to exit the car with in the time rules in the FIA regulations. And is capable of meeting all FIA mandated crash and impact regulations.

Time to put up or SHUT UP!!!

 

My greatest innovation? I manage the balance of the chaos of creativity with the discipline of incrementalism. They are two separate entities. Success is difficult to put a finger on, and time judges design. The earth has recorded history of many periods of both types of 'designs' as noted in the fossil histories of evolution. We are not both right or wrong here. You can study the miraculous innovation of evolution in the Burgess Shale and the incrementalism of design in other evolutionary phases of the development of living organisms. Both types of approaches have their successes and failures, all within a changing book of rules, stipulated by the landscape and challenges of their respective days.

The term burden is somewhat heavy for this analysis, IMO. That glass can be half full or half empty, depending on your perspective.

 

No, I'd remind you that the driver doesn't have to lay precisely North-South 360 degrees. Rotate the driver's orientation by 10 degrees, 20 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, or 180 degrees as required to comply with the rules for whatever mechanical pedal box (presuming no innovation allowed here electronically) is mandated. And bend the knees. And rotate/tilt the legs off-center.

Up to me, I'd put the monitors inside the helmet or project the rear images forward onto something in front of the driver.

I'd also give the driver the options of switching between Zoom and Wide Angle shots to improve his visual capabilities above 20/20.
Image Unavailable, Please Login