I'm with you. The technology would be relevant. Look at the super cars. La Ferrari and the 918. This is the first year in many that I have not attended a live race. I just can't get the fact that my 458 sounds better than a F1 car. Actually the GP2 season was more engaging for me! I for one would be the next ticket purchaser if it goes back to naturally aspirated engines! Fans go for the experience... There is a solution.. I just hope they figure it out sooner than later.
... F1 can't have its cake and eat it, too. End of the product life-cycle for the internal combustion engine, F1 cannot lead motor sport evolving backward, to the horseless carriage. Inefficient, socially irresponsible, its for good reason manufacturers don't mass produce V-12s and V-10s. Anything made before 1965 greater than 16 cylinders classified a horseless carriage, it would be absurd, F1 evolving that direction. Reversion to quasi horseless carriage power-plants reintroduces (1) the same divergence dilemma with road relevance F1 suffered with its woefully inefficient V12s during the late 80s, and (2) the larger diversification issue (e.g., diversification beyond the internal combustion engine). What F1 and Ferrari have in common: neither are sufficiently diversified beyond the internal combustion engine. Were an emergency mandate decreed by the policy community for electrics and fuels cells, both would go by way of Smilodon, Dinofelis and Megantereon, to be survived by lessor species (e.g., Formula E). Biggest, baddest feline in the fossil record, similarly so, Ferrari would cease to exist (e.g., to be survived by Hyundais, Renaults and Toyotas). Question becomes, survival. Who survives? Who doesn't? Why? If survival's the issue then, as of this writing, F1's on the right track. In a bios where the sabertooth falls extinct, but house cats proliferate, similarly so, re-specialization to quasi horseless carriage power-plant hands motor sports most elite prize, on a silver platter, to Formula E. Humblemost apologies, no gentle way of putting this: the only way's forward, and regeneralization (e.g., as opposed to overspecialization). Suicide, reversion to a retrograde formula at this point in the lifecycle of the internal combustion engine would be indicative of jumping straight into the tar pit - asj.
Ferrari did not want a four cylinder turbo engine. Mercedes did not whine until they got their way. This was a long time coming and everybody had the same lead times, etc. The fact is: some did better than others...that fact is being twisted into revisionist history. Here are some quotes and links (emphasis added by me)... Here is an excerpt from Will Buxton's blog (Screw you Guys, I?m going home | The Buxton Blog)... And this from Christian Horner (Christian Horner calls for new F1 engines in 2016 | Red Bull | Formula 1 news, live F1 | ESPN F1)... And this (Engineering Explained: The Pros And Cons Of Different Engine Types) And this (https://prezi.com/czfc0nxln9mz/how-a-formula-1-engine-works/ (click the "show full transcript" link))
F1 can't afford this engine end of story . The engine is a big mistake f1 is a show nothing more people put money in to the sport to advertising the brands or products . How Many cars does honda sell by open the hood most people buy a car to move from one place two another . People might not like bernie but he has not made many mistakes running f1 he knows what he is talking about and he was against the engine from the start but the car makers thought they new best and now they can't afford to operate there teams ha ha . All car companies are good a counting beans but have no idea how to sell there cars that's why they have dealerships sell them . F1 is lucky to have bernie look at nascar they are now being run by tv companies not the teams or track owners they just let the TV people in new york tell them what's best . Back in the day jim Clark was trying to make ago in nascar because ford would pay him more for nascar race then he could make in f1 . Bernie made f1 a real sport where men could make a living by just working on the cars and drivers had the ability to have a life not die In some infield care center with no
... an insightful conjectural variation we like tinkering around with in scholastic price theory is, "pigs in the box." Given: a). a big piggy (e.g., Formula 1); b). a little piggy (e.g., Formula E); Conditions are: i). they live together in a good sized box (e.g., organized motor sport); ii). at one end of their box is a lever; at the other end a chute; iii). corn won't come out of the chute, if the piggy doesn't pull the lever; Assumptions: 1). pigs are incapable of altruism; 2). the only thing pigs care about is carbohydrates; 3). exiting this box concedes the game; Question is, who wins, the big piggy, or the little piggy? The answer may surprise you. At first, the big piggy (F1) looks upon the little piggy as a minor nuisance. But, pulling the lever he notices, the little piggy scrambling to eat his corn! Predictably over time, the big piggy becomes prone to acting out, experimenting with different strategies to stave off the little piggy (Formula E). That the little piggy lacks incentive to pull the level, nothing ever seems to work. The little piggy gets corn, without ever pulling the lever. And, this angers him. Crux of the dilemma, that he's just not big enough to muscle in, bump the big piggy away at the chute for a cob of corn, that he has zero incentive to exert effort pulling the lever to get corn, best strategy for the little piggy is, don't burn calories. Instead, opting to position himself asleep by the chute, awaiting the big piggy to pull the lever, consuming as much as he can before the big piggy bumps him out of the way, the little piggy boasts what we refer to as, an inherent next mover advantage. Moral of the story is, regression to the mean; weight of the pigs normalizes over time, toward parity. The only pig with incentive to pull the lever is, the big piggy (e.g., F1). No matter what the big piggy does (e.g., sampling dominant strategies), the little piggy sleeps by the chute (e.g., a dependent strategy). Shifting analogies, think of Formula E as a vice, with Ecclestone's head in it. And, the more Ecclestone fidgets, the more experimental he becomes, the more reactionary he becomes, the more he knee-jerks, the more he effort he expends attempting to isolate Formula E, in tandem with the more kilowatts the Formula E people dial into their little cars, the more compression is applied to Bernie's head. Ecclestone's best strategy, playing N+1 (e.g., stay ahead). At this point, opting to stay the course, keep doing what he's doing, pulling the chute, eating as much corn as he can while he still can (e.g., diversification beyond the internal combustion engine; integrating as much Formula E into F1 as humanly possible), the less Ecclestone does with respect to strategy (e.g., continue leading; avoid stage theories; don't try to pick winners; employ his comparative advantage in re-generalization), the better (e.g., why Imperial Japan and National Socialist Germany lost WWII to allied forces, any dominant strategy can be defeated, with a dependent strategy). Though reversion to V10s may seem, on a short term basis, a good idea? Catastrophic mistake analogous to Apple Computer's once proud Michael Spindller, passing on Intel's Pentium processor, opting to stick with Motorola -- handing a technology monopoly to Formula E, on a silver platter, in reversion to V-10 and V-12s, F1 would be committing motor sport suicide. Rise of Formula E; decline and fall of F1 - asj.
I normally watch all sessions, unless I can't make it on the friday...this year I've missed many, and even missed a couple of live GP's (I rewatched them after, but I already knew the winners...which would normally never happen). The sound is a huge thing for me and is a huge part of the spectacle. The racing this year has been quite good, no denying that, but the lack of noise and the quality of little noise there is is horrible. I've said it before and will repeat it here: No one goes to a concert when there's little noise. F1 is the same. Take away the noise, and much fewer people will watch/go to the event. People have been quoting attendance figures for this year to be mostly level with years of last, but next year and the year after will be more telling...also viewing is down over last year IIRC. I'm going to Spa next year, if only it is to see Kimi race on his favorite track in a Ferrari, maybe for the last time, maybe not.
I hope you're right 3mw. For the sake of engineering to say the least. If anything maybe Pir3llis will become more affordable and won't melt away so quickly. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If those involved in the sport can figure out a way to package up and sell something consider it sold.
BE:''I want 24 Cilinders'' Teams: ''**** that, that's ridiculous.V8'' BE: ''V12's then'' Teams: ''fine, lets meet in the middle. V10'' Fans win.
I can understand the whinging about the noise but it is only a part of the show - to say that you walked away because it isn't earsplitting any more is just stupid. We have just finished the best year of racing in I don't know how long - passing from the front to the back of the field! Sure we can go back to the V10's and the racing that bought us - follow the leader and 6 passes per race - all in the pits! I know plenty of people who walked away because of that. Having just seen the other Ian Anderson last night (Jethro Tull for the kiddies in the room) this reminds me of a line from the comic inside Too Old to Rock and Roll: 'I don't know what you are talking about, you've got to stop living in the past!'. As for new engines I don't think the manufacturers will get on board - they have already spent many millions on the current package. I do, however, see an economical solution that will keep the close racing and placate the noise people: invite Bose back (they were a sponsor in the 80's Brabham or Toleman??) install 12 speakers in the back of each car and then pick your mp3 file to appease your fan base! My personal preference would be the best sounding V12 of all time - the last of the BRM's! You could also tailor the sound to the cars performance - Cateram could have the fabulously sounding but underwhelming Techno flat 12! John
No one is saying F1 needs to go back to the exact same specs of the early 2000s. In fact, just about everyone wants V10 + ERS. The only thing that''ll be changed is the engine, all the other overtaking bits will remain. Best year of racing I can't agree...yes we've had fantastic racin this year, much like we have had for the last 5 years. Plenty of overtaking then too. Noise is a big part of the show, same as going to a concert or festival, you don't go there when it's quiet.
Engine configuration is a symptom of F1's problem. While focusing on it may improve the show its a distraction.
If this is all about the sound, why they don't put twin turbos and rise the fuel flow limit? It would be cheaper than startimg from scratch again.
I concur. IMHO F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of high tech racing. Otherwise it's just open wheel NASCAR, a/k/a Indy Car. And, forced induction, small capacity hybrid power plants are the current state of affairs in automobile technology. If I were in charge, the new formula would be 2 liter engines with the teams allowed to select which form of forced induction they want (turbo or supercharged) with hybrid assistance, traction control, launch control, ABS, AWD, movable wings and other high tech innovations such as allowing the engineers in the pits to make adjustments to the cars during the race as needed. Not only would the racing be exciting to watch, the engineers would be even more important to the sport and it would attract a younger fan base that have had iPhones since they were 5 years old. The improvements would trickle down to make our street cars better than ever. For those of us who have been watching F1 for the last 4 decades, we remember such trickle down technology to the cars we drive today in ABS, launch control, carbon brakes, ect.... If fact, the movable turbo vane and carbon brakes improvements of the 90s are in my own DD Turbo-S. Imagine what a 2025 sports car will be like after 10 years of trickle down from such an F1 formula.
The problem with this seasons PUs is not that they are turbo or that they have advanced techniques for energy recovery, storage and release. The problem is that these PUs are a radically different design that is very expensive. And so, to keep costs down, the FIA eliminated testing and development. The die was cast before the season began, and the pecking order changed only marginally during the season. Had testing and development been allowed, Mercedes might have felt some pressure, and races (not necessarily racing) would have been more exciting. While there was lots of compelling competition for places 6-12, it was taking place 30-40 seconds behind the race between Lewis and Nico. The occasions where it was closer at the front came down to tire selection and pit strategy.
... though reversion to V-10s may seem like a good idea? Doing so hands a technology monopoly to Formula E. The very thing Formula E can't do (e.g., diversity) constitutes Formula 1's comparative advantage. Doing the opposite, instead of mandating reversion to homologated V-10s and V-12s, opening F1 up, mandating an opened-engine formula, integrating pure electrics, fuel cells, turbo-diesel hybrids, gasoline hybrids, naturally aspirated hybrids, Indycar engines, WEC engines, WRC engines, be they pure racing engines or stock blocks, diversifies F1 well beyond the function, scope, focus and constraints of Formula E. So many different engines making so many different sounds, nobody's going to complain about that. Will they? When Formula E starts going faster, lookout. Axiom of pure electrics, faster and simpler than gasoline engines, as it is, the only thing Formula E has to do to ratchet down and muscle in on F1 is, dial up the kilowatts. When, in a perfect world, any constructor entering F1 should be free to run the power-plant of their choosing, tyres of their choosing, ECUs of their choosing, as of this writing, they can't. Can they? -- asj.
I watched the Formula E race yesterday and whilst the cars were quick enough, and the actual racing was close enough, the whining noise they made was frankly, bloody annoying! In a 31 lap race they had to use 2 cars each, and people were getting all manner of penalties for doing pit-stops that were too quick!, and for using more power than they were allowed to. [SPOLIER ALERT] Vergne was challenging for the lead when his car ground to a complete halt within @ 20 feet due to having no power left in his batteries! (which is apparently why they have a power usage limit preset, because when the power goes, there's no warning and no gradual slowing down, the car just stops and drivers behind can end up piling into the back of the stopping car ahead!). Did I see this as a possible replacement for F1? - Hell no! There was far too much missing from the atmosphere of the race! The sport is called Formula One, which means that it's a race series run to a defined set of rules designed to encourage close racing. So how is opening up the engine formula to a "run what you like" system going to encourage close racing? It makes it even more possible for a single team to have a big advantage over it's rivals due to it's power-plant and will lead to even more questions as to whether a driver has won due to his ability or his car. With so much engine variation, all you would do is create a lot of confusion and cars driving at even more different levels of performance! (unless you start introducing massively complex engine equality rules to create a more level playing field - And that never works!). They will if one team has such a power-plant advantage that they lap ever other car on the grid in races in every race! You'll lose fans faster than F1 can spend money! Are you talking about the tyre manufacturer of their choice? (that would require more tyre companies wanting to be in F1) Or Are you talking about being able to run the compound of their choosing? (in which case they'll all just run the fastest compound in every race and you end up with a procession!). Because F1 history has shown us that the teams can be trusted 100% with their own ECU's ([cough] Benetton [cough]), and that that they won't run systems that they are not supposed to, or use them to replicate traction control ([cough] Ferrari [cough] ). What should really happen in a "perfect world" is that all of the cars should be closely matched with no big variations in performance between them (unlike what we had this year with Mercedes), and the racing should be close, wheel to wheel action where the drivers make more of a difference than the car they drive - That's what fans want to see! Unfortunately, because the cars are made by more than one constructor, this is very difficult to achieve naturally and so the FIA have to try to force it to happen through tighter and tighter regulations (Why do you think that NASCAR has such close racing? - Because the tight regulations mean that the cars are very, very similar in performance). If you allow teams to simply do whatever they want to do then you do not come up with close racing, you create a series where the whole thing boils down to the old adage: "Speed is just a question of money! - How fast do ya wanna to go?", and the smaller teams will disappear immediately!
They should just let the teams decide to run a V8 or a V10. But i'll be super happy if they do go back. The current bloody V6s are just hopeless.
You have X amount of fuel available, a Y value of maximum flow rate for that fuel, and Z number of engines for the year. What you want to do within those confines you decide. See how simple this is? Some may argue that you would see one team dominate, especially the first season. Sort of like 2014...
You want a green formula? How about limiting the amount of energy a team can use over the season and let them at it?
Limited amount of fuel and number of engines is OK. No need to limit flow, the limit on fuel available takes care of that...flow the fuel too fast for too long and you run out. If someone really wants to increase their fuel flow they will have to reduce it later or run out. If you are going to limit teams to the amount of energy they use to make it more green, it would be counter productive to limit the amount of captured or created energy they use by means of heat or kinetic energy recovery. To limit all energy use would penalize the team that was better able to harvest waste energy. Limits, or a formula like this would actually do exactly what F1 should be doing...unleashing the genius of the F1 designers to find the best system to accomplish the goal. The theoretical output of the PUs, using the same amount of energy in, should be the same, but the implementation would effectively be an efficiency factor that would show which method of using a limited amount of energy resource is most efficient.
Harvested energy needn't be counted. If fact that would be, in effect, double taxation. If in fact EGR systems are worth the weight and complexity they'd prevail. If not they'd be shown to be the less than green approach.
Why limit fuel at all? 100KG or 125KG... who cares? I mean what difference does it make? The 2014 PU was simply too much too soon. It was such a big change and there were bound to be issues. Freezing the PU was the big mistake because all it did was lock everyone in where they were... and it will for 2015 as well. I think this is an unfair advantage for Merc. Yes... they did the best designing the engine, but what's the point of guaranteed winners in F1? If you look at RB's dominance, there were all sorts of things done to slow them down aero-wise. I don't want to slow Merc down... I want others to be able to catch up. The cost savings issue was completely mishandled in every possible way with these new PU's. The freeze was done to cut costs... but that killed competition. The PU"s themselves and the R&D to get them up and running was so riduculously expensive that I doubt anyone saved a penny.. I'm sure it was quite the opposite. So what was gained? Nothing.
Agreed. But this is all predicated on the notion that it is some how F1's responsibility to lead the green revolution in automobiles. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. But, if that is the case, don't be stupid about how you implement it.
