F1 ENI MAGYAR NAGYDÍJ 2012: RACE *** SPOILERS ***

Belated happy birthday, Is! My wife's was yesterday also.

 

Do you believe that the prevailing mood in F1 encourages innovation?

 

Ian:
the Danny360 is reference to the 1985 Indianapolis win by Sullivan after spinning the car in the short chute between 1 and 2 just after taking the lead and continuing on. He went on to win the race.

http://youtu.be/W7tuBeLL0wg

 

No ****!

Seriously, and I haven't checked, but maybe that's the problem? - Syntax checkers (outside of computer coding) are in my limited experience pretty poor and easily fooled. Doesn't anyone proof read anymore?

Cheers,
Ian

 

Awesome! Thanks!...... She is *good*

Cheers,
Ian

 

Another one I could argue both ways...... For sure, the rules are pretty restrictive these days and tend to limit innovation - At least the type "we" can see. But under the hood they're all pushing (innovating?) for that elusive 1/10th of a second or so.

The playing field is pretty damn level these days - Even with the rose tinteds on no one can really argue the racing's not closer than it's ever been - Even DRS & KERS hasn't made passing too easy, as it should be IMO.

Are they sacrificing racing for the sake of the show? Possibly - But if it's close racing you're looking for, they've certainly given us that.

Cheers,
Ian

 

They nibble at the margins. Any real innovation is crushed.
You've been around long enough to remember what true innovation is.

 

Thankyou. [I think ]

I certainly hear you. And agree (!) to an extent.

However, if we look back we could argue that "crushing" innovation has *always* happened in F1 - Off the top of my head;

- Brabhams fan car.
- Colins "twin chassis" car.
- Active suspension.
- Sliding skirts.
- Adjustable aero (Thankyou Jim Hall)
- Ride height "adjusters"
- Water cooled brakes (Always loved that one! )

And on & on. It's just more "subtle" these days maybe?

Cheers,
Ian

 

Refresh my memory. What was the last bit of innovatitive tech that a team devised which wasn't eventually banned?

 

Good question!

How about flappy paddle gearboxes? According to many, an innovation that *should* be banned of course.

OTOH, I think the keyword is *eventually*. Brawn's DD pretty much won 'em the title. Arguably, Adrian's EBD did the same. Both were eventually outlawed, but not until their benefits had been reaped by the innovator.......

Cheers,
Ian

 

How awesome would that be. Manual shifting gearboxes again, I would be completely for it. Who knows, maybe Ferrari will actually man-up then and make a road-going manual gearbox again, instead of the gurlay man paddles. Paddles belong in the bedroom, not a Ferrari. Just my .000000002

 

I'll grant you flappy paddles but there was a lot of other tech introduced at the same time that was banned.
DDs and EBDs won single teams championships titles but were banned before they could be developed into anything remotely usefull for road cars. So much for F1 the crucible of high tech devoted to improving the breed.

 

In a road car where the point of diminishing returns, velocity wise, was reached years ago a trad box is much more satisfying. In F1 FPs are faster and therefore belong.

BTW I love the bedroom comment. I think I'll steal it

 

I don't really understand the gripes about the gearboxes. It's not like pulling back on a sequential shifter is any harder than pulling a paddle. They wouldn't bring back true H-pattern boxes, this isn't the 70s...

 

I think that's exactly what's being missed by some. Most of the skill related with shifting is gone with the auto boxes whether they're activated by lever or paddle.
One reason they may have escaped the tech ban is that they make overreving and the engine loss that often accomponied it a thing of the past. I guess new tech is OK as long as it saves money.

 

In best John Cleese voice;

"OK. Apart from flappy paddles, carbon fiber, downforce & reduced drag, what has F1 ever done for us?!"



Wankers!........

Cheers,
Ian

 

+1

Cheers,
Ian

 

Carbon fiber came from aerospace, downforce and reduced drag are effects not technology.
My point is that F1 the supposed source of technical innovation has a history of outlawing innovation. It's priority is putting on a good show by encouraging parity.

 

+1

I guess my point is that outlawing innovation in F1 is nothing new.

It is, always has been, and I hope will remain;

- The fastest way to get round a road course.
- A *formula*.

I'm not sure how much it's been a source of technical innovation, applicable to road cars, for many years.

One could argue that road cars are *way* beyond what they're allowed to do - We have traction control, stability control, etc etc that they're not allowed to use. Should they? Would the racing be "better"? [I dunno the answers btw.....]

Cheers,
Ian

 

It's been a long while since F1 tech has improved the breed but it's a bit hypocritical to sell the sport as the acme of raceing tech and stifle innovation.

 

Sorry! My obviously poor attempt at injecting some levity by (mis)quoting Cleese's speech in Life of Bryan. ["What have have the Romans ever done for us?" ]

An understanding of drag/DF etc has made its way to road cars though.

Are they selling it as that? They remain the highest tech cars. They continue to push the boundaries, both of the rules and technology IMO. I don't see the banning of Merc's super DRS (next year, and what started us down this path!) as stifling technology - It was a neat idea & declared legal. But the gains it provided are limited at best and it could have developed into an expensive blind alley. Nice try, but no great loss in the scheme of things.

I think (unfortunately) most of the innovation today is in the factories; Wind tunnels, CFD, big ass simulators etc; No testing forced 'em that direction.

One could also argue that KERS is the latest "big" innovation - I'm sure the manufacturers are learning lots from it too - They're pushing these things pretty hard today and I'm a little surprised we haven't seen more of 'em blow up TBH. Even "we" seem to have calmed down about it - Just another button on the wheel as Kimi noted.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Blessed are the cheesemakers indeed.

Yes F1 (and the FIA in particular) still bills itself as the cutting edge of automotive tech and as providing relevant tech for production cars.
Personally I think that the sport would be better served by allowing the teams to innovate more and if fewer PR gimmicks like KERS were forced on them.
If you want a "green" sport set emission standards and let them each find the fastest tech that meets them. Then we could see some new ideas that might actually have mass market applications.

 

I disagree. The MB DRS has potential but will never be developed fully now that it has been squashed. It is/was an innovative bit of kit. It may have never paid dividends and be, as you say, a blind alley. But that should be for the teams and engineers to decide if they want to pursue it. It isn't a safety issue. It hasn't proven to be an "unfair" (whatever that means when you are trying to build a better machine) advantage as yet. Some would chose to try and incorporate next year and others wouldn't.

As Viz says - "...it's a bit hypocritical to sell the sport as the acme of raceing tech and stifle innovation."

F1 is WAY too restrictive. The formula change for 2014 could have offered a new chance to let innovation run wild by setting a more open spec based on fuel flow or fuel consumption and let the engineers figure it out - 4, 6, 8, 10 cylinders? Turbo? Who knows! Instead we will have essentially cookie cutter engines and cars again. More like a spec series than an innovative one.

Heck - why not bring on the sprinkler button?!?!

 

Tech that fails eliminates itself. You only have to ban the stuff that works.

 

I do believe F1 is indeed that.

I've just poked around on their site and am not seeing that.

+1

However, the "problem" with that approach is costs would skyrocket again. I think they're (slowly) moving in the right direction; Small capacity turbo's with a fuel flow restriction is a start.

I don't know about today, but back "when" the DFV apparently passed all CA emissions regulations - It was damn efficient. OTOH, do we want our F1 cars to sprout cats? [Seems Ferrari can't build one that lasts in a road car, what chance have they got with F1! ]

I can certainly argue give 'em a fuel flow limit (which will be reduced over the years) and let 'em at it - # of cylinders, configuration and even size is up to you. But again, costs would go crazy.

As I said, as long as they remain the quickest things on 4 wheels I'm at least relatively happy.

Cheers,
Ian