When a rule change doesn't allow something anymore, that's called getting banned. A turbo V10 would be superior to a turbo V6, with all else being equal. Ferrari went from a V12 to a V10 because of it's superior characteristics.
No, that's a rules change. They change all the time in all venues of auto racing. When you show up with a car, that is within the parameters of the rules, and it's not allowed to run, that's a ban. (The "twin chassied" Lotus 88 in 1981 is the most recent that comes to mind in F1.)
I see you have trouble understanding the English language as well. lol https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban
Ummmmmm....no. Not at all. I was a part time proofreader for a publishing company (among other things) for a time right out of high school. An additional part of language includes the context in which words are used, not just their definition. Getting waaayyy off topic here (The best driver of all time...)..... As in the instance above, a ban would be the dis-allowance of something that was created in accordance with the rules, such as the case of the '88 which was (your) "legal" for the FIA to do. That's a ban in sports. (unlike the Mercedes DAS not being banned for this year...it's within the rules) A rules change, would be kin to the allowing Mercedes DAS this year, as it fits the rules; but changing the rules for next year as it would not be acceptable within said rules. Context is key.
Correct. A rule change banned rotary engines after Mazda's 1991 victory. Non-rotary teams argued that the rotary engine had a displacement advantage. There were arguments over how displacement should be calculated for the rotary engine.
That's your interpretation. Rules delimit the parameters designers have to work with. The V10 was adopted at the time as a compromise between V12 and V8. There is no way a NA V10 could be superior to a V6 turbo in efficiency and power delivery. Beside, apart from having a shorter crankshaft and less moving parts (less vibrations), a V6 is easier to package with simpler exhaust system.
My definition of a ban is "disciplinary exclusion for having flouted the rules". If the rules didn't exist, they couldn't be transgressed. The authorities simply re-write the rules to be more specific about what's allowed. The layman calls that a "ban".
You obviously can't compare a turbo to a non-turbo engine. That wasn't what I said. And you can turbocharge anything, from a thumper to a 16 cylinder. F1 uses the V6 configuration now because it's mandated by the rules. The V10 was proved to be the superior configuration. A V6 with the same displacement could have been used during that time period, but were not because they wouldn't have had the same power output.
Agreed, but I still prefer 12's sounds. Preferably Ferraris and.......oooooohhhhh........the Matraaas........... Image Unavailable, Please Login
DAS got banned even before running (assuming no racing this year). Murry's fan car BT 46B did not get banned, but would have if it ran more than one race. Active suspension got banned. Slip control got banned. .....
Well, here against, that is an interpretation of the word ban. If the cars showing DAS, active suspension or slip control had been forbidden to enter the track as soon as their technical solutions were uncovered by the marshalls, and never allowed to race, I would call that a ban, as in instant disqualification. But I believe it wasn't the case. The rule makers were made aware of new technical solutions they never knew existed, and they revised the rulebook to prevent them being used IN FUTURE. In the case of DAS it's still perfectly legal, the FIA hasn't banned it. The jobs of the engineers is to explore solutions that are not prohibited by the rules. Tyrrell surprised everyone when he introduce his 6-wheel car, but there was nothing the FIA could do, so they let him race, and later changed the rules to make it illegal to race with more than 4 wheels. Same for the Brabham fan car, and other gimmicks. IMO, all these restrictions make F1 less interesting.
I know I bore people to death, but, IndyCar already exists with it's identical kit car (the DW12, this would have been it's 12th year, iirc) for those that aren't interested in the pinnacle of auto racing being whatm it was always meant to be. IndyCar puts on that "good" (chorographed close) racing that so many want, so why not just go there? Leave F1 to us that enjoy the technical achievement that F1 USED TO be so proud of before the masses didn't get it. Cars stagnantly designed 12 years ago, identical parts (as per the regs.) does make for that great show. Enjoy.
(psssttt...not gimmicks....innovation, same as ground effects, active suspension, first wings in the in the late '60s...) Less interesting indeed. I know I bore people to death, but, IndyCar already exists with it's identical kit car, the Dallara DW12 (Dan Wheldon 12), this would have been (still may be, and more to come?) it's 9th year (2012-2020), for those that aren't interested in the pinnacle of auto racing being what it was always meant to be, a display of technology. IndyCar puts on that "good" (chorographed close) racing that so many want, so why not just go there? Leave F1 to us that enjoy the technical achievement that F1 USED TO be so proud of before the masses didn't get it. Cars stagnantly designed 10 years ago with identical parts and body work (as per the regs.) does make for that great show that so many seem to want.....dang well ought to all being the same. Enjoy.
I'd have to agree with William's definition of ""disciplinary exclusion for having flouted the rules" in the case of the rotary at Lemans, and therefore, due to other teams' whining the new rules were put in place no longer allowing that engine type. Mazda did not circumvent the rules in any way, shape, or form. And it's quite funny too as that engine was underpowered vs the competition.
The first wings for race cars were used by Texan Jim Hall's Chaparrals, competing in the SCCA Can-Am Series. Hall also developed side mounted radiators, composite monocoque chassis, and semi-automatic transmissions. The 1970 Chaparral 2J was the first race car to use sliding skirts, and powered fans for constant downforce at any speed. Later copied by Gordon Murray for the Brabham BT46B. The Gurney Flap was first used in Indycar. Slick tires came from American drag racing to Indycar, then to F1.
No quite correct. Michael[1] May (born 18 August 1934 in Stuttgart, Germany]) is a former racing driver from Switzerland. May is generally credited with introducing the first manipulated elevated wing onto a racing car - a Porsche 550 - to produce downforce (or down thrust) for enhanced braking and cornering speeds to reduce lap times. https://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+May+porsche&oq=Michael+May+porsche&aqs=chrome..69i57.19887j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Jim Hall copied it.
The Porsche, as william stated, had the fixed wing first. I was talking about innovation in F1. You're also forgetting Jim's 67 BOAC 500 winner, the 2F, along with your Can Am 2E & 2G movable wingers. . Any who, all that's old news.
Post up some proof that Jim Hall Copied Michael May. Fact: Chapman (F1 Innovation Lorenzo) got the idea from him Hall's Chaparrals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Chapman
You wrote that "the first wings on race cars were used by by Texan Jim Hall's Chaparrals, competing in the SCCA Can-Am Series." That's not true. Michael May introduced the concept first in Germany back in early 60s, before CanAm existed. I don't need to post anything more than the link I gave. Do some research, it's well documented !!
