[E90SLAM]

Originally Posted by michaelthepsycho

LOL. I read that too! Mechanical engineering FTW!

I think V8's are the minimum. Anything below that has negative torque between power strokes... Why not just turbo the current V8? Keeping it the same power while reducing the rev limiter? Surely that could save some fuel and reduce emissions...

And...how about making the Turbo available for two "extra boost" each lap (like the GT3 RS (?) or the 335is) for overtake purpose. instead of implement the expensive, heavy, unreliable, and complicated KERS.

[josephr25]

Originally Posted by michaelthepsycho

LOL. I read that too! Mechanical engineering FTW!

I think V8's are the minimum. Anything below that has negative torque between power strokes... Why not just turbo the current V8? Keeping it the same power while reducing the rev limiter? Surely that could save some fuel and reduce emissions...

Your suggestion is unfortunately too brilliant for F1 to grasp.

It's like Steve Matchett's suggestion that instead of switching to V8s, F1 should have just put in air restrictors for their V10s

[Echo M3]

Originally Posted by Kampfer

Your suggestion is unfortunately too brilliant for F1 to grasp.

It's like Steve Matchett's suggestion that instead of switching to V8s, F1 should have just put in air restrictors for their V10s

Or put in serious rev limits (not 18,000 rpm, that is ridiculous). Or they could have put in mandatory mileage requirements (i.e. 20 mpg).

I agree with some of the people here, downgrading again is silly and reduces F1 from its stature as the pinnacle of motorsport. Yes, we want road-relevant technology, but F1 is also about the 'crazy engineering' that differentiates it from GT racing or club car racing.

[josephr25]

Originally Posted by pman10

Or put in serious rev limits (not 18,000 rpm, that is ridiculous). Or they could have put in mandatory mileage requirements (i.e. 20 mpg).

I agree with some of the people here, downgrading again is silly and reduces F1 from its stature as the pinnacle of motorsport. Yes, we want road-relevant technology, but F1 is also about the 'crazy engineering' that differentiates it from GT racing or club car racing.

I'm not against the four cylinders or displacement - we had 1.5 V6's about 30 years ago. I just think that, power-reduction wise, F1 has totally screwed up.

I also stopped believing the hype about F1 (even though I'm going to a race next month), as very little of it has anything to do what we drive. That and, maybe until a couple of years ago, it's the same parade every two weeks. With road racing, people can actually picture themselves driving a Corvette or a Ferrari. Look at some interviews with many motorsport engineers. John Bernard, who was the father of paddle shifting, is not amazed at extracting so much power from an engine, but rather getting more miles per gallon of gasoline; etc... in addition to some engineers who think aerodynamics are the most useless thing to transfer to cars. This last point is exacerbated by the fact that 70-80% of a racecar's performance these days is all about aero.

F1 should be pioneering NEW, RELEVANT technologies that lower classes can adapt. For example, Audi was the first manufactuer to introduce diesels into racing (even though Taurus Sport in 2004 [before Audi] tried to get VW to help them with the same thing).

Maybe I'm just getting old...

[MontegoblueE92]

Originally Posted by Kampfer

This last point is exacerbated by the fact that 70-80% of a racecar's performance these days is all about aero.

F1 should be pioneering NEW, RELEVANT technologies that lower classes can adapt. For example, Audi was the first manufactuer to introduce diesels into racing (even though Taurus Sport in 2004 [before Audi] tried to get VW to help them with the same thing).

Maybe I'm just getting old...

I'm on the complete opposite side on this one. I think F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport. It should have ridiculous engineering and aerodynamics and be miles ahead of every other form of motorsport. Let the GT class cars be relevent to themselves and lower forms of racing. F1 needs to be head and shoulders above the rest. It is a single seater open wheel race car, there's not much that is relevant to other vehicles from that.

And the aero % has gone down in the passed two years. They have higher mechanical grip now due to slicks and reduced downforce.

[gts135]

Originally Posted by Kampfer

in addition to some engineers who think aerodynamics are the most useless thing to transfer to cars. This last point is exacerbated by the fact that 70-80% of a racecar's performance these days is all about aero.

F1 should be pioneering NEW, RELEVANT technologies that lower classes can adapt. For example, Audi was the first manufactuer to introduce diesels into racing (even though Taurus Sport in 2004 [before Audi] tried to get VW to help them with the same thing).

Maybe I'm just getting old...

On the surface, I would agree with your comments, but if you look at the technologies employed in the tools utilized to design F1 cars, I believe there is a lot of knowledge transfer within a manufacturer.

Aero - do road cars benefit from advances in F1? Sure, an F1 car aero is all about balancing downforce vs drag - the principles/software/theories/hardware used to better determine this in F1 trickle down to production cars - but with the balance more towards less drag and less towards downforce. Lots of cars now have cD's of less than 0.3 - almost unheard of a generation ago.

Tires - same thing plus the learnings taken from the chemistry in the tire compounds

Engines - ditto. Now we start adding the leading edge practical application of combustion dynamics, material advancements, FEA modelling basis reliability/weight, etc. that are developed in the lab, fine tuned in F1, and then transformed into use in the design of production cars.

Organization - want to motivate your engineers and put them on almost vertical learning curves? Assign them to the F1 team. Learn more in one season than ten on the assembly line.

Return on Investment - want to develop a new car line? Well, would you rather take a $1B and spread that out over 6 years or 4 before generating a return. I'll take 4, and to do that I need leading edge management of change processes, rapid prototyping, computer design, etc. All things that the F1 pressure cooker teaches and pushes.

Probably many more examples than that if I could type quicker.

[josephr25]

Originally Posted by gts135

On the surface, I would agree with your comments, but if you look at the technologies employed in the tools utilized to design F1 cars, I believe there is a lot of knowledge transfer within a manufacturer.

Aero - do road cars benefit from advances in F1? Sure, an F1 car aero is all about balancing downforce vs drag - the principles/software/theories/hardware used to better determine this in F1 trickle down to production cars - but with the balance more towards less drag and less towards downforce. Lots of cars now have cD's of less than 0.3 - almost unheard of a generation ago.

Tires - same thing plus the learnings taken from the chemistry in the tire compounds

Engines - ditto. Now we start adding the leading edge practical application of combustion dynamics, material advancements, FEA modelling basis reliability/weight, etc. that are developed in the lab, fine tuned in F1, and then transformed into use in the design of production cars.

Organization - want to motivate your engineers and put them on almost vertical learning curves? Assign them to the F1 team. Learn more in one season than ten on the assembly line.

Return on Investment - want to develop a new car line? Well, would you rather take a $1B and spread that out over 6 years or 4 before generating a return. I'll take 4, and to do that I need leading edge management of change processes, rapid prototyping, computer design, etc. All things that the F1 pressure cooker teaches and pushes.

Probably many more examples than that if I could type quicker.

A few years ago McLaren "bragged" about spending $7 million for just a few tenths of a second. I don't see how this translates or benefits a road car. Road cars NEVER need/see this kind of lift and they never really needed F1 principles to teach companies on how to build a low-drag car. Road cars don't need wings and diffusers and vortex generators to keep themselves from flyng off the road.

And like I said earlier, I have read enough motorsport engineer interviews that stated aero is the most worthless thing you can transfer from a race car to road car.

LIke you, I have some other stuff to say, but I can't spend too much time while at work...

Edit: read towards the end of the interview. It was done 14 years ago:

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00222.html

[gts135]

Originally Posted by Kampfer

A few years ago McLaren "bragged" about spending $7 million for just a few tenths of a second. I don't see how this translates or benefits a road car. Road cars NEVER need/see this kind of lift and they never really needed F1 principles to teach companies on how to build a low-drag car. Road cars don't need wings and diffusers and vortex generators to keep themselves from flyng off the road.

And like I said earlier, I have read enough motorsport engineer interviews that stated aero is the most worthless thing you can transfer from a race car to road car.

LIke you, I have some other stuff to say, but I can't spend too much time while at work...

Edit: read towards the end of the interview. It was done 14 years ago:

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00222.html

One may not need the exact principles or design intent that an F1 car needs for aero, but the computer dynamics are the same. Agree you don't need all the F1 gear to keep a street car on the road either - I wasn't implying that. But it's a training ground and great R&D center for those applications. And with ever tightening CAFE standards to meet, aero and mechanical efficiency will grow ever more important.

I think we all know that F1 feeds on itself to a great degree, and not everything is a purely business or practical decision, but there is more than meets the eye at first glance, that's what I'm saying.

[Zoli007]

I cant stand when its said that F1 needs to be road relevant. I agree with some members here that it doesnt.

It should be the absolute highest form of motorsport. I think the best way to do it is this:

There needs to be a policeable budget cap. Now before you scream, keep reading. It should be 150-200 million euro. You and I should not be able to gather a ton of money and race, it should be left to the highest level of people in the world.

Now, given the budget cap. Rules would be reduced to basic safety rules. You want to run a V12? go ahead, Turbo V8, sure. Make a formula for the engine that somewhat equates power, meaning if you run a V12 you're limited to x amount of liters, or of you do turbo then you can only have y liters of displacement, etc...

Then, give them nice big slick tyres so they have good mechanical grip.

The idea with this would be teams and manufactures can go nuts developing whatever they want WITHIN the budget cap. They can compete on the idea that finding the ideal balance between motor, chassis and aero development for the most competitive combo.

Though I love the racing in F1 now, its kind of boring. And I say boring not because the races are boring. Try watching older races when there were only two teams that could compete and the rest were way off their pace.

The fact that there are 4-6 teams that could potentially challenge for a win each weekend is unprecedented. BUT its kind of artificial. There have been so many things standardized that its almost a super high level spec series.

Thats why now everyone copies each other. The cars look VERY similar, as soon as someone has an F duct everyone copies it.

[gts135]

Originally Posted by Zoli007

I cant stand when its said that F1 needs to be road relevant. I agree with some members here that it doesnt.

It should be the absolute highest form of motorsport. I think the best way to do it is this:

There needs to be a policeable budget cap. Now before you scream, keep reading. It should be 150-200 million euro. You and I should not be able to gather a ton of money and race, it should be left to the highest level of people in the world.

Now, given the budget cap. Rules would be reduced to basic safety rules. You want to run a V12? go ahead, Turbo V8, sure. Make a formula for the engine that somewhat equates power, meaning if you run a V12 you're limited to x amount of liters, or of you do turbo then you can only have y liters of displacement, etc...

Then, give them nice big slick tyres so they have good mechanical grip.

The idea with this would be teams and manufactures can go nuts developing whatever they want WITHIN the budget cap. They can compete on the idea that finding the ideal balance between motor, chassis and aero development for the most competitive combo.

Though I love the racing in F1 now, its kind of boring. And I say boring not because the races are boring. Try watching older races when there were only two teams that could compete and the rest were way off their pace.

The fact that there are 4-6 teams that could potentially challenge for a win each weekend is unprecedented. BUT its kind of artificial. There have been so many things standardized that its almost a super high level spec series.

Thats why now everyone copies each other. The cars look VERY similar, as soon as someone has an F duct everyone copies it.

Wouldn't it be neat to see the likes of the Tyrell P34 show up. Don't think it will happen. Or the vacuum car - that was a Brabham? Chapparal had one but not F1 of course.

[JAJ]

Originally Posted by Kampfer

This has proven to be a rumor. From Racecar Engineering, Aug. 2009:

"Ulrich Baretzky of Audi Motorsport worked on BMW's Formula 1 engines in the early 1980s and rolls his eyes at the suggestion: 'We kept being asked this,' he recalls, 'and it wasn't true. But Paul Rosche became curious, so we tried it.' They built up an engine around an old road car block and tested it on the dyno to see what would happen. 'it didn't even get warm before it blew up,' recalls Baretzky." So, the M12/3 did start with a BMW production block, however; just not a used one.

Thanks for correcting me!