Jump to content

The Formula 1 Thread

Nick_L

By Nick_L,
in Sport

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sidewaysbob

Sidewaysbob

Posted
Posted

because it's always been the case that you can'y have a bit of the body work moving whicst the car is moving. Because it's an aero advantage.

Ever since Porsche built the 917 in 1970, which had a wing that moved up and down with the suspension.

To be honest i don't know why they baned moving bits, but that did. Probably on safety grounds. Moving bits get loose and fly off type stuff.

But designers have been doing it for years. Back in 2001 (i think) Ferrari got accused of having a complete underbody that flexed aboutthe centre. this effectively created a ground effect car. With skirts closing off the air bleed at the sides of the bosy work. The FIA could never prove that is was happening, so Schumacher kept on winning.

For the last few years Audi having been running a wing in ALMS that flexes to close off the gap between the end plates and body work. gives them more stability at 200mph.

I think Ferrari have been pretty clever. The TV camera showes the wing moving in and out on what loks like a stud. As the areo downforse builds up, reducing drag. There's some clever thinking gone into that. trust me. i think other teams knew the wings flexed at high speed, but didn't design the system to use it to an advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dam_aks

dam_aks

Posted
Posted

I agree on everything except the manual box and clutch. Whilst they were introduced to make things easier for the drivers, they've also allowed amazing advances in engines and going back to a manual box would mean engines slower and revving lower than CART, GP2 and A1GP and I don't think anyone really wants that. The sound is one of the best things about an F1 car.

I think the offset in car control and showing who really has the mad skills would more than make up for this sound though.

And I'm sure a nice modern V12 turbo would sing :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burai

Burai

Posted
Posted

Nuff said then surely? it's all about gaining any advantage to win isn't it?

No. It's circumventing the rules which were imposed to reduce the risk of a driver being killed when a flexing wing failed. Once the other teams found out it would only be a matter of time before they all started developing their own flexers and it would only be a matter of time before one team took it too far and people started suffering wing failures.

The FIA have studied onboard camera footage from the past two races and have ordered Ferrari, McLaren and BMW Sauber to make changes to their wings in time for the Australian GP. If they don't comply, they will face serious penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick_L

Nick_L

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Its a tricky argument this really.

Im all for close racing thats more exciting, but as Forumla 1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, its about the technology of the machinery as well as the skill of the driver.

I remember Ron Dennis talking in 1998 about the 3rd brake pedal they had on the McLaren, he mentioned "we found a way to improve the car within the rules, and all that a rival team to do by means of a response is to try and find a way to have it banned, rather than rise to the technical challenge" I think thats a valid point, but what goes around comes around eh..

Im totally for legalised Traction Control and Launch Nontrol at the moment, because it creates a level playing field. It would be so easy (WAS so easy) for teams to hide TC/LC software within their engine electronics that it was impossible to detect, they had to legalise it to make things "fair"

To ban all driver aids the FIA would have to introduce standard electronics, but they we would just start to end up with 20-odd cars that are essentially exactly the same, and to me, thats not what F1 is all about.

Technology comes and goes in F1 - Turbo's, Active Suspension, Traction Control, 2-Way Telemetry, Ground Effect. The FIA always come up with a solution to try and reduce the benefit. I remember in the late 1980's, the Turbo cars has such an advantage that the FIA introduced a "Pop-Off Valve" to reduce the amount of boost a Turbo engine could run, and also imposed a fiel restriction on the turbo runners to close the gap between them and the non-turbo teams. They predicted that the non-turbo runners would have the advantage that season, but the engine manufacturers just improved the design of the engines, and made them more fuel efficient, and they still dominated.

They keep banning things and changing the rules, but the cars still get faster in time - its amazing really, and all part of the attraction of F1 IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveH

SteveH

Posted
Posted

I must be in the minority here I guess. I always look upon F1 being the pinnacle of motorsport. Which is completely different from the current "let's make a car as fast as we can while sidelining all the petty changes they bring in to artificially slow the card down" attitude.

It's ridiculous to be honest. As Martin Brundle pointed out, the Ferraris looked quite spectacular slipstreaming up behind other cars and whizzing past. Made it more exciting than them all overtaking in the pits that's for sure.

I think with the huge run off areas that nearly all tracks have these days, that surely more risky options for speed could be toyed with without anyone putting their lives at risk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Christoph84

Christoph84

Posted
Posted

It is all dependant on what you want from motorsport. An F1 car is undoubtedly the fastest way to get round a track. Traction control, aerodynamics, large run offs etc are all required to achieve this. The problem is that these remove the spectacle. I fear this will always be the case as long as F1 is more about the engineering challenge than the racing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mexos

mexos

Posted
Posted

if the FIA didnt keep pegging back the performance, a 2006 F1 car would now be able to corner at speeds far in excess of what the human body can take - wihout help. it would also doing 300+mph down the straights. we'd have drivers wearing fighter pilots style G suits just to stop them blacking out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrPogo

MrPogo

Posted
Posted

if the FIA didnt keep pegging back the performance, a 2006 F1 car would now be able to corner at speeds far in excess of what the human body can take - wihout help. it would also doing 300+mph down the straights. we'd have drivers wearing fighter pilots style G suits just to stop them blacking out.

You say that like it would be a bad thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sidewaysbob

Sidewaysbob

Posted
Posted

isn't that the race Carpontier died in.

He blacked out in turn 2 and didn't stop turning in, ended up hititng hte wall at some horrendious spped on the in field.

Anyway

It's the aero bits that are stopping the drivers from racing. Time and again the sriver gets the car up behind the car in front. Only to then lose 10 metres as his car over steers round the next long left or right. the circuits have been changed (or designed now) to have long straights and sharp corners to try and encourage overtaking.

the German circuit being a rpime example of a great long flowing track, turning into a series of long strights and dinky corners.

I think Spa is being canned because they'll never be allowed to change it into some euro disney track all flat and boring.

Ban wings front and rear, big fat sticky tires and and steel break discs.

Jobs a good'un

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dam_aks

dam_aks

Posted
Posted

If there isn't a wall within two meters of the track then I'm not interested.

I don't want to see people die, but at the same time what they are pumping to our TV's right now really does not look like F1 should.

And apparently they want to freeze engine technology.

I think they should appoint me to turn this sport around, people want danger!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Nick_L

Nick_L

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I read this on itv-f1 this morning.

They are reporting that he has left rather than been suspended. Toyota have invested a massive amount into their F1 program, im sure the big cheeses were expecting a bigger / better return on the investment. Its not come so somethings got to give somewhere. They did ok last year, but have been dissapointing in 2006 so far, Australia aside.

Probably cant sack the drivers, so sack the designer instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigbadwolf

bigbadwolf

Posted
Posted

I'm surprised, I thought he was Toyota's best guy. With such a large budget, I'd have thought they'd be targetting better drivers (especially with the new quali setup negating some of one-lap Trulli's usefulness). Haven't their problems in the first two races this year been down to not being able to get enough heat/grip into the Bridgestones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick_L

Nick_L

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Im suprised as well, he has a pretty solid reputation in F1 as mentioned, and he certainly turned Jordan around in '98 - went from also-rans to race winners and 4th in the constructors championship in half a season, got to be good !

Im sure its just a case of the big-cheeses kicking off, and something had to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sidewaysbob

Sidewaysbob

Posted
Posted

I think i read somewhere that Gasgoyne had never actually designed a car that won. He's always left the year before the teams win. He turns the teams from no hopers into contenders, but not actually winners.

but I could be wrong. I'm sure the year Frentzen was at Jordan, they were challenging for the championship because of good consistant finishes. Not wins. Hills win at Spa being Jordans only win.

Or it might be that he's never actaully designed a whole car that won. It was all other people work that he inherited or tuned. That Toyota was the first team to give him a bag of money and told him to get on with it.

I've never thought of him as a Byne or Newey. Not even a Patric Head type. Also Sam Neal, i wonder what anyone see's in all those Ex Jordan people

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick_L

Nick_L

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think i read somewhere that Gasgoyne had never actually designed a car that won. He's always left the year before the teams win. He turns the teams from no hopers into contenders, but not actually winners.

but I could be wrong. I'm sure the year Frentzen was at Jordan, they were challenging for the championship because of good consistant finishes. Not wins. Hills win at Spa being Jordans only win.

He designed the '99 Jordan IIRC.

Frentzen won the French and Italian GP's that year, and consistantly finished in the points / on the podium. Hill had a few points finishes before retiring at the end of the season.

Jordan also won the 2003 Brazilian GP with Fisichella, but that was down to the weather conditions and the amount of retirements.

Check me out with all this Jordan knowledge <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mexos

mexos

Posted
Posted

i wouldnt be surprised to find that MG had his hands tied behind his back when it comes to major descisions - from day one. no doubt a lot of shit will come out in the coming weeks.

he'll get snapped up quick enough by another outfit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick_L

Nick_L

Posted
  • Author
Posted

he'll get snapped up quick enough by another outfit.

Wihtout a doubt.

It'll be interesting to see who picks him up.

In other F1 news :

Michael Schumacher is being tipped to continue driving in 2007 and beyond, with reports linking him to Renault as well as staying with Ferrari

Link

Reckon we'll be seeing hook up with his old mate Flav for one last championship challenge then ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept