WTH is wrong with the FIA?
10-28-04, 06:21 PM
#27
ERTW
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doridori, if you would have read my post, i wasn't talking JUST about the speed of F1. that is definetly an element of the sport, but i was more emphasizing the technology, perfection, and driver skill. can you show me a car that can get around the Suzuka circuit with a faster lap time than a Formula 1 Ferrari? i didn't think so.
even though there is a lot of technology involved, it all contributes to the cars going faster and the driver's skills being amplified. it's also another reason that top CART drivers go over into Formula 1. even then, just because you are top in CART or Formula 3 or whatever, doesn't mean you will succeed in Formula 1.
any way you cut it, the whole point is that these are THE best drivers in the world. of course i'm sure that Micheal Schumacher wouldn't start winning races right away in, say, dirt track racing (lol, or something wierd), but that is kind of a weird argument, and the fact is hundreds of millions of people watch F1 and not dirt track racing...
even though there is a lot of technology involved, it all contributes to the cars going faster and the driver's skills being amplified. it's also another reason that top CART drivers go over into Formula 1. even then, just because you are top in CART or Formula 3 or whatever, doesn't mean you will succeed in Formula 1.
any way you cut it, the whole point is that these are THE best drivers in the world. of course i'm sure that Micheal Schumacher wouldn't start winning races right away in, say, dirt track racing (lol, or something wierd), but that is kind of a weird argument, and the fact is hundreds of millions of people watch F1 and not dirt track racing...
10-28-04, 10:57 PM
#29
I Post Mad Quick Yo!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Markham, Ont. Can.
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by racerjason
Some good points in this thread and some terribly uninformed ones also... I'll keep my p's and q's to myself.
doridori-rx7, where do I start.. on second thought I wont even start. Just stop posting before you make an even bigger fool of yourself...
Oh and by the way... I believe you will find this: "My washing machine is the most advanced in the world.. it's still boring and does the same thing as less expensive and less pertentious washing machines... speed is overrated, all it means is..." In the dictionary under fallacy. Unless that was a joke.. in which case, I had a good laugh.
As far as Cart goes I'll say this. Currently that series is a Joke. Emphasis on currently, because it seems to be headed in the right direction. Jason knows more on this tipic then I would. I do still feel that it has lost allot of focus as a series, but that could be attributed to all the financial struggles they have had. You cant have teams deciding whats best for the sport in my opinion, because whats best for the sport is not always best for the teams. There is often a conflict of interest. Case in point, even with all the people kicking and screaming about where F1 is headed, the series is the biggest and best it has ever been. Yes the racing could use some work but anyone who knows anything about F1 can vouch for the fact that without Ferrari, there would be no whining about dominance as the rest of the teams were shuffled around nicely behind them. That and I think that Cart's moving to a one make chassis was a downfall, not a plus. The Lolas were designed partly to be a more budget conscious chassis (read as cheap and outdated) and were under researched and under designed. I mean ****!, the Atlantics were making more downforce with a better COD, and a higher cornering speed then the Champ cars until the series regulated them down just so that the Champ cars could claim to have the highest ratings. But again it all goes back to financial issues. Now the one make engine idea on the other hand was a good decision, I will agree. You ask any young race driver, if they could race in any series in the world, what they would aim for. I'll give you a dollar for every one that gives Champ Car as there first choice. Its a washed up series right now and it will be hard to get back to a glorious status with the IRL still operating as a separate organization. Hard but not impossible. There is no clear cut path for talented drivers to go.
The tracks they are racing on are not the greatest either but thats not their fault. A bunch of beat up old unmaintained race track is the definition of racing in North America. Its no wonder we are loosing all are good drivers to Europe. But thats a story for another day. Just look how long it took them to get back the US Grand Prix, despite the fact that the US market is one of the most important in the world for 90% of the sponsors in F1.
I cant say that im all for the changes being made to F1 either, but hey, you take what is delt to you and make the best of it. F1 will continue to be the greatest racing series in the world and dont worry. Im sure a few generations from now there will be someone else posting about how they are limiting the engine RMPs to 30,000 or the Hp to 1500 something and everyone will start crying again. I love it when people come in a shake things up like that and I cant wait to see what happens.
Oh an by the way. A budget Cap is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Its a bandaid that wouldn't even last the offseason. Who is gonna stop the teams from doing R&D. A 24h Chaperone?.. Its impossible. you limit this, the teams will move more money to that. It will always be the team with the most money that gets the full package sooner then everyone else. I say filter the weak and let the strong survive. There will always be some fool willing to try his hand at F1, and buy out Manardi or any other back marker for that matter. I don't think we will ever have to worry about a shortage of teams any time soon.
Hmm.. I'm sure I missed something. Oh well, I'll be back on Monday. But you wait and see. Next year will be different...
Last edited by Mld>7; 10-28-04 at 11:08 PM.
10-29-04, 08:59 AM
#30
Rotary Freak
Oh, lord I have been trying to stay quiet but it is really hard with all of the misinformation. Just a couple of points right now. OWRS is not a Lola spec series. There are 2 teams running Reynards. The Lola and Reynard chassis were designed new for the 2003 year (or updated with chassis kits) and development was controlled in a few key areas. The cars have continued to be developed since then. The only spec areas are wings and motors and these areas were made "spec" at the request of the entering teams to stabilize costs during a transition period. Most of the big name teams moved over to IRL for 2 reasons, manufacturers money (Honda, Toyota) that was key to their existance and tobacco legislation that limited tobacco companies to advertising in only one venue (Marlboro Penske) and the Indianapolis 500. Just wait until Toyota throws most of their money into NASCAR, half of the IRL teams will wither away.
Secondly, anyone over the age of 25 will remember the latest "golden age" of F1. Back in the late '80's through 93 - 94, F1 had too many teams trying to qualify for the races. Quite often a dozen or so cars would be going home. The technology spread was incredible and the racing/ passing was incredible as Turbo 4/ 6's cars mixed it up with V12s, V10s, V8s and even a couple of bizarre W and H 16's. The Japanese housing bubble burst, their economy contracted severely and a lot of the money supporting F1 disappeared. A bunch of smaller teams disappeared overnight. F1 today is a marketing effort centered around a technology show. It is designed to provide just enough money to the teams to make it worth their while to compete, provide venues for cigarette/ auto manufacturers/ et al companies to advertise their products and primarily to put money into Bernie Ecclestone and his cronies pockets. This is why the people carrying the financial load (the auto manufacturers) are breaking away. They need more of the money that presently goes into Bernies pockets to offset their expenditures. They dont like the marginalization of the venues to areas outside of their customer areas (Turkey, Russia, Malaysia,etc...) to allow cigarette companies to advertise. Bernie and Max adjusted the rules a number of years ago to attract manufacturers to F1 and now they are paying the price with rising costs about to limit the grid to about 12 cars.
As another example read up on how Bernie and the FIA killed the old Group C world endurance series for how short sighted these geniuses are and are really only interested in putting money into their own pockets.
Secondly, anyone over the age of 25 will remember the latest "golden age" of F1. Back in the late '80's through 93 - 94, F1 had too many teams trying to qualify for the races. Quite often a dozen or so cars would be going home. The technology spread was incredible and the racing/ passing was incredible as Turbo 4/ 6's cars mixed it up with V12s, V10s, V8s and even a couple of bizarre W and H 16's. The Japanese housing bubble burst, their economy contracted severely and a lot of the money supporting F1 disappeared. A bunch of smaller teams disappeared overnight. F1 today is a marketing effort centered around a technology show. It is designed to provide just enough money to the teams to make it worth their while to compete, provide venues for cigarette/ auto manufacturers/ et al companies to advertise their products and primarily to put money into Bernie Ecclestone and his cronies pockets. This is why the people carrying the financial load (the auto manufacturers) are breaking away. They need more of the money that presently goes into Bernies pockets to offset their expenditures. They dont like the marginalization of the venues to areas outside of their customer areas (Turkey, Russia, Malaysia,etc...) to allow cigarette companies to advertise. Bernie and Max adjusted the rules a number of years ago to attract manufacturers to F1 and now they are paying the price with rising costs about to limit the grid to about 12 cars.
As another example read up on how Bernie and the FIA killed the old Group C world endurance series for how short sighted these geniuses are and are really only interested in putting money into their own pockets.
10-29-04, 11:46 AM
#31
Originally Posted by 23Racer
Oh, lord I have been trying to stay quiet but it is really hard with all of the misinformation. Just a couple of points right now. OWRS is not a Lola spec series. There are 2 teams running Reynards. The Lola and Reynard chassis were designed new for the 2003 year (or updated with chassis kits) and development was controlled in a few key areas. The cars have continued to be developed since then. The only spec areas are wings and motors and these areas were made "spec" at the request of the entering teams to stabilize costs during a transition period. Most of the big name teams moved over to IRL for 2 reasons, manufacturers money (Honda, Toyota) that was key to their existance and tobacco legislation that limited tobacco companies to advertising in only one venue (Marlboro Penske) and the Indianapolis 500. Just wait until Toyota throws most of their money into NASCAR, half of the IRL teams will wither away.
Secondly, anyone over the age of 25 will remember the latest "golden age" of F1. Back in the late '80's through 93 - 94, F1 had too many teams trying to qualify for the races. Quite often a dozen or so cars would be going home. The technology spread was incredible and the racing/ passing was incredible as Turbo 4/ 6's cars mixed it up with V12s, V10s, V8s and even a couple of bizarre W and H 16's. The Japanese housing bubble burst, their economy contracted severely and a lot of the money supporting F1 disappeared. A bunch of smaller teams disappeared overnight. F1 today is a marketing effort centered around a technology show. It is designed to provide just enough money to the teams to make it worth their while to compete, provide venues for cigarette/ auto manufacturers/ et al companies to advertise their products and primarily to put money into Bernie Ecclestone and his cronies pockets. This is why the people carrying the financial load (the auto manufacturers) are breaking away. They need more of the money that presently goes into Bernies pockets to offset their expenditures. They dont like the marginalization of the venues to areas outside of their customer areas (Turkey, Russia, Malaysia,etc...) to allow cigarette companies to advertise. Bernie and Max adjusted the rules a number of years ago to attract manufacturers to F1 and now they are paying the price with rising costs about to limit the grid to about 12 cars.
As another example read up on how Bernie and the FIA killed the old Group C world endurance series for how short sighted these geniuses are and are really only interested in putting money into their own pockets.
Secondly, anyone over the age of 25 will remember the latest "golden age" of F1. Back in the late '80's through 93 - 94, F1 had too many teams trying to qualify for the races. Quite often a dozen or so cars would be going home. The technology spread was incredible and the racing/ passing was incredible as Turbo 4/ 6's cars mixed it up with V12s, V10s, V8s and even a couple of bizarre W and H 16's. The Japanese housing bubble burst, their economy contracted severely and a lot of the money supporting F1 disappeared. A bunch of smaller teams disappeared overnight. F1 today is a marketing effort centered around a technology show. It is designed to provide just enough money to the teams to make it worth their while to compete, provide venues for cigarette/ auto manufacturers/ et al companies to advertise their products and primarily to put money into Bernie Ecclestone and his cronies pockets. This is why the people carrying the financial load (the auto manufacturers) are breaking away. They need more of the money that presently goes into Bernies pockets to offset their expenditures. They dont like the marginalization of the venues to areas outside of their customer areas (Turkey, Russia, Malaysia,etc...) to allow cigarette companies to advertise. Bernie and Max adjusted the rules a number of years ago to attract manufacturers to F1 and now they are paying the price with rising costs about to limit the grid to about 12 cars.
As another example read up on how Bernie and the FIA killed the old Group C world endurance series for how short sighted these geniuses are and are really only interested in putting money into their own pockets.
10-29-04, 12:30 PM
#32
More Mazdas than Sense
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sunny Downtown Fenwick
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So where are the solutions? Here's mine:
FIA develops a centre section that contains the driver, and is safe.
Mid season of year 0, the teams are given a "Box" that the car has to fit in. This limits overall size.
The rules are:
1. Draw a line from the inside of the front wheel to the inside of the rear wheel This must be empty space.
2. Project this line forward and back. Also empty space. This forces teams to trade off between tire size and downforce. Also, cars start to look like open wheeled cars again.
3. Engine configuration is unlimited. However:
3 a) Fuel consumption is limited to a minimum of 10 MPG. Race is 200 miles, you get 20 gallons of gas, Period. One exception: Hydrogen consumption is unlimited when used as a primary fuel.
3 b) Engines must be constructed of Iron and Aluminum. Potential to add ceramics or plastics, or whatever else is being used in production engines.
That’s it. The new bounding box is debuted in mid season of year 0, and cars must be on the track of start of year 1. Cars are raced for 3 seasons; new bounding box debuted at mid point of 3rd season.
Discuss…
FIA develops a centre section that contains the driver, and is safe.
Mid season of year 0, the teams are given a "Box" that the car has to fit in. This limits overall size.
The rules are:
1. Draw a line from the inside of the front wheel to the inside of the rear wheel This must be empty space.
2. Project this line forward and back. Also empty space. This forces teams to trade off between tire size and downforce. Also, cars start to look like open wheeled cars again.
3. Engine configuration is unlimited. However:
3 a) Fuel consumption is limited to a minimum of 10 MPG. Race is 200 miles, you get 20 gallons of gas, Period. One exception: Hydrogen consumption is unlimited when used as a primary fuel.
3 b) Engines must be constructed of Iron and Aluminum. Potential to add ceramics or plastics, or whatever else is being used in production engines.
That’s it. The new bounding box is debuted in mid season of year 0, and cars must be on the track of start of year 1. Cars are raced for 3 seasons; new bounding box debuted at mid point of 3rd season.
Discuss…
10-29-04, 12:55 PM
#33
Rotary Freak
New F1 Rules
God Jamie you are such an engineer (lol). Your rule package sounds suspiciously like Paul Van Valkenburgh's Formula None. I expect that within 2 years of this package cars would be doing 400 mph, pulling 8g's in a corner and driven on the sidelines by engineers like big R/C cars. With no drivers in the cars being driven from the sidelines, which is really every engineers real fantasy.
I once had a crew chief tell me that all drivers were like light bulbs. Put them in the right car and they will glow brightly, but in reality they are all interchangeable and pretty fragile and tend to burn out quickly. My response was that some of us are higher wattage than others.
I once had a crew chief tell me that all drivers were like light bulbs. Put them in the right car and they will glow brightly, but in reality they are all interchangeable and pretty fragile and tend to burn out quickly. My response was that some of us are higher wattage than others.
10-29-04, 01:08 PM
#34
More Mazdas than Sense
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sunny Downtown Fenwick
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I forgot to mention: Mechanical links only between driver and everything else. Foot clutch. Tach, but no wheel speed sensors, 1 transmitter in the car, sending real time positioning data to the FIA tower. Dataloging is o.k., but must be downloaded through a usb cable, and only when car is shut off. ECU’s are all programmed in the same language, source code is given to FIA on Wednesday, approved, and downloaded to the cars at start of qualifying.
And drivers are more like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz. Tell them they’ve got magic shoes, and they’ll do what it takes to get to the winners circle (at the end of the yellow brick road)
Alright, terrible metaphor, but what do you expect, I’m supposed to be working.
And drivers are more like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz. Tell them they’ve got magic shoes, and they’ll do what it takes to get to the winners circle (at the end of the yellow brick road)
Alright, terrible metaphor, but what do you expect, I’m supposed to be working.
07-26-05, 10:44 PM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: netherlands
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My idea's as a weekly F1 viewer are the following:
First of all they should legalise the rotary engine. This would make a big increase for smaller cost, even with the initial cost of setting it up, R&D etc.
second, they need to get rid of all electronic devices like launch control etc.
third, each team is allowed to test for ... days a season, not more.
Engine, V8 or V10 I dont care, limited to 2 races including practices etc. (the new V8 will cost just as much as the V10 in my opinion, I even think the V8 will be much more expensive due to all new R&D etc)
the bodystyle on which the car is introduced can not be changed in any way during the season, only the front and rear wing should be made adjustable. No more bargeboards etc.
1 tire supplier with exactly the same tires for each team, no exceptions.
Hell, maybe even go to 1 type of base frame of the car, some kind of type approval for the frame and parts on it.
Well I can go on and on, however the FIA is more concerned about there own money than on the sport itself.
First of all they should legalise the rotary engine. This would make a big increase for smaller cost, even with the initial cost of setting it up, R&D etc.
second, they need to get rid of all electronic devices like launch control etc.
third, each team is allowed to test for ... days a season, not more.
Engine, V8 or V10 I dont care, limited to 2 races including practices etc. (the new V8 will cost just as much as the V10 in my opinion, I even think the V8 will be much more expensive due to all new R&D etc)
the bodystyle on which the car is introduced can not be changed in any way during the season, only the front and rear wing should be made adjustable. No more bargeboards etc.
1 tire supplier with exactly the same tires for each team, no exceptions.
Hell, maybe even go to 1 type of base frame of the car, some kind of type approval for the frame and parts on it.
Well I can go on and on, however the FIA is more concerned about there own money than on the sport itself.
07-26-05, 11:09 PM
#36
Making everything uniform, means we would just be watching NASCAR or INDYCAR/CART.
F1 has always been individual teams building their own designs (and engines) within the framework of the rules. I would not want that aspect removed. Heck, it was nice to see Ferrari back a while still run V-12's when the others where already running 10 cylinders.
What I want to see more than anything, is a reduction in downforce and more emphasis on mechanical grip. And no more driver aids. I'm sure it would be fun to watch some of those guys without traction control.
F1 has always been individual teams building their own designs (and engines) within the framework of the rules. I would not want that aspect removed. Heck, it was nice to see Ferrari back a while still run V-12's when the others where already running 10 cylinders.
What I want to see more than anything, is a reduction in downforce and more emphasis on mechanical grip. And no more driver aids. I'm sure it would be fun to watch some of those guys without traction control.
07-27-05, 07:33 AM
#37
ERTW
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
screw no more driver aids, go watch CART if you want to see that.
F1 is about technological implementation and how fast you can get around the track.
these cars would be so much slower without traction control.
besides, to go really fast you need to try to minimize your use of it anyways.
if you have ever seen a F1 race in person, you can tell who is REALLY using the TC and who isn't.
for example, i can hear the Jordan drivers really laying onto the throttle early out of the corner and the TC is just working crazy.
when Micheal Schumacher comes along though it doesn't cut in as much.
guess who is getting around the track faster?
one tire manufacturer would be not be competitive environment unless they offered MANY tire choices. that way it is up to the team to decide what specific type of tire to choose.
these cars already produce a lot of mechanical grip, and i don't think reducing downforce is the answer to anything. it's fun watching the drivers compensate for loosing downforce as they slow down
but if they were to do this, i think reducing downforce but going back to slick tires would be a good thing to see.
- Aaron
F1 is about technological implementation and how fast you can get around the track.
these cars would be so much slower without traction control.
besides, to go really fast you need to try to minimize your use of it anyways.
if you have ever seen a F1 race in person, you can tell who is REALLY using the TC and who isn't.
for example, i can hear the Jordan drivers really laying onto the throttle early out of the corner and the TC is just working crazy.
when Micheal Schumacher comes along though it doesn't cut in as much.
guess who is getting around the track faster?
one tire manufacturer would be not be competitive environment unless they offered MANY tire choices. that way it is up to the team to decide what specific type of tire to choose.
these cars already produce a lot of mechanical grip, and i don't think reducing downforce is the answer to anything. it's fun watching the drivers compensate for loosing downforce as they slow down
but if they were to do this, i think reducing downforce but going back to slick tires would be a good thing to see.
- Aaron
07-27-05, 10:27 AM
#38
Former Rx7 *****
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 4,534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you ever read one of the conversations between the press and Max Mosley he prides and compliments himself in bringing F1 from the backyard mechanic into a glamorous over priced sport it is now.
I miss teh days when teams like BRM or Tyrell can build a car in a barn and beat ferrari.
I miss teh days when teams like BRM or Tyrell can build a car in a barn and beat ferrari.
07-27-05, 10:58 AM
#39
Even Mike Gascoyne sees the problem as too much emphasis on aero.
If F1 cars have so much mechanical grip, then how come they cannot drive within 100 feet of one another, without being all swirly? How come a car that is lapping 1.5 seconds a lap faster can't get past a guy on the track?
And yes, Aaron, too many driver aids are detrimental to the sport. While you where still in diapers, some of us where watching Nigel Mansel win the 92 WC with the car basically driving itself thanks to active suspenion, traction control, and other computer aided mechanisms.
There is a fine line between technology and too much of it. Sure, F1 is about getting around the track the fastest, but if it is in single file formation for 70 laps, I'm sure you won't be aching to watch every lap either.
If F1 cars have so much mechanical grip, then how come they cannot drive within 100 feet of one another, without being all swirly? How come a car that is lapping 1.5 seconds a lap faster can't get past a guy on the track?
And yes, Aaron, too many driver aids are detrimental to the sport. While you where still in diapers, some of us where watching Nigel Mansel win the 92 WC with the car basically driving itself thanks to active suspenion, traction control, and other computer aided mechanisms.
There is a fine line between technology and too much of it. Sure, F1 is about getting around the track the fastest, but if it is in single file formation for 70 laps, I'm sure you won't be aching to watch every lap either.
Last edited by eViLRotor; 07-27-05 at 11:12 AM.
07-27-05, 12:06 PM
#40
ERTW
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by eViLRotor
And yes, Aaron, too many driver aids are detrimental to the sport. While you where still in diapers, some of us where watching Nigel Mansel win the 92 WC with the car basically driving itself thanks to active suspenion, traction control, and other computer aided mechanisms.
There is a fine line between technology and too much of it. Sure, F1 is about getting around the track the fastest, but if it is in single file formation for 70 laps, I'm sure you won't be aching to watch every lap either.
There is a fine line between technology and too much of it. Sure, F1 is about getting around the track the fastest, but if it is in single file formation for 70 laps, I'm sure you won't be aching to watch every lap either.
i believe in 92 i had stopped wetting myself and had moved on to real pants
all i'm saying is that i think this season has been fairly competitive and we AREN'T seeing cars going around in the same order for 70 laps. just look at the last race, hardly the most exciting of the season, but we saw Button pass Schumacher and then he got passed by Montoya, and there was a lot of order change.
i don't think removing technology is an answer to increase competition.
sure, some of the old-school F1 fans may complain that back in the day private "garage" teams could enter and even have a chance of winning.
as much as i hate the power economics has over F1, the core aspect of pushing technology to the knife edge (and not always being succesful) is what makes me watch this sport.
heh, i LIKE the fact that these cars can drive upside down at 150 km/h
07-27-05, 03:15 PM
#41
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F1 could be greatly improved by making the technical regs such that the racing is better and closer. If you're into the technology then go watch a testing session.
The thing is that F1 is VERY limited in what it uses. That's the nature of a formula. If it were truely an open series with no technical regulations they'd have 5000hp engines and all sorts of crazy stuff. F1's technology is like if you said to someone, make this bolt lighter while being able to withstand X forces. It's a very high tech implementation, but it's not necessarly the best solution.
If you don't believe me, consider the performance of an F1 car around '99 compared to a Champ Car of a similar period at Montreal. Fastest Champ Car time: 1:18.959 (CDM 2002). '99 F1 Pole Time: 1:19.298 (MS). I believe Champ Cars were at ~850hp at the time. Imagine if Champ Car ran in Montreal in '99 when their specs had them in excess of 1000hp and stickier tires from the tire war. The costs involved were easily 10X higher for F1 and there was a lot more technology involved, to run slower. A similar situation may occur in 2007 when F1 is on the 2.4L engines (currently 3 seconds a lap slower) and Champ Car puts out their new spec with a faster, lighter chasis and more potent engine.
Go back to '99 and Champ Car was incredibly competitive with passing galore while F1 had hideous turbulance that prevented a McLaren or Ferrari from passing a Minardi. Which sport had more intelligent regulations?
The thing is that F1 is VERY limited in what it uses. That's the nature of a formula. If it were truely an open series with no technical regulations they'd have 5000hp engines and all sorts of crazy stuff. F1's technology is like if you said to someone, make this bolt lighter while being able to withstand X forces. It's a very high tech implementation, but it's not necessarly the best solution.
If you don't believe me, consider the performance of an F1 car around '99 compared to a Champ Car of a similar period at Montreal. Fastest Champ Car time: 1:18.959 (CDM 2002). '99 F1 Pole Time: 1:19.298 (MS). I believe Champ Cars were at ~850hp at the time. Imagine if Champ Car ran in Montreal in '99 when their specs had them in excess of 1000hp and stickier tires from the tire war. The costs involved were easily 10X higher for F1 and there was a lot more technology involved, to run slower. A similar situation may occur in 2007 when F1 is on the 2.4L engines (currently 3 seconds a lap slower) and Champ Car puts out their new spec with a faster, lighter chasis and more potent engine.
Go back to '99 and Champ Car was incredibly competitive with passing galore while F1 had hideous turbulance that prevented a McLaren or Ferrari from passing a Minardi. Which sport had more intelligent regulations?
Last edited by Snrub; 07-27-05 at 03:18 PM.
07-27-05, 03:45 PM
#43
There is a fantastic article in this months's F1 Racing (The one with Jenson Button on the Front).
The article is a discussion between a representative of every aspect of F1 on how to improve. Among them were Matt Bishop, Mike Gascoyne, Tiago Montero, Christian Horner, Jon Wright (I believe that was his name - he is the Television producer of F1).
In a few short pages, they not only addressed the problems with F1, but came up with some creative solutions that would improve the racing, the show, the value for paying spectators etc while keeping F1 at the pinnacle of motorsports. If I have time, I'll summarize the article a bit later. (no promises).
With all that in mind, this week the GPMA (Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association) have finalised their proposals for the future of Formula 1 and have opened a dialogue with the FIA to mold the future of F1 - and that is a good thing. The proposals have been prepared in a range of meetings since January by technical, commercial and legal executives from nine teams (BAR, Jordan, McLaren, Minardi, Red Bull, Renault, Sauber, Toyota and Williams) and the five manufacturers (BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Honda, Renault and Toyota).
The statement said that they agreed to maintain and build upon Formula 1's position as the number one annual sports series in the world and that it should attract, excite and provide the best possible sporting spectacle and good value on a worldwide basis. They agreed that F1 must consolidate its position at the pinnacle of motorsport, by presenting the most exciting, technologically advanced and global motorsport series. They also agreed that a long term plan for the prosperity of the sport and its key constituents should be put in place, so that those parties which contribute greatly to the sport's success have a stable and economically viable future. The participation of independent teams will be supported and encouraged, particularly by enabling small teams to secure a stable source of engine supply. Where possible, costs should be significantly reduced, providing that the sporting spectacle and competition is not compromised. The vision is for a fair and transparent sport with well-funded and highly competitive teams on every row of the grid, with the best drivers competing on the most exciting race tracks around the world.
"Formula 1 has to be at the forefront of technology and continue to showcase technical innovations in line with those in the auto industry. At the same time the introduction of potentially expensive innovations should not jeopardise the commercial and sporting viability of independent teams. Cost saving is a fundamental objective for the teams and manufacturers, as it is important that new technologies can be introduced at the lowest possible price."
We'll see what comes of it, but the fact that everyone is discussing some sort of change is a good thing. Especially when you look at the success of the competition in the GP2 series. These have been increadably exciting races - all because the cars have been designed with an eye on mechanical grip, and most aero grip is generated by the car's undertray.
Snrub - your CART vs F1 comparisson is well taken, but keep in mind that the Montreal Track was changed between your comparisson years. In 2001-2002 the hairpin section was reduced by about half it's length - shortening the track. It doesn't make your point less valid though!
EDIT: How do all my racing posts end up so long winded lol - must be the "Cut and Paste" parts.
The article is a discussion between a representative of every aspect of F1 on how to improve. Among them were Matt Bishop, Mike Gascoyne, Tiago Montero, Christian Horner, Jon Wright (I believe that was his name - he is the Television producer of F1).
In a few short pages, they not only addressed the problems with F1, but came up with some creative solutions that would improve the racing, the show, the value for paying spectators etc while keeping F1 at the pinnacle of motorsports. If I have time, I'll summarize the article a bit later. (no promises).
With all that in mind, this week the GPMA (Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association) have finalised their proposals for the future of Formula 1 and have opened a dialogue with the FIA to mold the future of F1 - and that is a good thing. The proposals have been prepared in a range of meetings since January by technical, commercial and legal executives from nine teams (BAR, Jordan, McLaren, Minardi, Red Bull, Renault, Sauber, Toyota and Williams) and the five manufacturers (BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Honda, Renault and Toyota).
The statement said that they agreed to maintain and build upon Formula 1's position as the number one annual sports series in the world and that it should attract, excite and provide the best possible sporting spectacle and good value on a worldwide basis. They agreed that F1 must consolidate its position at the pinnacle of motorsport, by presenting the most exciting, technologically advanced and global motorsport series. They also agreed that a long term plan for the prosperity of the sport and its key constituents should be put in place, so that those parties which contribute greatly to the sport's success have a stable and economically viable future. The participation of independent teams will be supported and encouraged, particularly by enabling small teams to secure a stable source of engine supply. Where possible, costs should be significantly reduced, providing that the sporting spectacle and competition is not compromised. The vision is for a fair and transparent sport with well-funded and highly competitive teams on every row of the grid, with the best drivers competing on the most exciting race tracks around the world.
"Formula 1 has to be at the forefront of technology and continue to showcase technical innovations in line with those in the auto industry. At the same time the introduction of potentially expensive innovations should not jeopardise the commercial and sporting viability of independent teams. Cost saving is a fundamental objective for the teams and manufacturers, as it is important that new technologies can be introduced at the lowest possible price."
We'll see what comes of it, but the fact that everyone is discussing some sort of change is a good thing. Especially when you look at the success of the competition in the GP2 series. These have been increadably exciting races - all because the cars have been designed with an eye on mechanical grip, and most aero grip is generated by the car's undertray.
Snrub - your CART vs F1 comparisson is well taken, but keep in mind that the Montreal Track was changed between your comparisson years. In 2001-2002 the hairpin section was reduced by about half it's length - shortening the track. It doesn't make your point less valid though!
EDIT: How do all my racing posts end up so long winded lol - must be the "Cut and Paste" parts.
07-27-05, 05:49 PM
#44
ERTW
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hehe, i like these threads. lots of good info and discussion to learn from!
Nick, about GP2. they just started showing these races on Speed, and i love them!
Snrub, i agree with your point about F1 cars and how technology is used.
it's kind of what i was getting at though. sure, there are ways to make more power out of an engine, or more mechanical grip, but the whole point is to test and implement high-grade concepts in the hope that it will carry down to the consumer and into production cars. that's why we see ultra-thin titanium pistons in a gasket-less block, instead of Ford crate engines, even if they DO make the same power.
and it's every little thing on the car, down to the fluids, that is being tested in some way. that's what makes it so damn expensive.
i hardly see any of this research in CART and other racing series, but maybe i'm wrong.
i know i know, a lot of people don't care, they just want to see pure racing. i'm partially the same way, F1 definetly could use some of the suggested changes people are mentioning
Nick, about GP2. they just started showing these races on Speed, and i love them!
Snrub, i agree with your point about F1 cars and how technology is used.
it's kind of what i was getting at though. sure, there are ways to make more power out of an engine, or more mechanical grip, but the whole point is to test and implement high-grade concepts in the hope that it will carry down to the consumer and into production cars. that's why we see ultra-thin titanium pistons in a gasket-less block, instead of Ford crate engines, even if they DO make the same power.
and it's every little thing on the car, down to the fluids, that is being tested in some way. that's what makes it so damn expensive.
i hardly see any of this research in CART and other racing series, but maybe i'm wrong.
i know i know, a lot of people don't care, they just want to see pure racing. i'm partially the same way, F1 definetly could use some of the suggested changes people are mentioning
07-27-05, 09:45 PM
#45
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick86: Darn I forgot about the change. Even so, how much faster did it make the track, maybe a second a lap? F1 lap times dropped massively between 99-02 due to the tire war, but JPM's 2002 pole was 1:12.836. Toyota recently stated that they tested a 2.4L V8 which was down 200hp from the current V8 and it was 3 seconds a lap slower. While that is different at different tracks and not linear, etc. one could take a guess at where a Champ Car with an extra 200hp would be. At the time people suggested that Champ Car could indeed have embarrassed F1 with '99 spec cars.
Coldfire: There is virtually ZERO translation from F1 to the road anymore. It's because F1 "cars" really have nothing to do with street applications and are doing something so completely different. As for technological development, F1 has always been at the top, but not long ago Champ Car was hardly a technological neandrathal. In 2001 Toyota spent $200M US on Champ Car (I got that from a C&D article where White - the head of Toyota motorsports US is quoted). Keep in mind that wasn't all R&D, etc. but on the flip side they also only made engines. Given that the budgets of top F1 teams at the time were in that neighbourhood you can imagine the results. As an example of technology in 2002 they were up to 16k RPM on their engines with conventional valve springs, whereas F1 had long moved to pnumatic valve actuation to attain 18k (back then).
GP2 is on Speed?
Even so, how much faster did it make the track, maybe a second a lap? F1 lap times dropped massively between 99-02 due to the tire war, but JPM's 2002 pole was 1:12.836. Toyota recently stated that they tested a 2.4L V8 which was down 200hp from the current V8 and it was 3 seconds a lap slower. While that is different at different tracks and not linear, etc. one could take a guess at where a Champ Car with an extra 200hp would be. At the time people suggested that Champ Car could indeed have embarrassed F1 with '99 spec cars.Coldfire: There is virtually ZERO translation from F1 to the road anymore. It's because F1 "cars" really have nothing to do with street applications and are doing something so completely different. As for technological development, F1 has always been at the top, but not long ago Champ Car was hardly a technological neandrathal. In 2001 Toyota spent $200M US on Champ Car (I got that from a C&D article where White - the head of Toyota motorsports US is quoted). Keep in mind that wasn't all R&D, etc. but on the flip side they also only made engines. Given that the budgets of top F1 teams at the time were in that neighbourhood you can imagine the results. As an example of technology in 2002 they were up to 16k RPM on their engines with conventional valve springs, whereas F1 had long moved to pnumatic valve actuation to attain 18k (back then).
GP2 is on Speed?
07-27-05, 10:26 PM
#46
I suspect the competition is not as 'close' in F1 because of the fact the cars cost a rediculous amount of money. In CART, they can bang em up and they just buy the parts out of a company cataloge so to speak. In F1, they have to basically make new parts from nothing. Blow an engine, thats like 6 digits to build and cast a new one. CART, its more or less buy the parts we broke. In CART, they are enabled to buy what they need. In F1, they have to make it.
I think thats a small part of the larger picture, but its definetely input.
I think thats a small part of the larger picture, but its definetely input.
07-28-05, 08:28 AM
#47
The costs of F1 are astronomical - true, but none of the top teams have any problem spending the money! Both Toyota and Ferrari were literally given blank cheques and told to win. The problem is that the rules are so tight, that everyone is trying to make the perfect version of one car - any variance in design is based on a slight aerodynamic change.
As far as F1 technology making it to the streets, it does - but in cars like the SL65, not a Focus. it is more aerodynamic and materials technology that gets to the consumer level than outright car parts - it's also on a longer product development cycle. This is something that the FIA are interested in changing. The more technology that can directly translate to road cars, the more manufacturers will be willing to enter F1. (That's what happened with the WRC.) In F1 there has been a lot of talk about regeneratave braking technology being implemented in the coming years. Here's an article about that: http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/18144/
Kevin Kalkhoven is one of those people who see Champ Car as potentially the fastest open wheel series in the world beyond '07. He said "Our goal is to make it more maneuverable and lighter while maintaining the safety aspects that are so important, and at the same time preserving things that are classic Champ Car, including the turbo engines,” he stated. "We are talking to three or four different manufacturers about the '07 car right now." I'll just post the link here instead of another massive post! http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/champcar/18156/
As for GP2, they are showing the races before the grand prix on SPEED. So the Hungarian round will be on sunday morning at 6:30. Set the VCR - it is well worth it!
As far as F1 technology making it to the streets, it does - but in cars like the SL65, not a Focus. it is more aerodynamic and materials technology that gets to the consumer level than outright car parts - it's also on a longer product development cycle. This is something that the FIA are interested in changing. The more technology that can directly translate to road cars, the more manufacturers will be willing to enter F1. (That's what happened with the WRC.) In F1 there has been a lot of talk about regeneratave braking technology being implemented in the coming years. Here's an article about that: http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/18144/
Kevin Kalkhoven is one of those people who see Champ Car as potentially the fastest open wheel series in the world beyond '07. He said "Our goal is to make it more maneuverable and lighter while maintaining the safety aspects that are so important, and at the same time preserving things that are classic Champ Car, including the turbo engines,” he stated. "We are talking to three or four different manufacturers about the '07 car right now." I'll just post the link here instead of another massive post!
http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/champcar/18156/As for GP2, they are showing the races before the grand prix on SPEED. So the Hungarian round will be on sunday morning at 6:30. Set the VCR - it is well worth it!
07-28-05, 09:23 AM
#48
Champcar has been the fastest for some time (closed course speed record of 250+ mph maintained over a few laps. F1 cars are the quickest. Mechanical grip, driver aids, and aero development allow F1 cars to be quicker when compared over the same course.
Alak, it's not quite like that. An engine leasing program in ChampCar is much like some of the teams in F1. There are regular changes to the aero of the car by the chassis manufacturers which are made available for purchase by the teams. Every car has an engineer and a telemetry monitor from Cosworth assigned to it each weekend. R&D is ongoing, but not constant. You can expect to pay about a million CDN for an engine leasing program for one season, not bad compared to F1.
Alak, it's not quite like that. An engine leasing program in ChampCar is much like some of the teams in F1. There are regular changes to the aero of the car by the chassis manufacturers which are made available for purchase by the teams. Every car has an engineer and a telemetry monitor from Cosworth assigned to it each weekend. R&D is ongoing, but not constant. You can expect to pay about a million CDN for an engine leasing program for one season, not bad compared to F1.
07-28-05, 09:32 AM
#49
Originally Posted by racerjason
Champcar has been the fastest for some time (closed course speed record of 250+ mph maintained over a few laps.