| KAX | 03-23-2006 04:19 PM |
More F1 rule changes for 2008
�
�
[url]http://www.formula1.com/news/4146.html[/url]
[QUOTE]For the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons, teams will only be allowed to use one engine design, which must be submitted to the FIA for homologation no later than June 1 this year. Subsequent changes will only be permitted with agreement of the FIA and all other engine suppliers.
A single tyre supplier will be chosen for the same three-year period. At each race, every team will receive the same tyres - two dry-weather compounds, one wet-weather tyre and one extreme-weather tyre. Tyre warmers will be banned.
The two-event engine requirement will remain, but gearboxes will have to last four Grands Prix. Unscheduled changes of either item will lead to a 15kg weight penalty for the car concerned. This will replace the existing system of ten-place grid penalties. Spare cars will be banned.
Testing outside races will be limited to 30,000 km per year. At races, parc ferme conditions will be extended to run from 18.30 on Friday evening until the start of the race. Currently, cars do not enter parc ferme conditions until after qualifying.
New teams will no longer be required to lodge the US$48 million deposit currently needed to join the series. Instead they must pay a �300,000 entry fee. There will be more scope for the use of customer components between teams, but major car manufacturers will not be able to supply engines to more than two teams without the permission of the FIA.
The maximum permitted length of the Formula One calendar will grow to 20 races. The longest season to date has been 19.
[/QUOTE]
crap
[QUOTE]For the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons, teams will only be allowed to use one engine design, which must be submitted to the FIA for homologation no later than June 1 this year. Subsequent changes will only be permitted with agreement of the FIA and all other engine suppliers.
A single tyre supplier will be chosen for the same three-year period. At each race, every team will receive the same tyres - two dry-weather compounds, one wet-weather tyre and one extreme-weather tyre. Tyre warmers will be banned.
The two-event engine requirement will remain, but gearboxes will have to last four Grands Prix. Unscheduled changes of either item will lead to a 15kg weight penalty for the car concerned. This will replace the existing system of ten-place grid penalties. Spare cars will be banned.
Testing outside races will be limited to 30,000 km per year. At races, parc ferme conditions will be extended to run from 18.30 on Friday evening until the start of the race. Currently, cars do not enter parc ferme conditions until after qualifying.
New teams will no longer be required to lodge the US$48 million deposit currently needed to join the series. Instead they must pay a �300,000 entry fee. There will be more scope for the use of customer components between teams, but major car manufacturers will not be able to supply engines to more than two teams without the permission of the FIA.
The maximum permitted length of the Formula One calendar will grow to 20 races. The longest season to date has been 19.
[/QUOTE]
crap
| Predwolf | 03-23-2006 04:22 PM |
Hrmmmmmm...
Could be intresting.
Could be intresting.
| flyboymike | 03-23-2006 04:38 PM |
I wonder how difficult it will be to enforce the test mileage limits. I'm sure there's FIA presence at all your normal racetracks, but if some manufacturer has a test track buried deep in the middle of nowhere, how could they check? Satellite photos? FIA to CIA connection?!
Or do they just install a tamper-proof odometer?
Or do they just install a tamper-proof odometer?
| Phil Jr. | 03-24-2006 04:20 AM |
sigh...does anyone remember the days of rapid development in F1 where the lastest compound or wing gave teams the edge?
they need to do something like F1 unlimited. Do whatever you want.
they need to do something like F1 unlimited. Do whatever you want.
| XenoWolf | 03-24-2006 04:42 AM |
Tire warmers are banned? That'll save some dough... :rolleyes:
| digitalboy40 | 03-24-2006 04:49 AM |
hopefully the fia doesn't try to follow similar footsteps with wrc.
| StuBeck | 03-24-2006 04:50 AM |
[QUOTE=Phil Jr.]sigh...does anyone remember the days of rapid development in F1 where the lastest compound or wing gave teams the edge?
they need to do something like F1 unlimited. Do whatever you want.[/QUOTE]
Like now?
They did do F1 unlimited, it was called Can Am and failed because costs were too high. If it truly went unlimited the drivers would be dying because the cars would be too fast for them and they'd black out in the turns.
They will control testing by mandating an FIA ECU. People are going to bitch about any changes but it is required for either safety or costs. People also don't seem to understand when costs are the reason for a change or when safety so they look silly when they complain.
they need to do something like F1 unlimited. Do whatever you want.[/QUOTE]
Like now?
They did do F1 unlimited, it was called Can Am and failed because costs were too high. If it truly went unlimited the drivers would be dying because the cars would be too fast for them and they'd black out in the turns.
They will control testing by mandating an FIA ECU. People are going to bitch about any changes but it is required for either safety or costs. People also don't seem to understand when costs are the reason for a change or when safety so they look silly when they complain.
| bitterWRX | 03-24-2006 04:59 AM |
[QUOTE=XenoWolf]Tire warmers are banned? That'll save some dough... :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
It's not to save money. It's to make the sport more interesting to watch.
I like the idea of having a weight penalty.
It's not to save money. It's to make the sport more interesting to watch.
I like the idea of having a weight penalty.
| Homemade WRX | 03-24-2006 08:34 AM |
man, they just love changing everything up to make R&D burn more money...the FIA is run by idiots, who occassionally get things right
| mykrrrr | 03-24-2006 08:49 AM |
How would banning tyre warmers make the sport more interesting to watch besides them struggling for grip for the first couple laps.
FIA really need to get off the crack when it comes to rule changes. It's seems so off the cuff and retarded.
No spare car??? What's up w/that??? Control tyre...why??? Competition breeds better products.
Wanna cut costs for everyone??? Limit the races to say 15/16 rounds instead of 20. Logistical costs savings alone would be millions.
FIA really need to get off the crack when it comes to rule changes. It's seems so off the cuff and retarded.
No spare car??? What's up w/that??? Control tyre...why??? Competition breeds better products.
Wanna cut costs for everyone??? Limit the races to say 15/16 rounds instead of 20. Logistical costs savings alone would be millions.
| enduroshark | 03-24-2006 09:11 AM |
What engine manufacturer would want to go into F1 knowing that they can't do anything to improve their design for the next 3 years?
| artkevin | 03-24-2006 09:25 AM |
Don't like the 3 year freeze.
Do like the weight penalty.
Don't like the lack of a T car
Do like the testing limitation
Do like the weight penalty.
Don't like the lack of a T car
Do like the testing limitation
| Chromer | 03-24-2006 09:58 AM |
Spec tire. Lovely. Imagine if Michelin were the ONLY tire supplier for the USGP last year?
Spec tire, locked-in engine specs, probable spec ECU, limited testing... It's sounding more like nascar every day.
Spec tire, locked-in engine specs, probable spec ECU, limited testing... It's sounding more like nascar every day.
| endeavor | 03-24-2006 10:59 AM |
[QUOTE=mykrrrr]How would banning tyre warmers make the sport more interesting to watch besides them struggling for grip for the first couple laps. [/QUOTE]
Well, I guess crashes on lap 1 are interesting.
Well, I guess crashes on lap 1 are interesting.
| endeavor | 03-24-2006 11:19 AM |
[QUOTE=enduroshark]What engine manufacturer would want to go into F1 knowing that they can't do anything to improve their design for the next 3 years?[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Everyone points out that changing the rules every year makes things expensive. Now they have taken the most expensive part of the car -- the engine -- and basically made it impossible to do any additional R&D for 3 years. That will save money.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Everyone points out that changing the rules every year makes things expensive. Now they have taken the most expensive part of the car -- the engine -- and basically made it impossible to do any additional R&D for 3 years. That will save money.
| CirrusWRX | 03-24-2006 11:31 AM |
So basically, if I'm an engineer, I build something that I THINK should work. Whoops, it blows up on day one because of an unforseen technical difficulty, and will continue to do so until we fix the major engineering snafu.
Oh well! Can't fix it for 3 years!
Oh well! Can't fix it for 3 years!
| Bonzo | 03-24-2006 11:48 AM |
[QUOTE=endeavor]Well, I guess crashes on lap 1 are interesting.[/QUOTE]
considering they get a warm-up lap I don't think that will be a problem.
However coming out of the pits is where this is going to get fun. :banana: Shame on the driver if they spin or crash then. FAlonso on cold tires in Bahrian might have allowed MS to pass and maybe hold on for the win.
I am also in favor of a weight penalty vs losing 10 spots.
I am not in favor of making engines or trannies last. This is F1, let them compete every week with the best equipment they can supply.
considering they get a warm-up lap I don't think that will be a problem.
However coming out of the pits is where this is going to get fun. :banana: Shame on the driver if they spin or crash then. FAlonso on cold tires in Bahrian might have allowed MS to pass and maybe hold on for the win.
I am also in favor of a weight penalty vs losing 10 spots.
I am not in favor of making engines or trannies last. This is F1, let them compete every week with the best equipment they can supply.
| endeavor | 03-24-2006 11:49 AM |
[quote]So basically, if I'm an engineer, I build something that I THINK should work. Whoops, it blows up on day one because of an unforseen technical difficulty, and will continue to do so until we fix the major engineering snafu.
Oh well! Can't fix it for 3 years![/quote]
Yeah you have a point. I'd like to know how detailed this design is supposed to be. Having to get the other manufacturer's to agree to any change basically means no changes are allowed.
Oh well! Can't fix it for 3 years![/quote]
Yeah you have a point. I'd like to know how detailed this design is supposed to be. Having to get the other manufacturer's to agree to any change basically means no changes are allowed.
| KAX | 03-24-2006 12:19 PM |
[QUOTE=CirrusWRX]So basically, if I'm an engineer, I build something that I THINK should work. Whoops, it blows up on day one because of an unforseen technical difficulty, and will continue to do so until we fix the major engineering snafu.
Oh well! Can't fix it for 3 years![/QUOTE]
its going to result in the same thing as the engines and trannies having to last longer. Theyre going to spend 10x more money in development of the engine initially, it will take that whole 3 years just to break even. I dont understand all of these changes. Every single rule they made, they based it on long-term cost cutting, they used that as an excuse for the rule change. but they just keep changing the rules. Theyll never make it to the long-term because every season they change a different rule. all they needed to do is a salary-cap type thing. give the manufacturers and spending limit and say do what you can to your V8 and chassis with that and lets race. The only way to cut cost is to limit spending. Changing rules does not limit spending at all, no matter what rule you change.
Oh well! Can't fix it for 3 years![/QUOTE]
its going to result in the same thing as the engines and trannies having to last longer. Theyre going to spend 10x more money in development of the engine initially, it will take that whole 3 years just to break even. I dont understand all of these changes. Every single rule they made, they based it on long-term cost cutting, they used that as an excuse for the rule change. but they just keep changing the rules. Theyll never make it to the long-term because every season they change a different rule. all they needed to do is a salary-cap type thing. give the manufacturers and spending limit and say do what you can to your V8 and chassis with that and lets race. The only way to cut cost is to limit spending. Changing rules does not limit spending at all, no matter what rule you change.
| C Stoyer | 03-24-2006 12:38 PM |
More rule changes generate more R&D at the concept and design level of the race package. Teams will continue this practice so they can better exploit the limits of the new rule. Not much of a cost savings here for the teams that are looking for ever edge they can get.
| artkevin | 03-24-2006 12:59 PM |
I am surprised there was nothing in there about aero. Max was saying that they wanted to reduce downforce levels by up 90%.
| KAX | 03-24-2006 01:52 PM |
[QUOTE=artkevin]I am surprised there was nothing in there about aero. Max was saying that they wanted to reduce downforce levels by up 90%.[/QUOTE]
all of these things from that link up there are additional to the previous rules for 2008. Notice there wasnt anything about spec ECUs and transmissions, which is also set to go into effect for 2008. These are just extra rules theyve agreed upon.
all of these things from that link up there are additional to the previous rules for 2008. Notice there wasnt anything about spec ECUs and transmissions, which is also set to go into effect for 2008. These are just extra rules theyve agreed upon.
| JZ oo7 | 03-24-2006 03:22 PM |
so basically if a team gets their engine down and reliable while all other teams don't, they'll dominate for 3 years. what do they mean by "Subsequent changes will only be permitted?" if i wanted to watch the same everything for every team, i'll watch the A1GP.
| KAX | 03-24-2006 05:20 PM |
[QUOTE=JZ oo7]what do they mean by "Subsequent changes will only be permitted?"[/QUOTE]
good question. thats basically what they are saying they cant do, but then using a fancy word saying you still can?
good question. thats basically what they are saying they cant do, but then using a fancy word saying you still can?
| StuBeck | 03-24-2006 05:55 PM |
[QUOTE=CirrusWRX]So basically, if I'm an engineer, I build something that I THINK should work. Whoops, it blows up on day one because of an unforseen technical difficulty, and will continue to do so until we fix the major engineering snafu.
Oh well! Can't fix it for 3 years![/QUOTE]
Uhh, no. They are allowed to fix it. They still have almost 2 years to make the engine.
All of the new changes HAVE not been for lower costs. The engines going down to 2.4 liters is because of safety. The reason they went to 2.4 is because none of the teams were willing to talk with them and say "hey, lets just put a rev limiter on it and put a restricter on the airbox." If they had done that they wouldn't have had to design new engines.
The teams are paid to go to the events above the 17th, and are paid for non-tobacco events as well. It is their own fault they feel the need to have 400 people at every event.
The teams do not need a spare car. If the driver truly damages the monocoque enough to cause the car to not be repaired he is going to be too hurt to drive. Most of the parts are simple bolt on parts and they can change the parts in no time anyways.
Oh well! Can't fix it for 3 years![/QUOTE]
Uhh, no. They are allowed to fix it. They still have almost 2 years to make the engine.
All of the new changes HAVE not been for lower costs. The engines going down to 2.4 liters is because of safety. The reason they went to 2.4 is because none of the teams were willing to talk with them and say "hey, lets just put a rev limiter on it and put a restricter on the airbox." If they had done that they wouldn't have had to design new engines.
The teams are paid to go to the events above the 17th, and are paid for non-tobacco events as well. It is their own fault they feel the need to have 400 people at every event.
The teams do not need a spare car. If the driver truly damages the monocoque enough to cause the car to not be repaired he is going to be too hurt to drive. Most of the parts are simple bolt on parts and they can change the parts in no time anyways.
| AndyRoo | 03-24-2006 07:50 PM |
[QUOTE=Homemade WRX]man, they just love changing everything up to make R&D burn more money...the FIA is run by idiots, who occassionally get things right[/QUOTE]
+1
although i do like a single tire provider. but i really hate 2 weekend engines.
- Andrew
+1
although i do like a single tire provider. but i really hate 2 weekend engines.
- Andrew
| Homemade WRX | 03-24-2006 11:52 PM |
[QUOTE=AndyRoo]+1
although i do like a single tire provider. but i really hate 2 weekend engines.
- Andrew[/QUOTE]
I don't like the single tire provider...I hate monopolies period...especially in racing...it is crap and limits the technology...
although i do like a single tire provider. but i really hate 2 weekend engines.
- Andrew[/QUOTE]
I don't like the single tire provider...I hate monopolies period...especially in racing...it is crap and limits the technology...
| Gundoo | 03-25-2006 01:22 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck]Like now?
They did do F1 unlimited, it was called Can Am and failed because costs were too high. If it truly went unlimited the drivers would be dying because the cars would be too fast for them and they'd black out in the turns.
They will control testing by mandating an FIA ECU. People are going to bitch about any changes but it is required for either safety or costs. People also don't seem to understand when costs are the reason for a change or when safety so they look silly when they complain.[/QUOTE]
pffft..... if it was unlimited the 'pilots' could use g-suits like fighter pilots use. or i dunno :lol: . i'm sure they'd figure it out.
its fun to think about what an unlimited f1 car would look like. probably have all sorts of movable wings and airbrakes and stuff. :eek:
They did do F1 unlimited, it was called Can Am and failed because costs were too high. If it truly went unlimited the drivers would be dying because the cars would be too fast for them and they'd black out in the turns.
They will control testing by mandating an FIA ECU. People are going to bitch about any changes but it is required for either safety or costs. People also don't seem to understand when costs are the reason for a change or when safety so they look silly when they complain.[/QUOTE]
pffft..... if it was unlimited the 'pilots' could use g-suits like fighter pilots use. or i dunno :lol: . i'm sure they'd figure it out.
its fun to think about what an unlimited f1 car would look like. probably have all sorts of movable wings and airbrakes and stuff. :eek:
| Homemade WRX | 03-25-2006 01:43 AM |
[QUOTE=Gundoo] its fun to think about what an unlimited f1 car would look like. probably have all sorts of movable wings and airbrakes and stuff. :eek:[/QUOTE]
and it would be so fast, that people couldn't drive them...yes, unlimited would be bad...I just see all these constant rule changes, then rule change on a similar part/effect which causes them to go back and redo (like they don't stop anyhow) all the testing they would have just done...kinda dumb
and it would be so fast, that people couldn't drive them...yes, unlimited would be bad...I just see all these constant rule changes, then rule change on a similar part/effect which causes them to go back and redo (like they don't stop anyhow) all the testing they would have just done...kinda dumb
| Phil Jr. | 03-25-2006 05:56 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck]Like now?
They did do F1 unlimited, it was called Can Am and failed because costs were too high. If it truly went unlimited the drivers would be dying because the cars would be too fast for them and they'd black out in the turns.
They will control testing by mandating an FIA ECU. People are going to bitch about any changes but it is required for either safety or costs. People also don't seem to understand when costs are the reason for a change or when safety so they look silly when they complain.[/QUOTE]
I think we should let the drivers make the decision whether or not they get in a car. They are grown adults and fully know the risks involved in racing. If they feel it is too dangerous then dont race, but some like to push it a lot further. People can BASE jump or hang-glide....why cant they drive a potentialy dangerous car. Maybe the fan outrage would be too much? People would stop watching?
They did do F1 unlimited, it was called Can Am and failed because costs were too high. If it truly went unlimited the drivers would be dying because the cars would be too fast for them and they'd black out in the turns.
They will control testing by mandating an FIA ECU. People are going to bitch about any changes but it is required for either safety or costs. People also don't seem to understand when costs are the reason for a change or when safety so they look silly when they complain.[/QUOTE]
I think we should let the drivers make the decision whether or not they get in a car. They are grown adults and fully know the risks involved in racing. If they feel it is too dangerous then dont race, but some like to push it a lot further. People can BASE jump or hang-glide....why cant they drive a potentialy dangerous car. Maybe the fan outrage would be too much? People would stop watching?
| StuBeck | 03-25-2006 09:25 AM |
[QUOTE=Phil Jr.]I think we should let the drivers make the decision whether or not they get in a car. They are grown adults and fully know the risks involved in racing. If they feel it is too dangerous then dont race, but some like to push it a lot further. People can BASE jump or hang-glide....why cant they drive a potentialy dangerous car. Maybe the fan outrage would be too much? People would stop watching?[/QUOTE]
You simply don't understand, they drive dangerous cars right now. What would happen with an "unlimited F1" car would be the drivers hitting 8 or 9 g's in the turns. The driver would pass out and die in the crash which would happen seconds afterwards. The cars would be hitting 300 on the straights or more, brake failure? Yep, you're dead. No driver would be able to cope with the forces involved (no, a g-suit would not work or they would already be using it since they hit 5 g's under braking.)
The whole point of F1 in the last ten years has been to improve driver safety and it has happened. There have been a few bad accidents but no deaths. Think of all the great racing we have missed because of the death of Clark, Rindt, Villenueve, Senna and many more. Having cars which we know the driver will die in if the smallest failure happens is not good racing.
There was a report a few years ago in F1 Racing asking what Williams would do if they could make the car they wanted to. It had 6 wheels (4 in the back connected to the engine, and even in full monsoon conditions the rear tyres were drys.) It had no front wing becausee the entire car was a wing, it was pretty radical.
You simply don't understand, they drive dangerous cars right now. What would happen with an "unlimited F1" car would be the drivers hitting 8 or 9 g's in the turns. The driver would pass out and die in the crash which would happen seconds afterwards. The cars would be hitting 300 on the straights or more, brake failure? Yep, you're dead. No driver would be able to cope with the forces involved (no, a g-suit would not work or they would already be using it since they hit 5 g's under braking.)
The whole point of F1 in the last ten years has been to improve driver safety and it has happened. There have been a few bad accidents but no deaths. Think of all the great racing we have missed because of the death of Clark, Rindt, Villenueve, Senna and many more. Having cars which we know the driver will die in if the smallest failure happens is not good racing.
There was a report a few years ago in F1 Racing asking what Williams would do if they could make the car they wanted to. It had 6 wheels (4 in the back connected to the engine, and even in full monsoon conditions the rear tyres were drys.) It had no front wing becausee the entire car was a wing, it was pretty radical.
| wistful | 03-25-2006 09:42 AM |
Brock Yates wrote an article on it in C&D and few yrs ago. It was just absolutely rediculous what they would do. Something about 3000+hp turbine engines and like above mentioned, multiple-axles, and the body shape being one large wing.
Don
Don
| KAX | 03-25-2006 02:06 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck]
There was a report a few years ago in F1 Racing asking what Williams would do if they could make the car they wanted to. It had 6 wheels (4 in the back connected to the engine, and even in full monsoon conditions the rear tyres were drys.) It had no front wing becausee the entire car was a wing, it was pretty radical.[/QUOTE]
there actually used to be an F1 car with 6 wheels, i dont remember who made it, but it was 4 in the front, and 2 in the back. weird looking.
EDIT: found it, ELF Ford
[IMG]http://web2.gomotorbids.com/cacheimages/a811c04ee8769471b3840621e040e3bc.jpg[/IMG]
There was a report a few years ago in F1 Racing asking what Williams would do if they could make the car they wanted to. It had 6 wheels (4 in the back connected to the engine, and even in full monsoon conditions the rear tyres were drys.) It had no front wing becausee the entire car was a wing, it was pretty radical.[/QUOTE]
there actually used to be an F1 car with 6 wheels, i dont remember who made it, but it was 4 in the front, and 2 in the back. weird looking.
EDIT: found it, ELF Ford
[IMG]http://web2.gomotorbids.com/cacheimages/a811c04ee8769471b3840621e040e3bc.jpg[/IMG]
| schaklos | 03-25-2006 02:45 PM |
Williams did make one, the FW08:
"FW08/1 was converted to 6 wheel form in Autumn 1982 using fixed length drive shafts as lower location members (a la Lotus 18, except 'upside down') to clean the airflow through the under-wing tunnels. It showed phenomenal straight line speed and 30% more downforce than the 4-wheeler. In fact the Williams lap simulator predicted a lap round Paul Ricard 6 seconds quicker than Arnoux's pole time of 1:34.4! Not surprisingly both 6-wheeled and 4WD cars were banned from F1 for 1983 (shades of the Brabham BT46B and Lotus 88!). "
[IMG]http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/images/1-/1-43-scale-143-scale-williams-ford-fw08-6w--6-wheeler-ltd-ed-.jpg[/IMG]
"FW08/1 was converted to 6 wheel form in Autumn 1982 using fixed length drive shafts as lower location members (a la Lotus 18, except 'upside down') to clean the airflow through the under-wing tunnels. It showed phenomenal straight line speed and 30% more downforce than the 4-wheeler. In fact the Williams lap simulator predicted a lap round Paul Ricard 6 seconds quicker than Arnoux's pole time of 1:34.4! Not surprisingly both 6-wheeled and 4WD cars were banned from F1 for 1983 (shades of the Brabham BT46B and Lotus 88!). "
[IMG]http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/images/1-/1-43-scale-143-scale-williams-ford-fw08-6w--6-wheeler-ltd-ed-.jpg[/IMG]
| artkevin | 03-25-2006 03:21 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX]there actually used to be an F1 car with 6 wheels, i dont remember who made it, but it was 4 in the front, and 2 in the back. weird looking.
EDIT: found it, ELF Ford
[IMG]http://web2.gomotorbids.com/cacheimages/a811c04ee8769471b3840621e040e3bc.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I believe Tyrell was the only team to race a 6 wheeler. There have been some pretty strange F1 cars in the past. See the Brabham fan car
[IMG]http://www.atlasf1.com/2000/hun/faq1.jpg[/IMG]
One thing that I would REALLY like to see in F1 is onboard starters. Its absolutely insane that a spin should put a car out of the race. I think the more cars still running at the end of the day the better.
EDIT: found it, ELF Ford
[IMG]http://web2.gomotorbids.com/cacheimages/a811c04ee8769471b3840621e040e3bc.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I believe Tyrell was the only team to race a 6 wheeler. There have been some pretty strange F1 cars in the past. See the Brabham fan car
[IMG]http://www.atlasf1.com/2000/hun/faq1.jpg[/IMG]
One thing that I would REALLY like to see in F1 is onboard starters. Its absolutely insane that a spin should put a car out of the race. I think the more cars still running at the end of the day the better.
| KAX | 03-25-2006 03:30 PM |
that ELF Ford ran, i saw a video of it in a race.
i think your right though, a starter cant be all that heavy. If it saves them the race, whats a few extra pounds?
i think your right though, a starter cant be all that heavy. If it saves them the race, whats a few extra pounds?
| Ferg | 03-25-2006 03:37 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX]that ELF Ford ran, i saw a video of it in a race.[/QUOTE]
Kevin is 100% right, that "Elf Ford" [i]is[/i] a Tyrrell.
A Tyrrell-Ford P34, which they campainged for the 1976 and 1977 seasons, winning the 1976 Swedish Grand Prix with Jody Scheckter behind the wheel, before reverting to a conventional car. The main reason given for retiring the concept was the lack of consistant tires for the front wheels. So far (you never know!) it is the only six wheeled Grand Prix car to compete in a race...well not counting the second Tyrrell-Ford P34 that Patrick Depailler raced at the same time.
[IMG]http://www.atlasf1.com/evolution/70s3.jpg[/IMG]
Kevin is 100% right, that "Elf Ford" [i]is[/i] a Tyrrell.
A Tyrrell-Ford P34, which they campainged for the 1976 and 1977 seasons, winning the 1976 Swedish Grand Prix with Jody Scheckter behind the wheel, before reverting to a conventional car. The main reason given for retiring the concept was the lack of consistant tires for the front wheels. So far (you never know!) it is the only six wheeled Grand Prix car to compete in a race...well not counting the second Tyrrell-Ford P34 that Patrick Depailler raced at the same time.
[IMG]http://www.atlasf1.com/evolution/70s3.jpg[/IMG]
| StuBeck | 03-25-2006 05:56 PM |
They won't allow more then 4 wheels ever again. The problem with the car is they choose the wrong wheels to have the extra two put at. Putting 4 at the back makes so much more sense since you'll be able to get power down so much easier.
| KAX | 03-25-2006 06:22 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck]They won't allow more then 4 wheels ever again. The problem with the car is they choose the wrong wheels to have the extra two put at. Putting 4 at the back makes so much more sense since you'll be able to get power down so much easier.[/QUOTE]
it actually worked better. you got more mechanical grip up front, so you could turn faster.
it actually worked better. you got more mechanical grip up front, so you could turn faster.
| Phil Jr. | 03-26-2006 05:26 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck]You simply don't understand, they drive dangerous cars right now. What would happen with an "unlimited F1" car would be the drivers hitting 8 or 9 g's in the turns. The driver would pass out and die in the crash which would happen seconds afterwards. The cars would be hitting 300 on the straights or more, brake failure? Yep, you're dead. No driver would be able to cope with the forces involved (no, a g-suit would not work or they would already be using it since they hit 5 g's under braking.)
The whole point of F1 in the last ten years has been to improve driver safety and it has happened. There have been a few bad accidents but no deaths. Think of all the great racing we have missed because of the death of Clark, Rindt, Villenueve, Senna and many more. Having cars which we know the driver will die in if the smallest failure happens is not good racing.
There was a report a few years ago in F1 Racing asking what Williams would do if they could make the car they wanted to. It had 6 wheels (4 in the back connected to the engine, and even in full monsoon conditions the rear tyres were drys.) It had no front wing becausee the entire car was a wing, it was pretty radical.[/QUOTE]
You arent going to black out from lateral G's. It will strain your neck muscles a tremendous amount, but different seating and restraints could eliminate this problem. Besides, stunt pilots can take 8+ g's without suits, and their aerial routines are pretty long. Not to mention you are way more prone to blackout/redout during aerial manuevers, not driving a car on a flat road.
you keep talking about how dangerous it would be, but you forget that a speed race could also give way to a safety race. How do we make crashes at 300+ mph survivable? Its not like F1 drivers are expendible...they should make the ultimate decision to race.
The whole point of F1 in the last ten years has been to improve driver safety and it has happened. There have been a few bad accidents but no deaths. Think of all the great racing we have missed because of the death of Clark, Rindt, Villenueve, Senna and many more. Having cars which we know the driver will die in if the smallest failure happens is not good racing.
There was a report a few years ago in F1 Racing asking what Williams would do if they could make the car they wanted to. It had 6 wheels (4 in the back connected to the engine, and even in full monsoon conditions the rear tyres were drys.) It had no front wing becausee the entire car was a wing, it was pretty radical.[/QUOTE]
You arent going to black out from lateral G's. It will strain your neck muscles a tremendous amount, but different seating and restraints could eliminate this problem. Besides, stunt pilots can take 8+ g's without suits, and their aerial routines are pretty long. Not to mention you are way more prone to blackout/redout during aerial manuevers, not driving a car on a flat road.
you keep talking about how dangerous it would be, but you forget that a speed race could also give way to a safety race. How do we make crashes at 300+ mph survivable? Its not like F1 drivers are expendible...they should make the ultimate decision to race.
| StuBeck | 03-26-2006 08:34 AM |
[QUOTE=Phil Jr.]You arent going to black out from lateral G's. It will strain your neck muscles a tremendous amount, but different seating and restraints could eliminate this problem. Besides, stunt pilots can take 8+ g's without suits, and their aerial routines are pretty long. Not to mention you are way more prone to blackout/redout during aerial manuevers, not driving a car on a flat road.
you keep talking about how dangerous it would be, but you forget that a speed race could also give way to a safety race. How do we make crashes at 300+ mph survivable? Its not like F1 drivers are expendible...they should make the ultimate decision to race.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Articles%202001/TexasSpeedwaysettlement.htm[/url]
You will lose consciousness with the massive speeds involved, as happened in the CART practice sessions above. The problem with safety is they already do about as much as they can do, and they can't make a safe car going 200 MPH in a car, how are they going to do it going 300 or above?
you keep talking about how dangerous it would be, but you forget that a speed race could also give way to a safety race. How do we make crashes at 300+ mph survivable? Its not like F1 drivers are expendible...they should make the ultimate decision to race.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Articles%202001/TexasSpeedwaysettlement.htm[/url]
You will lose consciousness with the massive speeds involved, as happened in the CART practice sessions above. The problem with safety is they already do about as much as they can do, and they can't make a safe car going 200 MPH in a car, how are they going to do it going 300 or above?
| StuBeck | 03-26-2006 08:35 AM |
[QUOTE=KAX]it actually worked better. you got more mechanical grip up front, so you could turn faster.[/QUOTE]
Not according to Williams, they found tremendous gains with four rear tires versus four fronts.
Not according to Williams, they found tremendous gains with four rear tires versus four fronts.
| artkevin | 03-26-2006 11:17 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck][url]http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Articles%202001/TexasSpeedwaysettlement.htm[/url]
You will lose consciousness with the massive speeds involved, as happened in the CART practice sessions above. The problem with safety is they already do about as much as they can do, and they can't make a safe car going 200 MPH in a car, how are they going to do it going 300 or above?[/QUOTE]
The black outs at TMS were not do to pure speed. Guys at the Brickyard have hit into the 250s and above from what I have heard. The blackouts happened because of the combination of the banking, duration of time in the corner and the speed. Your theory holds true if the unlimited F1 cars would hit those speeds in turns but I would guess the 300 mark would be there on straights. If they are using the same tracks then they would never be in a 8 or 9 G turn for more then 5 seconds.
That is another issue though, what track would be able to handle a car that could hit the 300s?
You will lose consciousness with the massive speeds involved, as happened in the CART practice sessions above. The problem with safety is they already do about as much as they can do, and they can't make a safe car going 200 MPH in a car, how are they going to do it going 300 or above?[/QUOTE]
The black outs at TMS were not do to pure speed. Guys at the Brickyard have hit into the 250s and above from what I have heard. The blackouts happened because of the combination of the banking, duration of time in the corner and the speed. Your theory holds true if the unlimited F1 cars would hit those speeds in turns but I would guess the 300 mark would be there on straights. If they are using the same tracks then they would never be in a 8 or 9 G turn for more then 5 seconds.
That is another issue though, what track would be able to handle a car that could hit the 300s?
| Kitsune | 03-26-2006 11:38 AM |
I would have to think, that no manufacture would actually make a car that was completely undriveable and would kill the driver as soon as it entered the first corner at 300+.
There has to be some point where they realize, "hey, this car IS to fast and no one can drive it..."
Though I guess thats what the rules do for em in the first place.
Maybe it would end up like that Liquid Television short I saw, with the guys in F-Zero like cars and exploding because of the mental strain.
There has to be some point where they realize, "hey, this car IS to fast and no one can drive it..."
Though I guess thats what the rules do for em in the first place.
Maybe it would end up like that Liquid Television short I saw, with the guys in F-Zero like cars and exploding because of the mental strain.
| Homemade WRX | 03-26-2006 11:47 AM |
[QUOTE=KAX]it actually worked better. you got more mechanical grip up front, so you could turn faster.[/QUOTE]
that and lower drag...
that and lower drag...
| Wheels | 03-26-2006 12:32 PM |
By the sounds of the new rule we can expect a new tire supplier.
| artkevin | 03-26-2006 01:47 PM |
^
Why do you think Bridgestone would leave?
Why do you think Bridgestone would leave?
| StuBeck | 03-26-2006 01:55 PM |
[QUOTE=artkevin]The black outs at TMS were not do to pure speed. Guys at the Brickyard have hit into the 250s and above from what I have heard. The blackouts happened because of the combination of the banking, duration of time in the corner and the speed. Your theory holds true if the unlimited F1 cars would hit those speeds in turns but I would guess the 300 mark would be there on straights. If they are using the same tracks then they would never be in a 8 or 9 G turn for more then 5 seconds.
That is another issue though, what track would be able to handle a car that could hit the 300s?[/QUOTE]
I had said all along it is because of the cornering speeds. If everything was unlimited you would easily be able to increase the cornering speeds which would cause the cornering g's I was discussing. The 300 mark would not be in the corners obviously, but it would be on the straights. Most tracks would be able to physically allow the cars to hit this, its just they wouldn't be allowed to brake because there wouldn't be enough run off room.
That is another issue though, what track would be able to handle a car that could hit the 300s?[/QUOTE]
I had said all along it is because of the cornering speeds. If everything was unlimited you would easily be able to increase the cornering speeds which would cause the cornering g's I was discussing. The 300 mark would not be in the corners obviously, but it would be on the straights. Most tracks would be able to physically allow the cars to hit this, its just they wouldn't be allowed to brake because there wouldn't be enough run off room.
| StuBeck | 03-26-2006 01:57 PM |
[QUOTE=Kitsune]I would have to think, that no manufacture would actually make a car that was completely undriveable and would kill the driver as soon as it entered the first corner at 300+.
There has to be some point where they realize, "hey, this car IS to fast and no one can drive it..."
Though I guess thats what the rules do for em in the first place.
Maybe it would end up like that Liquid Television short I saw, with the guys in F-Zero like cars and exploding because of the mental strain.[/QUOTE]
Look at the history of cars, they put drivers in situations where they know the car is not safe or the track is not safe and drivers will drive it. Just like a theif doesn't think they'll get caught, any driver does not think they're going to crash so they will push it. This is why their are the rules.
There has to be some point where they realize, "hey, this car IS to fast and no one can drive it..."
Though I guess thats what the rules do for em in the first place.
Maybe it would end up like that Liquid Television short I saw, with the guys in F-Zero like cars and exploding because of the mental strain.[/QUOTE]
Look at the history of cars, they put drivers in situations where they know the car is not safe or the track is not safe and drivers will drive it. Just like a theif doesn't think they'll get caught, any driver does not think they're going to crash so they will push it. This is why their are the rules.
| Beam | 03-26-2006 05:55 PM |
Why did they get rid of AWD? Surely it can't be a safety issue...
| StuBeck | 03-26-2006 07:15 PM |
[QUOTE=Beam]Why did they get rid of AWD? Surely it can't be a safety issue...[/QUOTE]
Cost. Lotus tried it in the 60's and it was slow. Its not worthwhile to use AWD on tarmac.
Cost. Lotus tried it in the 60's and it was slow. Its not worthwhile to use AWD on tarmac.
| KAX | 03-26-2006 08:07 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck]Look at the history of cars, they put drivers in situations where they know the car is not safe or the track is not safe and drivers will drive it. Just like a theif doesn't think they'll get caught, any driver does not think they're going to crash so they will push it. This is why their are the rules.[/QUOTE]
the drivers will do anything, but the manufacturers will not. All the drivers wanted to drive at Indy in '05 even though they knew the tires had a problem. the manufacturers, along with michelins request, would not allow that. So what Kitsune is saying is that the manufacturer wouldnt build a car that would kill their driver, whether the drivers think itll happen or not.
also, id like to see Pirelli give F1 a shot :D
the drivers will do anything, but the manufacturers will not. All the drivers wanted to drive at Indy in '05 even though they knew the tires had a problem. the manufacturers, along with michelins request, would not allow that. So what Kitsune is saying is that the manufacturer wouldnt build a car that would kill their driver, whether the drivers think itll happen or not.
also, id like to see Pirelli give F1 a shot :D
| Phil Jr. | 03-27-2006 08:25 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck][url="http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Articles%202001/TexasSpeedwaysettlement.htm"]http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Articles%202001/TexasSpeedwaysettlement.htm[/url]
You will lose consciousness with the massive speeds involved, as happened in the CART practice sessions above. The problem with safety is they already do about as much as they can do, and they can't make a safe car going 200 MPH in a car, how are they going to do it going 300 or above?[/QUOTE]
Those CART drivers were feeling dizzy at 230mph...so how is it that drivers can go 250mph+ in street cars on oval tracks? Maybe that cart speedway was banked too severly and the drivers were subjected to those odd angle g forces for extended periods.....F1 IS NOT CART RACING.
F1 has always been more about the technology in racing. CART has always been more strict therefore it became a drivers race. With all these new rules I think F1 will slowly lose its identity.
Think of the the look the first F1 driver's face if you said you wanted to put wings on his car. Maybe there needs to be an emphasis on safety r&d along with performance r&d?
You will lose consciousness with the massive speeds involved, as happened in the CART practice sessions above. The problem with safety is they already do about as much as they can do, and they can't make a safe car going 200 MPH in a car, how are they going to do it going 300 or above?[/QUOTE]
Those CART drivers were feeling dizzy at 230mph...so how is it that drivers can go 250mph+ in street cars on oval tracks? Maybe that cart speedway was banked too severly and the drivers were subjected to those odd angle g forces for extended periods.....F1 IS NOT CART RACING.
F1 has always been more about the technology in racing. CART has always been more strict therefore it became a drivers race. With all these new rules I think F1 will slowly lose its identity.
Think of the the look the first F1 driver's face if you said you wanted to put wings on his car. Maybe there needs to be an emphasis on safety r&d along with performance r&d?
| StuBeck | 03-27-2006 08:30 AM |
[QUOTE=KAX]the drivers will do anything, but the manufacturers will not. All the drivers wanted to drive at Indy in '05 even though they knew the tires had a problem. the manufacturers, along with michelins request, would not allow that. So what Kitsune is saying is that the manufacturer wouldnt build a car that would kill their driver, whether the drivers think itll happen or not.
also, id like to see Pirelli give F1 a shot :D[/QUOTE]
The indy debacle wasn't about the tyres, it was about the teams saying "we can stop it if we wanted" Toyota was the only one who had problems and that was because they had too little air pressure in the tyres.
The teams will do anything to make a faster car, you HAVE to have heard of all the times teams haven't been able to pass the crash tests because their car wasn't safe enough. Everyone knows driving the car can kill a driver if he does enough laps, its simply a matter of time, the issue is trying to make sure it doesn't happen. Saying "**** it" to all the rules we have now designed for safety and simply saying "do whatever you want, spend 3 billion to win the championship if you want" will not make a better series.
also, id like to see Pirelli give F1 a shot :D[/QUOTE]
The indy debacle wasn't about the tyres, it was about the teams saying "we can stop it if we wanted" Toyota was the only one who had problems and that was because they had too little air pressure in the tyres.
The teams will do anything to make a faster car, you HAVE to have heard of all the times teams haven't been able to pass the crash tests because their car wasn't safe enough. Everyone knows driving the car can kill a driver if he does enough laps, its simply a matter of time, the issue is trying to make sure it doesn't happen. Saying "**** it" to all the rules we have now designed for safety and simply saying "do whatever you want, spend 3 billion to win the championship if you want" will not make a better series.
| StuBeck | 03-27-2006 08:37 AM |
[QUOTE=Phil Jr.]Those CART drivers were feeling dizzy at 230mph...so how is it that drivers can go 250mph+ in street cars on oval tracks? Maybe that cart speedway was banked too severly and the drivers were subjected to those odd angle g forces for extended periods.....F1 IS NOT CART RACING.
F1 has always been more about the technology in racing. CART has always been more strict therefore it became a drivers race. With all these new rules I think F1 will slowly lose its identity.
Think of the the look the first F1 driver's face if you said you wanted to put wings on his car. Maybe there needs to be an emphasis on safety r&d along with performance r&d?[/QUOTE]
There already is an emphasis on safety R&D, hence why they've slowed the cars down by putting in smaller engines since the teams weren't willing to introduce new rules on their own to slow the cars down. The idea behind unlimited F1 destroys that idea and goes on the idea that the teams won't do anything to win, which they will.
The IRL has been able to run at that track because their cars are slower and much more limited then the CART vehciles are. The problem is there are many turns where the drivers are pulling massive g's for 10 seconds or more (the 4 apex turn at Turkey comes to mind.) If you allow the cars to corner faster, hence increasing g's, the drivers will blackout and lose consciousness and bad things will happen.
I honestly don't know where you're getting [i]street[/i] cars going 250 on ovals. Indycars used to go 250 on the straights at Michigan and Indy, but they were much slower in the corners. The only somewhat street vehicles hitting 250 I can think of are le mans vehicles hitting that speed years ago, but that was in a straight line.
F1 has always been more about the technology in racing. CART has always been more strict therefore it became a drivers race. With all these new rules I think F1 will slowly lose its identity.
Think of the the look the first F1 driver's face if you said you wanted to put wings on his car. Maybe there needs to be an emphasis on safety r&d along with performance r&d?[/QUOTE]
There already is an emphasis on safety R&D, hence why they've slowed the cars down by putting in smaller engines since the teams weren't willing to introduce new rules on their own to slow the cars down. The idea behind unlimited F1 destroys that idea and goes on the idea that the teams won't do anything to win, which they will.
The IRL has been able to run at that track because their cars are slower and much more limited then the CART vehciles are. The problem is there are many turns where the drivers are pulling massive g's for 10 seconds or more (the 4 apex turn at Turkey comes to mind.) If you allow the cars to corner faster, hence increasing g's, the drivers will blackout and lose consciousness and bad things will happen.
I honestly don't know where you're getting [i]street[/i] cars going 250 on ovals. Indycars used to go 250 on the straights at Michigan and Indy, but they were much slower in the corners. The only somewhat street vehicles hitting 250 I can think of are le mans vehicles hitting that speed years ago, but that was in a straight line.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét