http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91304
- politics and the dumming down of F1.
Ground Effects - Bad Decision
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91304
- politics and the dumming down of F1.
There is enormous potential in proper venturi tunnels. This potential has been off-limits to F1 since the end of 1983 due to the imposition of the flat floor rule, so the current generation of F1 aerodynamicists is unfamiliar with proper tunnels. That's not exactly a stellar reason to axe the proposal.
In my opinion, the golden era of big open wheeler aero was the early '90s in the Indycar series. Both the tunnels and the rear wings were huge, but the rear wing end plates were relatively small. So, the cars produced over 5,000 lb of downforce at 200 mph, and the extremely strong rear wingtip vortices swept the wake of the car up and over a following car, so running in close proximity was easy.
Wake shaping for closer racing is part of the Swift 017.n Formula Nippon car aero design, and it has worked out magnificently. The races are really exciting, but of course they are not televised in America. Swift took a much bigger step in that direction for our 2012 Indycar proposal, and since we did so much advance work for that proposal, we have the technology ready to go when the next opportunity arises.
Aero and rulers
The intense garbage that have been thrown at Aerodynamics as the evil of car racing and the lack of proper support by the professionals in the motorsport industry have made everybody look really STUPID. Same with active suspension, just at the same level. We will see what is the next victim of rulers. Engines ? Regards.
They probably all realized that Adrian Newey would be miles ahead of the majority of current designers and didn't want to give him any more advantages.
Explain to me how wings make for better racing.
Roland Johnson
San Diego, Ca
Because they make nice "billboards" and command prime sponsor $$$$ !
EJ
Because some people want to watch the fastest cars race as well as the fastest drivers? Just a thought...
But having all of the mechanical and aero advantages in the world don't necessarily provide any of that. In fact, quite the opposite. I think there are probably only 4 or 5 guys in F1 that you could call part of class of the "Best in the World."Originally Posted by Evl
But "all the mechanical and aero advantages in the world" do give you the fastest cars. I agree that at least 75% of the field is filler, but for the 4-5 top drivers, I'd rather see them driving around in a car that tests the limits of human endurance than an FV.
But do all of the electronic cheats create that?
My opinion is no. And I would rather watch the best drivers in the world actually drive their cars, instead of piloting video games. That's just me, I could be wrong. The best races in the F1 calendar are those in the rain—when all of the mechanical traction is lost and driving talent returns to the forefront of who wins and who loses.
...with due respect
There is plenty of Olympic sports out there, where the human is 100%.
This is NOT one, so please if you can comment within context is great otherwise we loose our time.
Racing cars is an engineering type of sport, it is the very reason why many people go to engineering school... that includes my son and I even though we do not necessarily do race engineering full time.
Not necessarily we are evil, we just enjoy to compete fairly and see competitions and see a big show... Is that SOOOO bad ?
A lot of people don't think so, and the audiences have been ever increasing over the last 40 years, in spite of all these technology/ies, thanks.
In my humble opion;
Fast drivers in an average car can go fast,
Average drivers in a fast car are still average
And fast drivers in fast cars are unbeatable. What's the point?
Formula 1 technology is great—we all love the bleeding edge of racing creativity. But at the sake of losing the "driver" in a race car, MANY of us don't appreciate the technology as much as the men behind the wheel. If all you want is cars going fast around a track, controlled by a computer, R/C cars are pretty inexpensive.
With all due respect, watching cars glued to the track with aerodynamics, braking from 200 mph in the last second of a corner, toggling electronic aid switches on a steering wheel while they push a button to shift gears is not as much of an exercise of a racing driver, but more of a super computer monitoring every aspect of a machine, with a video game player wielding a controller at speed.
Don't get me wrong, I love F1 racing, but I always feel that watching these guys "drive" cars is much more entertaining that watching them be a high speed passenger. The rain proves that to me every time, and watching Kimi manhandle a truck or Nationwide car around Charlotte speaks VOLUMES for watching a true wheelman control a race car. There is just something pure about watching a talented driver actually driving a race vehicle at speed.
There is something "pure" about a machine optimized to a given rule set. Who needs the variability of human drivers!
Brian
I don't think I've ever heard that expressed in a better manner. Well said.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing
'Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
Doug, you nailed it!
... The variability of human drivers is racing ..
I completely disagree with this. Just because they can pull 4.0G in a corner doesn't mean they can pull 4.1G. If the corner is flat, yes, it's boring, but that's not the case for most corners. They still have to get through w/in 1mph of the max available apex speed, and they have to do it in a machine that is trying to rip their helmet off their head while they're doing it.
As an FE driver, I can appreciate that it would be nice to have more than pairs of drivers in equal cars, but the level of technological advancement in F1 is amazing, and I like seeing the whole team make a difference: driver, strategists, and engineers.
I don't for a minute think that the drivers could be replaced by some kid who's won a few video game tournaments. It may be harder to see on the TV feed because of the speed at which things unfold, but there is still a difference between the drivers and what they can do, even when the track is dry.
This can be true regardless of rules that limit certain areas of technology. The trick is to maximize the potential within the rules as written.
One of the kids that led the Indy 500 and had the chance to win had not raced in a year. He had done the Dallara simulator only. If you are talking about raw speed then the computer will beat the human every time.I don't for a minute think that the drivers could be replaced by some kid who's won a few video game tournaments.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing
'Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
Doug, I am glad you like NASCAR
and turning in one direction only at Charlotte...that's racing for you and I will say: FINE.
If you, on the other hand watch F1, it will be better that you read Mark Donohue's book: The Unfair Advantage, it is in english and he was an american driver. I loooove this book !!!
The book will give you some good clues of what it is all about on this "other" type of racing.
I grew up in my granfather's farm, I was always going fast on the horses but I did not like the farm tractor, John Deere's didn't come with power steering and was too difficult for me. My beloved late brother did, he stayed in the farm and I did go to engineering aircrafts and rockets.
That is just life.
Regards.
Engineering
There is a certain elegance in fine engineering, whether it be in a high performance aircraft or a race car. I am an admirer of excellent engineering. Unfortunately, excellent engineering doesn't translate to excellent racing. Even Sundays Monaco F1 race (probably the most exciting F1 race ever) was decided by tire changes and strategies more than driver skills (wow, I can't believer I said that).
Frankly, the best racing I have seen has been in FV! It's not exciting for the typical spectator, but if you want to see good drivers, FV is a great place to look. I've often seen 4 or 5 lead changes in a single lap due to drafting and comparable levels of car performance.
I love F1, but not for the close racing, because it generally isn't there. It's a tremendous display of engineering prowess. Also, I think it was Sterling Moss who decried current F1 safety regulations as making the sport "too safe," because drivers no longer really risked life and limb...kinda like fighting a war with paint balls.
Larry Oliver
International Racing Products
Larry Oliver
Absolutely. If you're looking for three seconds, look at the driver. If you're looking for 0.5 seconds, look at the car.
I'm so tired of this argument, as if getting a little loose in a racecar is the only thing drivers have to be there for.
First of all, if cars were so "glued" to the track with wings, we'd never see them spin out, or lose the nose. (think JR Hildebrand)
We see this happening, so that means the driver CAN wreck the car with alot of Aero, so he still needs to be there. The way I see it, he has all of the same problems as a car without alot of Aero, (either loose or tight) but he's going a heck of a lot faster.
Second, there are other things that the driver has to deal with. He needs to know when and WHERE to start turning in, and BRAKE. Same with power on. He needs to know where to point the car. (what line to take) Or to change his line if nessecery. He needs to be able to get through lapped traffic, and still keep his position.
So don't tell me that Areo cars drive themselves. I drive sprint cars, winged and non-winged. I hear this argument all the time between the traditionalists and the winged crowd. I like both winged and non-winged racing. I wish everyone else did too....
Just because I don't like electronic drive aids doesn't mean I don't love the technology of F1. Hardly. And that doesn't immediately make me a fan of NASCAR, either. Bad assumptions, to say the least.
Simply put, I personally don't believe the "drivers" in F1 are driving race cars as much as they are piloting a video game with 100 other people helping him control it. I don't like it. I'd much rather see a sprint car driver wheeling a car at a clay 3/8 mile oval than F1 drivers turning knobs, flipping switches and engaging electronic devices to toggle traction. That said, I still wake up at 3am to watch F1 races on the other side of the world.
Yes, F1 is the pinnacle of motorsports technology, but I would MUCH rather see them push the limits with no electronics, no driver's aids, much less aero assist, and put the control of the car back in the hands solely of the driver.
That's just me...
Ground effects gone bad...
And everyone thought thaat McNish's Audi crash today was spectacular.
When the cars are so aero, bad things will happen when something goes wrong.
And as far as JR Hildebrand goes even with ground effects and wings, it is still hazardous to one's health to get in the marbles.
There are just two different type of people that watch racing. we have those whom want the technology removed and those who enjoy the technological leaps.
If electronics and aero were removed people would complain about technological advancements in tire rubber and modern engines. soon F1 would go back to carbs.... but wait they are mechanical computers that meter the fuel! soon we would be talking about the engines being too powerful and it's not about the driver anymore! let's limit the power! when the cars are still as fast we'll reduce the engine size a couple of times.
Then it will come, someone will say "why have engines? that isn't driving!" soon F1 would be about a foot race between drivers! "Wait one guys shoes are better!" or "his legs are too long, it's unfair! next it will be about if kimi had caffeine before his foot race and do webbed toes matter?
wait all of this has already happened in one form or another between all the racing organizations around the world and the olympics
welcome to our community chris
i love when newbs bring up old threads...least this one is only 8 months old
Cheers
Len
Porsche River Oaks. Houston
thank you! bring up old posts? if you haven't noticed they're ALL old. great catch dude!
No we have new one too
No, new posts are new. Only old posts are old. In fact there is a button you can click on called "New Posts", that's one way to tell the difference.
Brian
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote