UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25158104

I'm not normally a fan of formula 1, but remember going to see Williams development when I was at school, and being quite impressed. These new rules look to be genuinely relevant to the consumer car market, and look like they really might help efficiency and economy of cars in the future. Am I right to think that this will be a more ethical and helpful F1 season as a result?

In reply to Jimbo W:

Some interesting changes there!

In reply to Jimbo W:

That was certainly the intention.

I would be more interested though if they did something more significant to stop the problem of 2 highly aero focused cars not being able to closely follow each other

In reply to balmybaldwin:


I would be more interested though if they did something more significant to stop the problem of Vettel winning everything

In reply to Trevers:

Part of that is the aero problem - once you are out front, you have an advantage over everyone else.

Whilst I hate Vettel winning everything, the shuffling of the rules gives a good chance for others to get ahead of redbull, the problem is that the best teams will always rise to the top, so any underperformance from Redbull/Vettel is unlikely to last too long, especially with Adrian Newey involved.

In reply to balmybaldwin:



Is it Vettel of Newey, or what approx. ratio of the two?

In reply to Jimbo W:

I've seen the more detailed rule changes, and was suprised to see that the cars now have to be fitted with 'indicators', for the use when overtaking. And if they prove to be beneficial to safety, they will be introducing a horn from the start of the 2016 season.

In reply to Jimbo W:

I wish they'd be explicit when quoting things like flow rates, are they average or peak figures.

Anyway, that grumble aside the engine stuff sounds interesting, controlling the hybrid electric-supercharger/turbocharger/turbo-generator to best effect will be a nightmare. Recovering 'waste' energy from the exhaust to control turbine speed is all well and good but it's not free energy, there'll be an engine performance cost associated as exhaust pressure rises. I wonder will we be seeing a turbine speed limit imposed or will this just drive ultra high speed turbine development?

Personally I think ever more exotic technology like this is a bit of a dead end when it comes to making ordinary road cars more efficient especially while we're resolutely ignoring the low hanging fruit of size, weight and aerodynamic drag in favor of ever bigger uglier boxes like the Rangerover. In fairness VW has made a pretty good stab at this with the XL1. Despite perhaps getting a bit carried away with the technology and taking their eye off the weight a little I think the result is spectacular. Shame it's £100k!

jk

In reply to Jimbo W:


Very hard to tell, im not a vettel fan, but he did blow away his aging team mate (Webber), but arguably in a car that suits vettel more than marc.

The only way we'll know for sure is if vettel or newey leave rbr. What is interesting for next year is whether rbr, newey and vettel miss marc webbers input. He is supposed to be the best development driver on the grid and his input to the car design and setup could well be a key cog missing if rbr find themselves a step behind, they may not then be able to close the gap and develop quicker during the season like they have in the last 5years

In reply to Removed User:


Except for the BMW team
;~))

In reply to Removed User:


And , 'get out of my way' headlights ?

In reply to Jimbo W:
A lot of rules on the technology of the car, and there was rumours of performance ( memory enhancing ) drugs , but Is there any rules about technology IN the drivers.

For all we know, the drivers could be full of implanted electronics.

In reply to Jim C:

Nah there's no outside lane for them to scream down or 'Normal' drivers to shove out of the way!

In reply to Jimbo W:

A lot of tech that we have on road cars now, first appeared on F1 and other high tech formula.

In reply to kipper12:


I'm curious; what can actually be traced to F1 development? It hasn't proved very easy to find out. I would expect that road car technology has most benefited from competitions with more conventional vehicles (eg. rallies).

In reply to Shearwater:

Didn't the everyday Ford Focus start sporting a rear diffuser a couple of years back? This is/was F1 derived technology I think?

Was it the Williams car that had all the electronic suspension adjustment? That's appearing on cars now isn't it?

It's not just cars that benefit from F1, I remember an exhibition a few years ago, I think in the London Science museum, that showed other areas of 'everyday life' where F1 innovation was being commercialised.

In reply to Gavin:


The plastic diffuser look-alike that lots of hot hatches are currently sporting? It's basically a fashion accessory that at best tidies up the airflow around the more usual parachute-effect rear bumper for maybe a couple of 100/ths off Cd.


Lotus I think were the innovators but that is one good example of a technology that has made the leap from race circuit into road going vehicles.


It's basically composites, crash energy dissipation and big-data telemetry. Aviation is arguably leading F1 in those fields.

jk

In reply to Gavin:
I thought that it was mainly advanced materials and construction techniques that cane from F1, ie carbon monocoques and lighter alloys . But the main problems is with secrecy as a team won't want to sell there new tech straight away in case the opponent gains an advantage.

Saying that though, I found this very good.
http://tinyurl.com/nmecfms

In reply to jkarran:

Don't forgoet that a lot of aero work goes from F1 and Le Mans to aviation as well as the other way round. I think Williams and Boeing have a formal relationship for tech sharing and joint R&D.

You can also add:
-Sequential shift gearboxes
-wind tunnel and flow modelling

In reply to Shearwater:

I may be wrong (and often am) but dont more every day things like traction control, abs etc owe their genesis to motorsport

In reply to Jimbo W:

In F1, package size and lightness is everything. You can bet your bottom dollar that the recent use of KERS and the new powertrain rules involving electrical energy will be leading to massive leaps in the design and understanding of energy harvesting and storage systems.

As hybrid and electric vehicles become more common on our roads there will inevitably be a crossover of technology from the racetrack.

In reply to london_huddy:

I can see Williams and Boeing maybe sharing interests in modeling and materials but the aerodynamic requirements of their two products are radically different, I doubt there's much relevant crossover.

I suspect you're right about the modeling, F1 probably is a big driver of that technology but wind tunnel development pre-dates F1 use by decades.

The sequential boxes used in most racing cars (not certain of F1) and nearly all motorcycles work quite differently to those found in modern flappy-paddle sequential road cars. The racing 'boxes are conventional 2-shaft constant mesh units with a mechanical sequencing drum or electro-hydraulic selector controls. The road going boxes are either planetary autos with manual controls or twin-clutch, triple shaft gearboxes with electro-hydraulic controls. I suppose the sequential concept has come from racing at least.

jk

In reply to Jimbo W:

Mate of mine and I were discussing F1 ...

My point was they should have F1 with tight rules and reg's and a F-unlimited to let the manufacturers go mental and introduce weird and wacky things which could revolutionise car design such as the 6 wheeled Tyrell P34 or the Brabham BT46 with a downforce fan.

His point was that they should go even further with their rules - such as:
* Single set of tyres for a season (or presumably a limited number of sets)
* Limited quantity of fuel for a season

They seem to be trying these with fuel rates and that kind of thing but they could make it a lot easier by just restricting the environment they have to work in rather than restricting the design of the cars.

In reply to Otis:

What kind of batteries do they use? Do they use hydrogen fuel cells? That might be a good driver of technology....

In reply to zebidee:


Isn't the main reason that there isn't an F1 unlimited because of the danger of excess speed and maintaining safety?

In reply to kipper12:


Oh, I'm not disputing that. Its just that the technology in F1 is further removed from and harder to apply to consumer road vehicles than, say rally car technology, which can be practically dropped into a consumer vehicle and be good to go.

I'm genuinely interested to know what sort of stuff did jump the gap. Its hard to tell, because too many sources just say that such-and-such a bit of consumer tech came from 'racing' or 'motorsport' rather than specifying where it actually came from.

In reply to Jimbo W:


It would price pretty much everyone out of the competition, that's for sure.

In reply to Shearwater:

This is probably because ideas and new tech spreads in so many ways, and gets developed by different applications.

A good example of this is the baby extracting device that was developed from a trick for removing corks from wine bottles

In reply to Jimbo W:


Something light with very high power input/output capacity and relatively little energy storage capacity, high power lithium based pouch cells most likely. Capacitors are likely too bulky/heavy at the size required to absorb enough energy.

jk

In reply to Jimbo W:

I recall an interview with Adrian newey once where the 'how fast could a car to if there were no rules?' question got asked. His response was that the driver would become the weakest link-it would be possible to make a car with so much downforce that the driver wouldn't be able to stay conscious!!! I gues that means F-unlimited is pretty unlikely

In reply to jkarran:



I read something on a BMW patent for this a while back so F1 is clearly not leading the way in terms of ideas.


Yeah, i want one of those! Apparently they're going to do version of the up! based on the same hybrid technology but a beefier lecy motor that will give about 250 mpg, also a nice Peugeot 308 based concept car that achieved something similar.

I suspect there is just inertia in the industry driven by a lack of need (fuel is still pretty cheap the world over) and probably the need to manage consumer expectations towards something lighter and smaller.

Plus of course the inequality that means you see so many £80K range rovers on the roads, the drivers of those just don't care how much fuel they use.

The real step forward i hope might work is automation of cars. Has real potential in terms of energy efficiency and safety, pretty scary concept for us to get our heads around though.

In reply to jkarran:

>> I remember an exhibition a few years ago, I think in the London Science museum, that showed other areas of 'everyday life' where F1 innovation was being commercialised.


The most interesting item in that exhibit, I thought, was nothing to do with tangible stuff, nor anything to do with technology filtering down to normal road cars, but arose from hospital doctors using ideas from F1 pit crews to improve processes within their hospital: http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2008/7/8015.html

While F1 pit stops may be a marvel of process and teamwork, I do think they could make the races much less boring by actually banning tactical pit stops. Apart from anything else that should put a stop to the sort of nonsense we had last season where Pirelli, in trying to make sure that the tyres would wear out sufficiently fast to force pit stops during the race, ended up making tyres which ended up falling apart too quickly. It would also force drivers to overtake on the circuit, rather than just waiting behind a slower car and conserving their tyres until the car in front pitted. The prime benefit to my mind, though, would be the return of the spectacle of drivers having control the delivery of 800-odd bhp through tyres that have to last the whole race, and without the benefit of traction control. That would be fun to watch.

Someone mentioned traction control earlier, as technology that has transferred from F1 to road cars. Of course, F1 banned traction control after a while because it made it too easy for the drivers. So the technology developed in F1, but then banned because it made the sport too boring, turned out to be useful for normal road cars because in that environment a major concern is precisely to remove excitement (ie scope for driver error) from the process as far as possible. (Witness also the fact the Electronic Stability Control will be mandatory on all new cars sold in the EU from next year.)

In reply to Martin W:

They did that a few years ago... It didn't really make much difference (possibly becuase the tyres were too good) think it was the last year of the bridgestone tyres.... Kimi Raikonen was one of the few drivers that really suffered in a race where the vibrations from an early lockup in the race meant his car shook itself apart going down the main straight towards the end of the race. this lead to a lot of comments about the safety of such an approach.

In reply to balmybaldwin:
Are you sure about that? I know they banned mid-race refuelling after 2009 but I wasn't aware that they'd ever banned tyre changes.

In any case, I said tactical pit stops. Obviously you'd be allowed to pit if there was a mechanical or safety problem. And I realise that that would make it potentially complicated to police (worn-out tyres arguably fulfil both criteria!) But now that everyone is using the same tyres, if they just made the tyre manufacturer produce tyres to last a race distance, and no-one was able to use other tyres, that in itself would reduce the options for gaming such a system.

It just seems to me that Formula 1 has mutated from being a sprint formula where the idea was to run non-stop from start to finish unless something went wrong, to being a limited distance endurance formula. I'm not sure that this has been done consciously. By my recollection it was first attempted as a tactic in the modern Formula 1 era by Brabham in the early 1980s (wasn't the Piquet-Salazar fight at Hockenheim in 1982 brought about because Piquet was running soft tyres to get a lead on the rest of the field, when Salazar got in his way as he was being lapped unusually early in the race?) and it seems to have just become accepted practice. I am sure that it has changed the character of the game.

In reply to Martin W:

Absolutely certain (It was 2005), although refuelling was still allowed so you still had tactical pitstops. The drivers were allowed to change a dangerous tyre, which I guess Mclaren decided would cost too much time when Raikonen's car shook apart, I think there were also questions over whether the FIA would allow a change for a flat spot as the rules said something about punctured or damaged tyres only.

In reply to jkarran:


I remember seeing when the details for the new engines came out it showed a RPM limt for the turbos at around 125k Rpm.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Yes you are right, it was the German (or European) GP at the Nurburgring that Kimi's tyre basically shook the front suspension to pieces, and yes tyres could not be changed for reasons other than those you stated...ironically Raikkonen could of changed his tyre for safety reasons, but elected not to as he wouldn't of won the race (but presumably would of finished).

All aspects of pit stops/tyre compounds are all a bit false and artificial imo, they should be able to race on what they want for how long they want...overtaking is tough in any form of road racing, even Karts, unless you go for the panel beating methods of touring cars. On ovals of course drafting makes overtaking much easier.

In reply to Jimbo W:

So what do we think of these new rules announced yesterday?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25310466

Descending into a deeper farce?

In reply to balmybaldwin:




Embarassing

But if Vettel wins the first two races I'm not watching anymore anyway. MotoGP is far more interesting these days

In reply to balmybaldwin:

The double points farce makes a mockery of the whole concept of sport and fair and equal competition across the season.

I'm assuming that, in order to qualify for the double points, the winning car will gradually have to fall apart throughout the race too, and must cross the line with the driver sitting astride the read axle, holding an unattached steering wheel and shouting "honk honk!"?

Bernie has finally lost it......

Mike.

In reply to Jimbo W:

Seems to be flying in the face of resource restriction too, if teams have to develop their cars right up until the final race for double points.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I'm waiting for BE to suggest that each time can play a 'joker' by choosing on GP to be treble points.

In the pipeline I also believe that each driver will be able to call a 'Mulligan' once a season if they fluff their start.

I think we might be heading towards the dreaded world of 'sports entertainment'. Shudder.

In reply to TMM:


I can a few 'Cundys' happening here

In reply to TMM:

The problem is, whilst BE might have been involved, this has comeout of the TEchnical working group and is supposed to be serious!

In reply to Jimbo W:

A desperate attempt to make a dull sport more interesting?