|
TurboDrizzle posted:Isnt WRC struggling for a TV contract and scrambling to change its format for whoever will listen? Honestly thats what i heard. Yeah it isn't now but it was incredibly popular in the Group B and even the Group A days. It's sort of stopped going off the rails this year but I've got no clue what it'll be like over the long term. Also the hybrid V6s are great and again I don't know how you chucklefucks are hating on engines that are approaching the original turbo era power levels.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
I like any racing that's good and has personalities I can get behind and also poo poo on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:Yeah it isn't now but it was incredibly popular in the Group B and even the Group A days. It's sort of stopped going off the rails this year but I've got no clue what it'll be like over the long term. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrsPfXIFzSA&t=13s This video based on nothing but 1964 technology 3 words: Fuel flow limit. There is no reason these cars cant be making 2000 horsepower. Full disclosure: I briefy was involved in a top fuel team 
Flesh Croissant fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Personally I think easing the fuel flow limit would be a good thing. Don't change the fuel weight allowed though. I think it'd be a neat challenge for the engineers to not only extract maximum efficiency, but also an engine that can putter around on literal fumes and battery power behind the safety car, and then balls out 2000hp for that one killer in or out lap without the engine exploding. For the same reason I'd like to see changes in how much electrical power the energy system is allowed to produce. Let em go hog wild. It'd also make fuel strategy a little more interesting without having refueling. Does I think that'd be neat. Especially if we could get real time infographics about what percentage of the engine power is being used (that is to say, what engine mode really means beyond setting a-1, d-6 or whatever code each team uses).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Drag racing should be the perfect example of how a whole lot of horsepower doesn't make for anything worth watching. A 2017 F1 car producing near 1000 bhp is incredible because it's 700kg and it goes around a corner like nothing else
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Drag racing should be the perfect example of how a whole lot of horsepower doesn't make for anything worth watching. A 2017 F1 car producing near 1000 bhp is incredible because it's 700kg and it goes around a corner like nothing else Yea mate i'm right there with you, but 10,000 is a lot. You sort of feel it in your chest hundreds of feet away, and the nitromethane fumes melt your sinus cavities. The v6 hybrid format has the potential to be just as awesome with a big fat fuel tank and a high fuel flow rate. (we can remove the KERS and batteries to save the extra weight)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
The thing is the fuel flow limit is a very easy way to put a total ceiling on horsepower and I can't see the FIA giving that up, even then i think you'd see a lot of teams against it on cost grounds since the engine prices would shoot through the roof if we went back to 20k RPM. Really it hasn't even been a factor in the past few years for the majority of the teams, I'd be far more interested in them lifting the prescriptive ICE requirements and having teams try new configurations other than a 90 degree V6 than lifting the fuel flow limit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Are you loving kidding?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
TurboDrizzle posted:Yea mate i'm right there with you, but 10,000 is a lot. You sort of feel it in your chest hundreds of feet away, and the nitromethane fumes melt your sinus cavities. The v6 hybrid format has the potential to be just as awesome with a big fat fuel tank and a high fuel flow rate. (we can remove the KERS and batteries to save the extra weight) Yeah, go down to the docks when the Queen Mary 2 is docking and it's an incredible loving sight. It's not a skyscraper, but a whole couple of city blocks of skyscrapers all moving at a fair clip to a parking spot that you wouldn't believe. Then it just says 'no thanks' to the tugs, swivels it's engine pods and parallel parks better than I can. She produces something like 100,000 horsepower. But it's over 100 thousand tons and is a cruise ship so who cares. That's my point. Horsepower means nothing, power to weight means everything. 100,000 horsepower in anything other than a cruise ship is interesting, but in the QM2 its pedestrian. As for just going back to pouring in as much fuel as we can and THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT, no, that's the V8 Supercars in Australia. You can go and buy a new Holden or Ford with some 315kw V8 (approaching 500 bhp, serious poo poo) for pretty cheap, you can get a second-hand one for nearly nothing. A BMW M3 is still loving expensive because although it's got less power it's more refined and just a better car in every conceivable way. Not that much less power, the M3 straight six is very torquey, but it's a different style of car. Back to naturally aspirated screaming engines would tickle my nostalgia and be fun, but I can't deny it's a step backward technologically. That M3 straight six would probably have a turbo on it, by the way, just like a 2017 F1 car would.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
The queen mary isnt a racecar, and saving fuel isnt a technological step forward in racing cars. Surely you cant dispute either point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Changing GP2 to F2 makes me wish F1 has a relegation system so that we could send McLaren down
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
TurboDrizzle posted:The queen mary isnt a racecar, and saving fuel isnt a technological step forward in racing cars. Surely you cant dispute either point. Building a conventional ICE engine isn't a technological step forward either, every car maker in the world has known how to do this for the past 15 years. The hybrid regs has pushed them to exploit all sorts of cool poo poo in pursuit of ever leaner combustion. You can bitch about the hybrid regs but it's meant we've seen a lot of really cool futuristic poo poo that we really haven't seen since the electronics/active suspension era in the early 90s with the added bonus of it not being some gimmick loophole in the regs. If you just want to see big numbers then you should probably just play around with a spreadsheet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Bring back fan car
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Drunk Canuck posted:Bring back fan car If Newey had his way would would have had them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Except in the golden era when it was the domain of guys who also cut it in F1. Jacky Ickx is like the ultimate "guy who couldn't quite cut it in F1"
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:Changing GP2 to F2 makes me wish F1 has a relegation system so that we could send McLaren down This is how racing works in Motorsport Manager and it's cool
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
TurboDrizzle posted:The queen mary isnt a racecar, and saving fuel isnt a technological step forward in racing cars. Surely you cant dispute either point. Yes, saving fuel is a technological step in a racecar. In this formula fuel is limited. Fuel economy is huge and always has been in Formula One. It used to be more interesting and more of a difference between engines and required difference strategies based on your power plant. It's not just about saving fuel from an environmental aspect or some other high notion. It's just power to weight again, if I can produce a more efficient engine and therefore don't have to lug around as much fuel as you do, whatever power increase you have will have to overcome your weight disadvantage. V12s are heavy, big block V8s are heavy and yes they produce insane torque because there is so much machine moving. But now you can produce insane torque by exploiting the fact an electric motor can produce maximum torque at 1rpm. You can have the insane torque but without the weight, then on the top end use the massive flow of exhaust gases to harness even more power (turbo). It's a beautiful union between electric and combustion, not KERS where the electrics come over the top but integrated and smooth and by all reports from the crusty SKY crew (brundle drove a couple last year, DC usually does) the power in the new cars is just something else. They say it's like nothing they've ever experienced, they find the throttle control challenging. It's a beautiful thing, man. We don't want to go backward. This is one of the the things that make F1 what it is, they are powered by insane magic machines that are barely understood, produce ridiculous performance figures and are tended to like a terminally ill patient. edit: on the idea that if you lifted fuel flow restrictions you'd have more strategy to play with and that would be more interesting races, they do that now with electrical power. Drivers go into a race mode that has slightly less poke but charges the battery better, saving up a full load to be used in overtaking mode or even just a strategically relevant few flying laps. I'm sure you know all this, but yeah, they already do that now, I dunno if it helps. Tony Montana fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
You've all seen it, except perhaps a couple that haven't. I feel like posting it, Brundle's run in the Force India. I don't know how much training he still does but it does impress the poo poo out of me how he seems to be able to pull on the helmet and still wring the neck of a current F1 car. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEiyQ8aQGWc
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:it does impress the poo poo out of me how he seems to be able to pull on the helmet and still wring the neck of a current F1 car. lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
Still the only good thing Brundle has done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU0gq7gUmWM
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Are you loving kidding? Let me tell you about Claire 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Personally I think easing the fuel flow limit would be a good thing. Don't change the fuel weight allowed though. I think it'd be a neat challenge for the engineers to not only extract maximum efficiency, but also an engine that can putter around on literal fumes and battery power behind the safety car, and then balls out 2000hp for that one killer in or out lap without the engine exploding. For the same reason I'd like to see changes in how much electrical power the energy system is allowed to produce. Let em go hog wild. They do essentially do that, maximum fuel flow is 100kg an hour, Mercedes says they're around 36kg an hour and nearing 50% thermal efficiency. It's exciting because that tech IS making it into the road cars. The new mercedes i6 can recover electricity while coasting and use it to launch better, and to spool the turbo quicker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 11:35
|
|
|
Powershift posted:They do essentially do that, maximum fuel flow is 100kg an hour, Mercedes says they're around 36kg an hour and nearing 50% thermal efficiency. Funny how they have devised a formula that's relevant to road car manufacturers while also making it effectively impossible for new manufacturers to enter. I bet they'd have a hell of a lot more luck getting new engine manufacturers if they didn't so strictly limit testing. Imagine where Renault and Honda might be if they could (attempt) hundreds of miles of private testing, or hell, if they didn't have to make a single engine last like six races.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
wicka posted:Funny how they have devised a formula that's relevant to road car manufacturers while also making it effectively impossible for new manufacturers to enter. I bet they'd have a hell of a lot more luck getting new engine manufacturers if they didn't so strictly limit testing. Imagine where Renault and Honda might be if they could (attempt) hundreds of miles of private testing, or hell, if they didn't have to make a single engine last like six races. This is... kind of compelling. Reality is that the engine manufacturers (merc in particular) are spending huge money on R&D and simulation on bench testing rigs and poo poo just to get around the testing limitation rules. I wonder if we've looped back around to the point where it might actually be cheaper to just put the drat things in actual cars again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
wicka posted:Imagine where Renault and Honda might be if they could (attempt) hundreds of miles of private testing Bankrupt? Because that's exactly what F1 had a few years ago and we ended up with the manufacturers setting up entire teams to do unlimited private testing all year round until all the money disappeared.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Roller Coast Guard posted:Bankrupt? That sounds like their problem. Plus I'm not suggesting totally unlimited private testing. Isn't the solution to your scenario just "don't set up entire teams to test year round"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
There's some middle ground between barely a week of testing where if you have one bad day you've pretty much written your season off and unlimited private testing. Personally I think Fridays should just be turned into a whole day of open practice every weekend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Personally I think easing the fuel flow limit would be a good thing. Don't change the fuel weight allowed though. I think it'd be a neat challenge for the engineers to not only extract maximum efficiency, but also an engine that can putter around on literal fumes and battery power behind the safety car, and then balls out 2000hp for that one killer in or out lap without the engine exploding. For the same reason I'd like to see changes in how much electrical power the energy system is allowed to produce. Let em go hog wild. I'd love to see something like this happen, and work in practice too. Whether it's fuel flow, RPM, or additional battery power. Unfortunately, I still think the teams would manage to "optimize" things with fascinating unseen simulations and calculations and the reality wouldn't be as dynamic a result as we all hope for. It would just give the teams more doohickeys to ruin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Yeah, go down to the docks when the Queen Mary 2 is docking and it's an incredible loving sight. It's not a skyscraper, but a whole couple of city blocks of skyscrapers all moving at a fair clip to a parking spot that you wouldn't believe. Then it just says 'no thanks' to the tugs, swivels it's engine pods and parallel parks better than I can. you can get last min ticket on the queen mary 2 from NYC to Southampton for $799 and I am totally going to do a transatlantic crossing on it one day (prob in the other direction).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Lmao, Liberty called out Baku for being a pointless GP that was only held for the entrance fee: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/azerbaijan-gp-boss-hits-out-at-ignorant-liberty-criticism-883054/
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Nothing Liberty have done or said since they took over has been bad. They had me at bringing back Brawn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Typical ignorant American investors making GBS threads on the European Grand Prix. Sad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
"Money? What do we need money for, we have integrity" - Every failed business ever
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:09
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
HJB posted:"Money? What do we need money for, we have integrity" - Every failed business ever What Liberty realizes, because they are not morons, is that they can make way loving more money in the long run by growing the sport and allowing it to thrive, rather than by extorting promoters in third-world shitholes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
They might even try concepts un-tested in the bernie era like marketing and ad sales.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
wicka posted:What Liberty realizes, because they are not morons, is that they can make way loving more money in the long run by growing the sport and allowing it to thrive, rather than by extorting promoters in third-world shitholes. I may be wrong, but looking at how other racing series have performed recently, I'm going to disagree with what you just wrote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Powershift posted:They might even try concepts un-tested in the bernie era like marketing and ad sales. They legit just hired people to lead these departments. All the reporting about them has noted that previously all of this was done by Bernie. The "structure" of FOM must be blowing their minds. daslog posted:I may be wrong, but looking at how other racing series have performed recently, I'm going to disagree with what you just wrote. lmao alright slugger
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Is it typical for circuits to pay the sport to bring the sport to the circuit? I thought that was unusual
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Bring Back Bernie
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:Is it typical for circuits to pay the sport to bring the sport to the circuit? I thought that was unusual Promotor usually takes a cut from the ticket sales in exchange for actually promoting the sport. Bernie made them give him a wedge and then did gently caress all apart from putting it on the calendar. It's probably one of the reason F1 is having problems with sponsors as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:43
|
|