|
1500quidporsche posted:You would need a blow off valve as well. It's a fairly crude solution that limits what you can play with in terms of the turbo system though. Okay, I understand that, as they currently only have the wastegate...but still, wouldn't that be a solution that - as you say - limits what you can play with, instead of making it interesting to burn motor oil? I'm far, far away from beeing an engine expert, that's why I'm asking these stupid questions. Following F1 for many years, I just got the feeling that most of the times banning the result of a maybe not perfectly thought out ruleset was often worse than fixing the ruleset. Then again, I actually love all these little hacks the teams come up with, as long as they don't lead to three, four or even more years of domination while the FIA
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
CratSock posted:F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport!* The fuel flow thing is literally the best idea they've had for organically managing engine power levels in decades. The fact that thermal efficiency for these engines has gradually climbed above 50% shows that it's working while still encouraging development.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
wicka posted:Attrition racing is an incredibly dumb attempt at solving bad racing. It isn't a solution to anything. It's a fact of life of series where teams can actually push the envelope and go for broke. Look at Le Mans the last two years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Like nobody is advocating someone drop a hand grenade with a random timer in everyone's car (except for Lance Stroll's car)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:The fuel flow thing is literally the best idea they've had for organically managing engine power levels in decades. The fact that thermal efficiency for these engines has gradually climbed above 50% shows that it's working while still encouraging development. Okay, that makes it clear where I thought obviously very wrong. When I red that Mercedes is somewhere above 60% or even 65% of thermal efficiency (which was deemed nearly impossible, as I understood it) is impressive
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:It isn't a solution to anything. It's a fact of life of series where teams can actually push the envelope and go for broke. Look at Le Mans the last two years. Le Mans is an endurance race.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
*the outcome of any sporting event anywhere is affected by a random event, such as weather, an injury, or poor fortune* wicka: this is basically the exact same thing as Powerball
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
tuo posted:Okay, I understand that, as they currently only have the wastegate...but still, wouldn't that be a solution that - as you say - limits what you can play with, instead of making it interesting to burn motor oil? Let's say we go with your solution. The focus is just going to be on driving a ram air effect and rising the system pressure to overcome the throttle restriction. You put a blow off valve on it and then the thought turns to okay how do I get it to burn richer so there's more energy in the combustion chamber on detonation. There's always a work around to any limit. The genius of a well enforced fuel flow limit is that there is intact a theoretical limit to the power that can be used per second and it's the engineer's job to extract the maximum amount of that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:*the outcome of any sporting event anywhere is affected by a random event, such as weather, an injury, or poor fortune* lol you want to specifically design a formula in which engines are less reliable, that’s not a random event
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
wicka posted:lol you want to specifically design a formula in which engines are less reliable, that’s not a random event I want to specifically design a formula where teams can make engines less reliable if they want to. They can also make them more reliable, if they think they will win more races or the title that way. This is why Le Mans has gotten so unreliable in the last few years, Porsche and Toyota have been pushing each other harder and harder trying to beat each other. It will probably be a very safe, boring race this year because suddenly Toyota has no competition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:I want to specifically design a formula where teams can make engines less reliable if they want to. They can also make them more reliable, if they think they will win more races or the title that way. Yeah that’s for sure the image manufacturers want
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
wicka posted:Yeah that’s for sure the image manufacturers want You'll find they really won't give a poo poo if it means they start winning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
wicka posted:Yeah that’s for sure the image manufacturers want Porsche and Audi would still be in Le Mans if it weren't for the lingering effects of Dieselgate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
wicka posted:lol you want to specifically design a formula in which engines are less reliable, that’s not a random event That is absolutely not what he said. You're being disingenuous. No manufacturer would intentionally design their engines to be unreliable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:That is absolutely not what he said. You're being disingenuous. No manufacturer would intentionally design their engines to be unreliable. the one exception: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Ferrari, Renault, BMW, Honda....all at one point sacrificed reliability in favour of speed. Many times it paid off even if their were growing pains at first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Didn't Honda before the 2017 IndyCar season not go to all the teams and said "Hey, we can give you a big power boost at the expense of reliability. Want us to do it?" and all the teams were like "gently caress yes"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Wirth1000 posted:Didn't Honda before the 2017 IndyCar season not go to all the teams and said "Hey, we can give you a big power boost at the expense of reliability. Want us to do it?" and all the teams were like "gently caress yes" They did it at the Indy 500 and won the race, though it's probably why Our Nando broke down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
In the Honda and Buick cases I think it was just them pushing the designs to absolutely brink and past their normal safe operational power levels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:That is absolutely not what he said. You're being disingenuous. No manufacturer would intentionally design their engines to be unreliable. Read his posts, lol. Regardless, attrition racing is stupid and bad and barely even counts as racing, and is arguably the best example of this bad thread devising bad opinions purely because of nostalgia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
The 2000 CART season is also an example of 4 different manufacturers getting into an all out power war, with engines grenading left and right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Wirth1000 posted:Didn't Honda before the 2017 IndyCar season not go to all the teams and said "Hey, we can give you a big power boost at the expense of reliability. Want us to do it?" and all the teams were like "gently caress yes" Only because they were at a huge aero advantage and had no chance at beating Chevy without taking a risk. Did it produce more entertaining racing when battles for the lead ending because of engines exploding? Of course not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:I want to specifically design a formula where teams can make engines less reliable if they want to. They can also make them more reliable, if they think they will win more races or the title that way. I agree with this post
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
wicka posted:Only because they were at a huge aero advantage and had no chance at beating Chevy without taking a risk. Did it produce more entertaining racing when battles for the lead ending because of engines exploding? Of course not. "That race was bad" - literally nobody who actually watched that race
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Who doesn't love seeing machinery pushed to the absolute limit? The whole idea is man and machine both on the limit to strive for ultimate victory over their rivals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
You seem to have a really blinkered view where the only thing that matters in racing is on-track battles for position. That is not true. Racing can be both an endurance run to the end and a sprint. It is at its best when it combines both these things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
1500 shitposting posted:Who doesn't love seeing machinery pushed to the absolute limit? The whole idea is man and machine both on the limit to strive for ultimate victory over their rivals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
wicka posted:Only because they were at a huge aero advantage and had no chance at beating Chevy without taking a risk. Did it produce more entertaining racing when battles for the lead ending because of engines exploding? Of course not. What? I loving hate ovals with a passion and IndyCar and that race converted me right the gently caress over doing a 180 degrees. IndyCar and single-seater ovals own and that opinion of mine is directly due to experiencing the 2017 Indy 500 along with all the attrition. I screamed, I cried, I got mad, and then I got sad when Alonso's engine blew and the extreme tension of wondering if Sato was next kept me on the edge of my seat. It was an immense risk and Honda choosing power over reliability contributed to their victory and emotions and tension throughout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
wicka posted:Only because they were at a huge aero advantage and had no chance at beating Chevy without taking a risk. Did it produce more entertaining racing when battles for the lead ending because of engines exploding? Of course not. Like, let me get back to this- do you think that race would have been more interesting if Honda weren't allowed to take a risk, and the race was basically a two-tier race with all the Chevy cars running away from all the Honda cars?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:You seem to have a really blinkered view where the only thing that matters in racing is on-track battles for position. That is not true. Racing can be both an endurance run to the end and a sprint. It is at its best when it combines both these things. Endurance racing is a specific type of racing. Not every race should be an endurance race just because you have an outsized view of some seasons in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:Like, let me get back to this- do you think that race would have been more interesting if Honda weren't allowed to take a risk, and the race was basically a two-tier race with all the Chevy cars running away from all the Honda cars? That’s not what I said. That race is irrelevant to the point I am making. It is explicitly not what you are describing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
I would seriously rather jam my dick into an espresso grinder than try and get Wicka to understand that he's being stupid and pedantic on a subject but God bless you all for trying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
wicka posted:That’s not what I said. That race is irrelevant to the point I am making. It is explicitly not what you are describing. Explicitly what I am describing is a team having the option to make up for a lack of speed by going for the fast-but-unreliable route.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
I do not understand how I could be more clear about this. All my posts about this have explicitly said that the teams should have the option to make fast, unreliable cars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
I bring up the Ferrari 640/641. The 640 was horrendously unreliable initially but it's revolutionary design paid off when Ferrari was able to develop it to win. The 641 was an evolution of this design and challenged for the Championship. Contrast with the 312T5. A reliable but desperately slow dead end. The next year the 126C was unreliable and like couldn't turn but Ferrari chose to go with big Turbo power at the expense of everything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:I bring up the Ferrari 640/641. The 640 was horrendously unreliable initially but it's revolutionary design paid off when Ferrari was able to develop it to win. The 641 was an evolution of this design and challenged for the Championship. To be fair that wasn't a speed/reliability thing, IIRC they just weren't giving enough electrical power to the gearbox at first. Mansell winning in Brazil that year is still one of the least likely wins I can remember. It's amazing that car finished the race at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:I would seriously rather jam my dick into an espresso grinder than try and get Wicka to understand that he's being stupid and pedantic on a subject but God bless you all for trying. This always happens exclusively because you all are blinded by nostalgia and harken back to bad eras of racing that you mistakenly believe we’re good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Perhaps but sticking with the gearbox gave them massive problems initially. They thought it would give them an advantage despite the initial lack of results due to retirements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:Explicitly what I am describing is a team having the option to make up for a lack of speed by going for the fast-but-unreliable route. And you are describing a race that would’ve been even better if reliability wasn’t an issue, and Honda was still able to pull even with a Chevy without sacrificing half their cars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
wicka posted:This always happens exclusively because you all are blinded by nostalgia and harken back to bad eras of racing that you mistakenly believe we’re good. Actually that era of racing owns. Sorry you're so wrong about poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 18:57
|
|