Scottish Elises

From Andrew Benson.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson ... f1_sc.html

Joe Saward has something on this too I think but may still be a bit too emotional

Bottom line. Isn't it time Bernie retired and stopped tinkering?!

don't often agree with Bernie, but he is spot on on this one.

F1 is supposed to be about the pinnacle of single seater racing, to then foist boring/sad/gutless engines on it is laughable.

F1 is slower now that it was 20 years ago (in laptimes as well as straight lines), we have comedy tyres, throttled engines, pathetic gimmicks (DRS/Kers), etc etc all of which have done nothing to cut costs, and just how much will developing these new engines cost?

At this rate, they might just as well re-badge FPA cars (I honestly think that was the original idea!)

what we need is the best engines they can make, and if your really bothered about the green agenda, do what they did with Group C 30 years ago, ie. have a fuel limit, how you use that fuel was up to the teams/engineers.

Pushing the technology forward can only be a good thing even if it does favour the bigger team initially. What would F1 be like if they were still plodding round with the Cosworth DFV?
I think the biggest threat to F1 is Bernie himself; sponsors don't like negative vibes, nor will they respond positively to a sport hidden from the exposure given by the free-to-air channels. Looks like the asset stripping era may be here.

This year has probably been the best start to an F1 season for a long time, 7 different winners in 7 races ffs.One of the reasons that has been touted for this is that the regulations remained pretty much the same and teams caught up, so you have the nearest thing to a level playing field there has been for a long time.

As soon as there is a major rule change or switch to new 'x' the bigger teams with the most/best engineers, designers etc can develop things quicker and you end up with a driver or team that steals the season because they have more money.
Leave it alone to develop at its own pace rather than change the goal posts every year.

j2 lot wrote:This year has probably been the best start to an F1 season for a long time, 7 different winners in 7 races ffs.One of the reasons that has been touted for this is that the regulations remained pretty much the same and teams caught up, so you have the nearest thing to a level playing field there has been for a long time.

I would argue that, and suggest it's more down to comedy tyres

Scuffers wrote:
F1 is supposed to be about the pinnacle of single seater racing, to then foist boring/sad/gutless engines on it is laughable.

I'm not sure I disagree with you, but to play Devils advocate, I'd suggest that F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of technology in motorsport.

The engine rules they are talking about will give engines with the same or more power but using a third less fuel. That doesn't sound boring or gutless or sad to me, more like forcing the development of new technologies which brings us back to what F1 is all about......

If you read the article they are attempting to slow the cars down by changes to the aero rules, not by cutting the power of the engines.

Stevoraith wrote:

Scuffers wrote:
F1 is supposed to be about the pinnacle of single seater racing, to then foist boring/sad/gutless engines on it is laughable.

I'm not sure I disagree with you, but to play Devils advocate, I'd suggest that F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of technology in motorsport.

The engine rules they are talking about will give engines with the same or more power but using a third less fuel. That doesn't sound boring or gutless or sad to me, more like forcing the development of new technologies which brings us back to what F1 is all about......

If you read the article they are attempting to slow the cars down by changes to the aero rules, not by cutting the power of the engines.

well, you have just fallen at the first hurdle...

the new engines will be ~200Bhp less than the current ones, the 'difference' will be made up with Kers apparently.....

now do you feel the same?

(and this is before you consider the current engines are boring, gutless, rev-limited wheeze boxes!

I think continually evolving the regs is important, where each major aspect is concerned.

There is a trend - for good or bad - for road engines to move towards forced induction to provide power when needed and economic cruising otherwise, from downsized capacity engines. Whilst F1 cars don't care about cruising, if adopting a road-relevant technology takes things to a new level, why not.

Many may be sceptics about what F1 "technology" has ever really done for the auto industry overall, but there are plenty apparent links (turbocharging, electronic engine management, ceramic brakes, tyre compounds, energy recovery systems, aerodynamic / fluid dynamic experimentation, ABS, active suspension, use of modern or novel materials like Carbon Fibre, etc). Would these links have developed if the regs had been left as they were in 1970? Maybe. Maybe not.

What is happening with other regs, like the Le Mans class cars, for example?

And wtf is Flavio the Cheatio doing back sniffing around F1?

where's the point in using little more than road car engines in F1?

(I would also argue most of the stuff you have labelled F1 developments)

Look, if you want to push technology forwards, you have to give them realistic regs, ie, let's say 160L of fuel for the race, use it how you like, then next year, make it 140L, etc. that's how to push technology forwards.

As I said before, why are we slowing already slow F1 cars down even more? at this rate, GP2 cars are going to be faster.

V8s, and V10s before them, were essentially road car engines, were they not. Certainly plenty of them kicking about on the streets today.

As for your proposal on fuel, they're halfway there already - no refuelling at pitstops now. Not sure if tank limitations are by regs or by packaging, but they're there.

In real terms, how much slower is an F1 car today than, say, 30 years ago? Are we allowed to factor safety developments into this equation too?

campbell wrote:V8s, and V10s before them, were essentially road car engines, were they not. Certainly plenty of them kicking about on the streets today.

As for your proposal on fuel, they're halfway there already - no refuelling at pitstops now. Not sure if tank limitations are by regs or by packaging, but they're there.

In real terms, how much slower is an F1 car today than, say, 30 years ago? Are we allowed to factor safety developments into this equation too?

not even close, show me a 3L 120 degree V10 in a road car that does 22,000Rpm?

as for speed, yes, 20-30 years ago the cars were 5-8 sec's a lap faster - (look it up), and that's in qualifying pace, race pace the difference is even greater.

If the KERS developments have spin off into the hybrid car market then you can see why the more mainstream manufacturers are willing to take that route. I don't know that there is any spin off, mind you.

It's all about politics and has been for as long as I've been following it - about 10 years. Somebody wants to have these engines for some reason, somebody else doesn't - yet a third doesn't really mind but wants to align themselves with one or other party for reasons unknown to us. I don't much care what engines they have - it's not clear to me why anyone cares. Provided it's a level playing field then they can run around in Harley Davidson one-pots provided they go fast

I don't think the unpredictable nature of the tyres is really doing the sport any favours this year - sure we've got a collection of winners - but I'm not sure even they know why they won!

Cheers,
Robin

Scuffers wrote:

campbell wrote:V8s, and V10s before them, were essentially road car engines, were they not. Certainly plenty of them kicking about on the streets today.

As for your proposal on fuel, they're halfway there already - no refuelling at pitstops now. Not sure if tank limitations are by regs or by packaging, but they're there.

In real terms, how much slower is an F1 car today than, say, 30 years ago? Are we allowed to factor safety developments into this equation too?

not even close, show me a 3L 120 degree V10 in a road car that does 22,000Rpm?

as for speed, yes, 20-30 years ago the cars were 5-8 sec's a lap faster - (look it up), and that's in qualifying pace, race pace the difference is even greater.

OK. 3-0 Scuffers. Next up?!