User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/16/2014 3:39:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Turns out I can't watch shit. For some reason I don't have nbc sports one directv package
 What the fuck...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2014 3:42:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Really sucks for Ricciardo. Looking at the way things went for Vettel, I wonder if RBR wasn't playing fast and loose with the rules by handing Vettel FIA compliant but reduced power/fuel flow engine maps and then letting their #2 guy go with the higher power settings, planning to fight the FIA post race if it came to what we have now. Ric was way faster than Vettel all weekend, and I dont think that was just a coincidnce or a matter of skill. Be interesting to see how their appeal goes, but they basically ignored the umpire, and I can't see the FIA just letting teams decide on their own that their internal fuel flow sensors are better than the FIA homulgated sensor -- that defeats the whole purpose of everyone using the same sensor. Personally, I don't understand why, if you give teams a fuel limit, that they can't decide on their own how best to use that fuel, but those are the rules. There is a rationale, even if we don't like it. The FIA has decided that the premier racing class needs to be an R&D effort and testbed for 'green' engine technology. I expect that the theory is that, by placing constraints on the engineers, designers, and constructors, the end result will be optimum performance and efficiency. Most internal combustion engines today struggle to reach 35% efficiency. If F1 can improve on that, it will eventually trickle down to road going vehicles. The question then is; Will it make the racing suck? Maybe. Depends on whether or not the engineers are clever enough. Mercedes seems to have clever engineers. Renault, not so much. (yet)  m ETA: This would be similar to the adoption of EFI in the late 70s and 80s by F1. There is a decent video out there which documents Cosworth/Ford creating one of the first EFI Turbo engines back in the day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2014 3:43:43 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Turns out I can't watch shit. For some reason I don't have nbc sports one directv package
What the fuck... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Turns out I can't watch shit. For some reason I don't have nbc sports one directv package
What the fuck... You can always try the F1 (which was actually quite good with the commentary and radios) app or see if the NBC Live Extra app/feed will work. I have Uverse internet only (no TV package at all) and the Live Extra app works great. Downside is no DVR and you can only watch events live. Also... The FIA has decided that the premier racing class needs to be an R&D effort and testbed for 'green' engine technology. I expect that the theory is that, by placing constraints on the engineers, designers, and constructors, the end result will be optimum performance and efficiency. Most internal combustion engines today struggle to reach 35% efficiency. If F1 can improve on that, it will eventually trickle down to road going vehicles. Sure. But regardless of rate of fuel use during the race, you are still limited to using a 100 kg total -- meaning your average fuel efficiency is still the same. If you turn up the rate at some point, then you are going to have to turn it down at some other point to avoid running out of fuel. I cannot imagine teams saying "we'll, let's finish with 80kg of fuel because we want to be green." They are always going to push it to the limit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2014 4:11:45 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also... Sure. But regardless of rate of fuel use during the race, you are still limited to using a 100 kg total -- meaning your average fuel efficiency is still the same. If you turn up the rate at some point, then you are going to have to turn it down at some other point to avoid running out of fuel. I cannot imagine teams saying "we'll, let's finish with 80kg of fuel because we want to be green." They are always going to push it to the limit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Also... The FIA has decided that the premier racing class needs to be an R&D effort and testbed for 'green' engine technology. I expect that the theory is that, by placing constraints on the engineers, designers, and constructors, the end result will be optimum performance and efficiency. Most internal combustion engines today struggle to reach 35% efficiency. If F1 can improve on that, it will eventually trickle down to road going vehicles. Sure. But regardless of rate of fuel use during the race, you are still limited to using a 100 kg total -- meaning your average fuel efficiency is still the same. If you turn up the rate at some point, then you are going to have to turn it down at some other point to avoid running out of fuel. I cannot imagine teams saying "we'll, let's finish with 80kg of fuel because we want to be green." They are always going to push it to the limit. Agreed... until you start using more aggressive energy recovery techniques, and tapping that stored energy more effectively. They are limited to a maximum of 100kg/hr burn rate, true, (and 100kg total per race) but they also added a lot more [K|H]ERS this year. One of the constructors commented that this year, the actual increase in electrical energy available is 10x over last year. Give it a few years, and one of the big manufacturers will release a hybrid with both regenerative braking and turbo heat recovery for the batteries on a road car. I do think that putting these constraints will force limits to be pushed. Otherwise, F1 will turn into one of those hyper-miler efficiency races... m |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2014 4:23:02 PM EDT
[#5]
After reading the pdf posted above you can stick a fork in RBR's chance of winning an appeal. The FIA told them they couldn't ignore the sensor reading since there had already been an adjustment in how to interpret the sensor readings. When the FIA says no they mean no. They even gave RBR a chance to stop using their own model during the race. Maybe that's what was wrong with Vettel's car? He's car was running on the spec flow.
Good to see Nico win the race. Hamilton did pretty much what I expected him to do. He is hard on equipment and these new engines are going to b a bit fragile at first. Magnussen and Bottas are the one to watch this year. What a difference a year makes. Very entertaining race. Cars still sound like shit though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2014 4:45:01 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After reading the pdf posted above you can stick a fork in RBR's chance of winning an appeal. The FIA told them they couldn't ignore the sensor reading since there had already been an adjustment in how to interpret the sensor readings. When the FIA says no they mean no. They even gave RBR a chance to stop using their own model during the race. Maybe that's what was wrong with Vettel's car? He's car was running on the spec flow. Quote HistoryQuoted:
After reading the pdf posted above you can stick a fork in RBR's chance of winning an appeal. The FIA told them they couldn't ignore the sensor reading since there had already been an adjustment in how to interpret the sensor readings. When the FIA says no they mean no. They even gave RBR a chance to stop using their own model during the race. Maybe that's what was wrong with Vettel's car? He's car was running on the spec flow. This. RBR chose to ignore FIA direction. Link. Red Bull had twice changed the sensor on Ricciardo’s car after being unhappy with readings during practice. The unit fitted to his car during the race is the original one he used in Friday practice which was subsequently swapped out. The replacement unit did not give satisfactory readings to the team or the FIA and the team was instructed to remove this sensor on Saturday night in parc ferme. The nub of it is that Red Bull decided that the sensors were unreliable and applied its own offset rather than the one that the FIA included in its calibration. The FIA observed that it is up to them – not the team – to give instructions on what measures to follow in the event that wrong readings are suspected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2014 8:07:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Ooph. I'm off to bad start in the fantasy league. 20th after week 1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2014 9:00:36 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ooph. I'm off to bad start in the fantasy league. 20th after week 1. At least you remembered to make your picks. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2014 9:43:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ooph. I'm off to bad start in the fantasy league. 20th after week 1. You and me both
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2014 11:21:53 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After reading the pdf posted above you can stick a fork in RBR's chance of winning an appeal. The FIA told them they couldn't ignore the sensor reading since there had already been an adjustment in how to interpret the sensor readings. When the FIA says no they mean no. They even gave RBR a chance to stop using their own model during the race. Maybe that's what was wrong with Vettel's car? He's car was running on the spec flow. Good to see Nico win the race. Hamilton did pretty much what I expected him to do. He is hard on equipment and these new engines are going to b a bit fragile at first. Magnussen and Bottas are the one to watch this year. What a difference a year makes. Very entertaining race. Cars still sound like shit though. Hard to blame Ham for the car getting heat soaked and dropping a cylinder... I'm sure he wasn't beating the car up on the out/parade lap(s) 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2014 11:44:33 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
After reading the pdf posted above you can stick a fork in RBR's chance of winning an appeal. The FIA told them they couldn't ignore the sensor reading since there had already been an adjustment in how to interpret the sensor readings. When the FIA says no they mean no. They even gave RBR a chance to stop using their own model during the race. Maybe that's what was wrong with Vettel's car? He's car was running on the spec flow. This. RBR chose to ignore FIA direction. Link. Red Bull had twice changed the sensor on Ricciardo’s car after being unhappy with readings during practice. The unit fitted to his car during the race is the original one he used in Friday practice which was subsequently swapped out. The replacement unit did not give satisfactory readings to the team or the FIA and the team was instructed to remove this sensor on Saturday night in parc ferme. The nub of it is that Red Bull decided that the sensors were unreliable and applied its own offset rather than the one that the FIA included in its calibration. The FIA observed that it is up to them – not the team – to give instructions on what measures to follow in the event that wrong readings are suspected. We tested these sensors on our car for the FIA during the 2010 LeMans 24 Hour race, we didn't observe any issues but we were not being scrutinized at any level which would have adversely affected our race result, it was purely a development exercise. One thing that I see, and I say this with absolutely no knowledge of how this fuel flow thing is being policed, is that the resolution at which the flow is being monitored/received/processed makes a difference. Our boost levels are monitored, in real time, by the series. We have observed that the data is very sensitive to "quality" so that when we run the boost strategy at or near the maximum then signal quality is very, very important. I imagine that the FIA is averaging the fuel flow using an equation that involves several parameters, this can result in an anomaly if the team is running at or close to the limit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2014 12:26:43 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We tested these sensors on our car for the FIA during the 2010 LeMans 24 Hour race, we didn't observe any issues but we were not being scrutinized at any level which would have adversely affected our race result, it was purely a development exercise. One thing that I see, and I say this with absolutely no knowledge of how this fuel flow thing is being policed, is that the resolution at which the flow is being monitored/received/processed makes a difference. Our boost levels are monitored, in real time, by the series. We have observed that the data is very sensitive to "quality" so that when we run the boost strategy at or near the maximum then signal quality is very, very important. I imagine that the FIA is averaging the fuel flow using an equation that involves several parameters, this can result in an anomaly if the team is running at or close to the limit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After reading the pdf posted above you can stick a fork in RBR's chance of winning an appeal. The FIA told them they couldn't ignore the sensor reading since there had already been an adjustment in how to interpret the sensor readings. When the FIA says no they mean no. They even gave RBR a chance to stop using their own model during the race. Maybe that's what was wrong with Vettel's car? He's car was running on the spec flow. This. RBR chose to ignore FIA direction. Link. Red Bull had twice changed the sensor on Ricciardo’s car after being unhappy with readings during practice. The unit fitted to his car during the race is the original one he used in Friday practice which was subsequently swapped out. The replacement unit did not give satisfactory readings to the team or the FIA and the team was instructed to remove this sensor on Saturday night in parc ferme. The nub of it is that Red Bull decided that the sensors were unreliable and applied its own offset rather than the one that the FIA included in its calibration. The FIA observed that it is up to them – not the team – to give instructions on what measures to follow in the event that wrong readings are suspected. We tested these sensors on our car for the FIA during the 2010 LeMans 24 Hour race, we didn't observe any issues but we were not being scrutinized at any level which would have adversely affected our race result, it was purely a development exercise. One thing that I see, and I say this with absolutely no knowledge of how this fuel flow thing is being policed, is that the resolution at which the flow is being monitored/received/processed makes a difference. Our boost levels are monitored, in real time, by the series. We have observed that the data is very sensitive to "quality" so that when we run the boost strategy at or near the maximum then signal quality is very, very important. I imagine that the FIA is averaging the fuel flow using an equation that involves several parameters, this can result in an anomaly if the team is running at or close to the limit. Not sure if this applies to your statement, but the FIA released this information over the weekend The maximum fuel flow limit mFFMillegal will be checked using a fuel flow frequency (parameter fdmFFMFuelFilter) of 5Hz instead of the 10Hz currently configured in the FIA data version.
Due to time constraints before the qualifying seesion the FIA data versions will not be changed. The revised monitoring will be processed by the FIA off-car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2014 2:00:51 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wouldn't be surprised if RBR are still trying to get some trick aero effect out of the off throttle exhaust and that's why they're playing with fuel flow rates at lower RPM settings. Interesting. I wondered how they would try that this year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2014 3:27:05 AM EDT
[#14]
If this was on tv and I only heard the cars, I would have thought indycar was on
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2014 1:35:32 PM EDT
[#15]
They're limited to 100 kilos of fuel, correct? That isn't much, really... not much more than 35-36 gallons.
I don't understand why the limit on fuel flow... fuel supply is finite, and if you consume too much (excessive flow) you run out and fail to finish. Ricardo obviously didn't fail to finish the GP, so what's the problem? I'm not left-turn-trolling, serious question. I don't understand what's going on here 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2014 1:43:40 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're limited to 100 kilos of fuel, correct? That isn't much, really... not much more than 35-36 gallons. I don't understand why the limit on fuel flow... fuel supply is finite, and if you consume too much (excessive flow) you run out and fail to finish. Ricardo obviously didn't fail to finish the GP, so what's the problem? I'm not left-turn-trolling, serious question. I don't understand what's going on here As someone said the rule is about fuel FLOW... Not consumption. The idea behind it is prolly to maximize efficiency at higher rpm's. Anyway, the rule might be stupid, as many others, but it's still a rule |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2014 1:47:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed... until you start using more aggressive energy recovery techniques, and tapping that stored energy more effectively. They are limited to a maximum of 100kg/hr burn rate, true, (and 100kg total per race) but they also added a lot more [K|H]ERS this year. One of the constructors commented that this year, the actual increase in electrical energy available is 10x over last year. Give it a few years, and one of the big manufacturers will release a hybrid with both regenerative braking and turbo heat recovery for the batteries on a road car. I do think that putting these constraints will force limits to be pushed. Otherwise, F1 will turn into one of those hyper-miler efficiency races... m Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Also... The FIA has decided that the premier racing class needs to be an R&D effort and testbed for 'green' engine technology. I expect that the theory is that, by placing constraints on the engineers, designers, and constructors, the end result will be optimum performance and efficiency. Most internal combustion engines today struggle to reach 35% efficiency. If F1 can improve on that, it will eventually trickle down to road going vehicles. Sure. But regardless of rate of fuel use during the race, you are still limited to using a 100 kg total -- meaning your average fuel efficiency is still the same. If you turn up the rate at some point, then you are going to have to turn it down at some other point to avoid running out of fuel. I cannot imagine teams saying "we'll, let's finish with 80kg of fuel because we want to be green." They are always going to push it to the limit. Agreed... until you start using more aggressive energy recovery techniques, and tapping that stored energy more effectively. They are limited to a maximum of 100kg/hr burn rate, true, (and 100kg total per race) but they also added a lot more [K|H]ERS this year. One of the constructors commented that this year, the actual increase in electrical energy available is 10x over last year. Give it a few years, and one of the big manufacturers will release a hybrid with both regenerative braking and turbo heat recovery for the batteries on a road car. I do think that putting these constraints will force limits to be pushed. Otherwise, F1 will turn into one of those hyper-miler efficiency races... m next year, there is going to be a 200 million dollar cap on spending. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2014 1:53:39 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
its a gimmick. if this was really about efficiency and R&D the FIA wouldnt have frozen dev of the power units during the race season. the energy harvesting has already existed in various forms on the open market. P1 is already miles ahead in the game as well. next year, there is going to be a 200 million dollar cap on spending.
First I have heard of a cap being successfully passed. Where did you hear that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2014 2:07:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As someone said the rule is about fuel FLOW... Not consumption. The idea behind it is prolly to maximize efficiency at higher rpm's. Anyway, the rule might be stupid, as many others, but it's still a rule Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They're limited to 100 kilos of fuel, correct? That isn't much, really... not much more than 35-36 gallons. I don't understand why the limit on fuel flow... fuel supply is finite, and if you consume too much (excessive flow) you run out and fail to finish. Ricardo obviously didn't fail to finish the GP, so what's the problem? I'm not left-turn-trolling, serious question. I don't understand what's going on here As someone said the rule is about fuel FLOW... Not consumption. The idea behind it is prolly to maximize efficiency at higher rpm's. Anyway, the rule might be stupid, as many others, but it's still a rule It is another way of limiting power without....limiting power. I'm fine with it, in comparison to the ways it has been done in the past and how it is being done now it is manageable. It is hard to cheat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2014 6:06:02 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: its a gimmick. if this was really about efficiency and R&D the FIA wouldnt have frozen dev of the power units during the race season. the energy harvesting has already existed in various forms on the open market. P1 is already miles ahead in the game as well. next year, there is going to be a 200 million dollar cap on spending. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also... The FIA has decided that the premier racing class needs to be an R&D effort and testbed for 'green' engine technology. I expect that the theory is that, by placing constraints on the engineers, designers, and constructors, the end result will be optimum performance and efficiency. Most internal combustion engines today struggle to reach 35% efficiency. If F1 can improve on that, it will eventually trickle down to road going vehicles. Sure. But regardless of rate of fuel use during the race, you are still limited to using a 100 kg total -- meaning your average fuel efficiency is still the same. If you turn up the rate at some point, then you are going to have to turn it down at some other point to avoid running out of fuel. I cannot imagine teams saying "we'll, let's finish with 80kg of fuel because we want to be green." They are always going to push it to the limit. Agreed... until you start using more aggressive energy recovery techniques, and tapping that stored energy more effectively. They are limited to a maximum of 100kg/hr burn rate, true, (and 100kg total per race) but they also added a lot more [K|H]ERS this year. One of the constructors commented that this year, the actual increase in electrical energy available is 10x over last year. Give it a few years, and one of the big manufacturers will release a hybrid with both regenerative braking and turbo heat recovery for the batteries on a road car. I do think that putting these constraints will force limits to be pushed. Otherwise, F1 will turn into one of those hyper-miler efficiency races... m next year, there is going to be a 200 million dollar cap on spending. Yep. To be clear, I agree with you, but I was trying to play devil's advocate on how I thought the rule came to be. If it were up to me, I would have only made the rule that the engine is a maximum of 1.6L. If going down the path of maximizing economy with a fuel cap, it would only have been for a total used during the race. Apart from that, it's up to the team to decide on cylinder count, energy recovery/power adder tech, and RPM. m |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2014 1:52:15 PM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2014 2:34:18 PM EDT
[#22]
The new sound sucks (but I dig the turbo noise).
That being said, there was some damn good racing in Australia, and watching the rears break loose from all the torque is pretty cool. Damn near everyone was getting a little sideways coming out of pit lane. 
I think you're going to see (hell, we've already seen) the younger drivers do better than years past, because these new cars drive so damn differently everyone on the grid is almost a rookie this year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2014 7:31:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Read an article on the F1 app on my phone about the engine noise. Bernie has promised to improve the sound since there is so much bitching about it. So what's he going to do? Force everyone to install fart cans?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2014 9:06:34 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read an article on the F1 app on my phone about the engine noise. Bernie has promised to improve the sound since there is so much bitching about it. So what's he going to do? Force everyone to install fart cans? Fuck yeah! I knew they were gonna sound shit. 1.6L limited to 15,000? I bet Bernies solution is going to be even more retarded than the current tech regs. I love the upped torque levels but beyond that... fucking green energy bullshit. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2014 9:10:19 PM EDT
[#25]
In before the missing car jokes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2014 9:29:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Fuck it, suspend the rule changes, unpickle the v8s and lets do this!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2014 10:34:01 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck it, suspend the rule changes, unpickle the v8s and lets do this! I don't mind limiting the down force on the cars and letting them slide around a bit. But they really should have proper engines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 1:46:43 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't mind limiting the down force on the cars and letting them slide around a bit. But they really should have proper engines.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 4:17:17 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck yeah! I knew they were gonna sound shit. 1.6L limited to 15,000? I bet Bernies solution is going to be even more retarded than the current tech regs. I love the upped torque levels but beyond that... fucking green energy bullshit. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Read an article on the F1 app on my phone about the engine noise. Bernie has promised to improve the sound since there is so much bitching about it. So what's he going to do? Force everyone to install fart cans? Fuck yeah! I knew they were gonna sound shit. 1.6L limited to 15,000? I bet Bernies solution is going to be even more retarded than the current tech regs. I love the upped torque levels but beyond that... fucking green energy bullshit. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Hobbs mentioned that they sound bad during the race. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 6:53:16 AM EDT
[#30]
The owner of force india exclaiming that the chorus of f1 was gone during p1 was powerful.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 9:24:50 AM EDT
[#31]
This wasn't so long ago...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 9:55:51 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryAnd we all can't be somehow correct?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 12:40:57 PM EDT
[#33]
Then lets compromise with turbo V8s and lower down force. And maybe harder tires that last more than a couple laps.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 3:23:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then lets compromise with turbo V8s and lower down force. And maybe harder tires that last more than a couple laps. 3.5L V10, V12 & Flat 12 3.0L V8 1.5L Turbo limited to 3.0 Bar of boost. No RPM limit. Fuel flow limit and/or fuel limit per race is open to consideration. Front wing is to be limited to two elements and the end plates. Width to be reduced by 35cm making the maximum width 130cm. Supersoft and medium compound tires are out. Soft, Hard, Intermediate, and Wet are it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 3:30:42 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't mind limiting the down force on the cars and letting them slide around a bit. But they really should have proper engines. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fuck it, suspend the rule changes, unpickle the v8s and lets do this! I don't mind limiting the down force on the cars and letting them slide around a bit. But they really should have proper engines. The current engines have a lot more torque than did the V8's. Drivers have all commented about how much easier it is to overpower the tires on acceleration this season. So tell me, what defines a "proper engine?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 3:35:43 PM EDT
[#36]
Just for giggles.
Nick Heidfeld in the MP4-13 at the 1999 Goodwood Festival of Speed, a record setting 41.6 second run (Formula One cars are no longer allowed to do official timed runs). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 3:39:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The current engines have a lot more torque than did the V8's. Drivers have all commented about how much easier it is to overpower the tires on acceleration this season. So tell me, what defines a "proper engine?" The noise! skip to 0:52 The torque that's available with the current engines might make things interesting when a driver sees red and gets a heavy foot during a chase. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 3:52:40 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The current engines have a lot more torque than did the V8's. Drivers have all commented about how much easier it is to overpower the tires on acceleration this season. So tell me, what defines a "proper engine?" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck it, suspend the rule changes, unpickle the v8s and lets do this! I don't mind limiting the down force on the cars and letting them slide around a bit. But they really should have proper engines. The current engines have a lot more torque than did the V8's. Drivers have all commented about how much easier it is to overpower the tires on acceleration this season. So tell me, what defines a "proper engine?" The new ERS systems are what produce more torque, not the V6 engine, and in combination with less down force this year they are harder to drive. A proper engine for a series that calls itself the highest form of motor racing shouldn't be focused on fuel economy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 4:46:13 PM EDT
[#39]
[Howard Hughes] It's the way of the future, it's the way of the future... [/Howard Hughes]
Audi (R18), Porsche (919), Toyota (TS040), Honda (TBD), Mercedes (PU106A), Renault (Energy F1-2014), and Ferrari (059/3). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 5:58:03 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just for giggles. Nick Heidfeld in the MP4-13 at the 1999 Goodwood Festival of Speed, a record setting 41.6 second run (Formula One cars are no longer allowed to do official timed runs).  http://youtu.be/5l_RsIr1nbEthat is the proper F1 sound. those engines 'sing' and the resulting doppler effect can't be beat 
My Ford Fiesta engine sounds more awesome than the new F1 engine |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 6:04:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The owner of force india exclaiming that the chorus of f1 was gone during p1 was powerful. the sound was nearly a trademark of F1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 7:24:48 PM EDT
[#42]
I agree with what others have said. This is just to create an thin veneer that they're developing "green tech efficiency". If they really wanted the engine manufacturers to innovate they wouldn't have regulated every singe dimension of the engine. They have regulations for number of cylinders, the degree the cylinders sit, the number of valves per cylinder. I think the only areas of the engine they can play with are cam timing, and engine mapping. It's all just a way for the auto makers involved to say, "hey, look, we're working on green tech!" It's just marketing. Instead of freezing certain parts of the engine from year to year they should have reduced overall fuel capacity by a set percent.
Let's face it, F1 will never truly be a test bed for future road car tech. Le Mans is where that kind of development is at. It's a much better test anyway, rewarding efficient designs since it allows you to stop less often (F1 bans refueling during the race anyway). And the ACO did their rules right. Team can run whatever piston engine they want (they are limited on valves per cylinder). They are just limited to a certain amount of fuel energy per lap (since they have to refuel). Leave it to Le Mans to be the efficiency test bed. F1 should be about performance alone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 7:30:43 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fuck yeah! I knew they were gonna sound shit. 1.6L limited to 15,000? I bet Bernies solution is going to be even more retarded than the current tech regs. I love the upped torque levels but beyond that... fucking green energy bullshit. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Read an article on the F1 app on my phone about the engine noise. Bernie has promised to improve the sound since there is so much bitching about it. So what's he going to do? Force everyone to install fart cans? Fuck yeah! I knew they were gonna sound shit. 1.6L limited to 15,000? I bet Bernies solution is going to be even more retarded than the current tech regs. I love the upped torque levels but beyond that... fucking green energy bullshit. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile oh, and they arent revving to 15,000 because the engines would go lean and explode  what a god damned mess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 7:31:56 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then lets compromise with turbo V8s and lower down force. And maybe harder tires that last more than a couple laps.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 7:51:05 PM EDT
[#45]
in reality, the V10s were the absolutely most remarkable engines built in F1. nearly 1000hp from an N/A 3.0L. simply amazing. that engine with todays aero would be insanity and far too dangerous.
F1 is not an innovative series. it just isnt. innovation requires more than a regulating body saying "youre going to do this and like it." the biggest reason is simply that the rule book is a messy conglomeration of statutes over 50 years of political wrangling. it basically needs to be thrown out and a SIMPLE set of rules put in its place. 1) driver drives the car, not the computer. (things like semi-active suspension or 'computer controlled reactive suspension' would be allowed in my F1) 2) a fuel limit per race of 125 kg will be put into place. your team will be rewarded in some way not in points for each liter saved. or.. refueling returns with a mandated fuel tank size. the team with teh least amount of refueling stops will get 2 points towards the manufacturer's championship. if you go slower than the previous years race pace, no 2 points for you. no diesel, no ethanol. you get high octane 'pump' gas no more than 116 octane 3) heres a box that the car has to be with in and here are the safety rules. have fun. DRS will be staying. however.. it is up to you to figure out what works best for your car. semi-active aero is allowed as well. no steer by wire. 4) ERS will be full season dev as will the engines provided cylinder deactivation is included. and 5) you get a 33% spending cap per year. 33% refers to the amount of net revenue the F1 series makes the previous season. so make it exciting.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 7:53:05 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're limited to 100 kilos of fuel, correct? That isn't much, really... not much more than 35-36 gallons. I don't understand why the limit on fuel flow... fuel supply is finite, and if you consume too much (excessive flow) you run out and fail to finish. Ricardo obviously didn't fail to finish the GP, so what's the problem? I'm not left-turn-trolling, serious question. I don't understand what's going on here They are trying to push the teams to "crash course" trying to up their turbo and electric tech. By saying "x amount of fuel an hour" is forcing their hands. I've only been into F1 about 4 years now and for some reason I have no issue with this shake up. And I'm sure the V6 at 15,000rpm actually sounds pretty cool, it's the turbo that makes it so quiet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 8:33:24 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
in reality, the V10s were the absolutely most remarkable engines built in F1. nearly 1000hp from an N/A 3.0L. simply amazing. that engine with todays aero would be insanity and far too dangerous. F1 is not an innovative series. it just isnt. innovation requires more than a regulating body saying "youre going to do this and like it." the biggest reason is simply that the rule book is a messy conglomeration of statutes over 50 years of political wrangling. it basically needs to be thrown out and a SIMPLE set of rules put in its place. 1) driver drives the car, not the computer. (things like semi-active suspension or 'computer controlled reactive suspension' would be allowed in my F1) 2) a fuel limit per race of 125 kg will be put into place. your team will be rewarded in some way not in points for each liter saved. or.. refueling returns with a mandated fuel tank size. the team with teh least amount of refueling stops will get 2 points towards the manufacturer's championship. if you go slower than the previous years race pace, no 2 points for you. no diesel, no ethanol. you get high octane 'pump' gas no more than 116 octane 3) heres a box that the car has to be with in and here are the safety rules. have fun. DRS will be staying. however.. it is up to you to figure out what works best for your car. semi-active aero is allowed as well. no steer by wire. 4) ERS will be full season dev as will the engines provided cylinder deactivation is included. and 5) you get a 33% spending cap per year. 33% refers to the amount of net revenue the F1 series makes the previous season. so make it exciting. Sounds good, but how would you monitor/enforce the budget cap? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 8:43:34 PM EDT
[#48]
Noise comparison..2013 vs 2014
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 9:11:40 PM EDT
[#49]
.......they will never equal the sound that came from these, even better than the Ferrari of the same era.
@1 min in for engine sound.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2014 9:40:56 PM EDT
[#50]
That is what a F1 car sounds like!!! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
