1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Formula 1-fi (Read the First Post!)

229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238
240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249
  1. Muinarc
    What if a driver was allergic to bees and a been flew into their cockpit and stung them then they died during a race!?
  2. SteveOliver
    Indeed, I had a conversion with a guy who said he doesn't watch F1 anymore because in his words "its not exciting anymore, not enough drivers get killed these days"

    Perhaps we need to release swarms of killer bees during the race.
  3. oqvist
    Must admin moto GP is more exciting for that very reason.
  4. Hutnicks
    I am sure Rossi would agree with you right now.:)

    So the big divorce between Mac and Honda finally happened. Wonder what they will be able to do with a Renault motor. My gut says not much.
  5. Muinarc
    I wish Ford would return to keep their position as the engine with the most wins all time. Alas those days are long gone, no U.S. firm that has to answer to shareholders could ever dream to enter again, calling it R&D doesn't work anymore :frowning2:
  6. Hutnicks
    To be honest there that motor was more English than American at the best of times but I get the idea. Nascrap is where the marketing money goes so they will stick with that forever unless F1 gets some kind of real American presence and I don't hold much hope for that.

    Personally I would love to see some underdog like Hyundai or Subaru take a flyer in to the F1 circus and see what a totally fresh outlook could do. Little hope of that for sure.
  7. jimmers
    I think the only thing American was the money, 100,000 pounds for the FVA and DFV - you wouldn't get value like that today, $2.5m wouldn't even get you a half decent driver for a season now.
    I liked that anyone with the money could buy a DFV (7,500pounds) and a Hewland and do their own F1 car with only the chassis and driver limiting the competitiveness.
  8. Hutnicks
    Indeed the real charm of the Cosworth era was it was a de facto standard rather than something legistlated by the FIA. The technology of the first turbo era caught them out and the rest as they say is history.

    Leaves the sport in quite the conundrum. Much like the world economy, they need to enhance consumerism in order to move forward. OR lower costs, which is a bit of an oxymoron for F1 in general. We see now that Merc has hit over 50 per cent efficiency with their motor and that is a huge boon to automotive engineering in general. BUT, it of course came at the cost of making a series a pretty boring event to watch. They also left other engine manufacturers in the dust. So how to equalize that particular scenario. Mandate a new engine formula that essentially strangles the technology and lose out on some fairly important gains for the whole industry. Make more money for the teams so they can afford to be competitive? Alter the cars so lap times take a nose dive again and power is not as important?

    The management problems are no less complex than the technical problems each team faces when designing a car.

    Personal opinion is they made some very very grave errors in the last twenty years which may in fact have forced the show into the mess it currently is in. The place where the Formula fell apart was in mechanical grip which is now left mostly up to Pirelli. Banning active suspension and traction control as well as all wheel drive were errors. Clamp down on the aero and push that development money into mech grip and the paradigm changes dramatically. Aero is massively expensive to develop and as we are seeing restricts on track actions dramatically.

    Single element front and rear wings only and a ban on any appendage on the bodywork which generates downforce might be a better solution if the above mentioned banned items were re instated.

    Hey, I can dream, can't I?
    jimmers likes this.
  9. Muinarc
    Add refueling and multiple tire manufacturers again and I'm 100% on board with whatever you're smokin' @Hutnicks :)
  10. oqvist
    F1 can´t be saved what we need is a new formulae that replaces it.
  11. Hutnicks
    I hear you. Refueling was a very good element as were Michelin Goodyear and Bridgestones contributions.

    We need to mail this off to Brawn:)
  12. oqvist
    Refueling made for much less overtaking on track though. Different tires should work but then both are safely conversations and will not happen.
  13. Hutnicks
    They only became safety issues when the powers that be decided to make it such. Refeuling has a very good record. Two pit fires and a trailing fuel hose do not speak to the systems inherent flaws but rather to the implementation and training of the crews. Indycar and Nascrap have done it for years.

    Tyres being a safety issue only bloomed at Indy and at that the fallout was and is the incredible exploding Pirellis we have seen over the last few seasons. Limiting the competition for rubber is less safe than having competing manufacturers. The problem is, with a sole source the only people who bid are Pirelli. Michlen flat out stated they would never bid on a sole source series as they see nothing to be learned from having no competition.
  14. jimmers
    me too
  15. Hutnicks
    Well, the odd thing that led me to that beleif, is most modern fighter aircraft derive over 70 per cent of their lift from the fuselage alone. It goes back to NASA and programes like the x 24B lifting body experiment, and oddly they have no bargegoards winglets or other geegaws hanging off the body.

    Soooooooo. F! catch up.:)
229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238
240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249

Share This Page