2007 F1 Season

[Hardman69]

shut up troy. don't rain on my parade. I call it "regulation lucky dip". I'm going put it to bernie and max next time I'm round his place for a barbie.

Put the hard word on Bernie for that $20 He owes Me, can Ya ?

Seriously though, I've had enough of 19,000rpm Mosquito motors. You can barely tell the difference in engine note between the V8 and the old V10's ! I'd like to see V8's Vs. V12s again, at 3 to 3.5 Litres, but with minimum piston weights imposed to regulate revs, and therefore Hp. I'm thinking . . . . . 11,000rpm -> 12,000rpm max?

Did anyone see what Williams came up with a couple of years ago, if regs had been frozen in sliding-skirt ground effect days?

Scary.

[ctjet]

In you sig it looks like you shot a load on Villenuve's left front trye

... sick dude

[SAM916]

In you sig it looks like you shot a load on Villenuve's left front trye

... sick dude

haha i was just looking at that, and then the next post explained what i was thinking...

[Hardman69]

haha i was just looking at that, and then the next post explained what i was thinking...

(Shrugs) I dunno - can't even remember where I got the JPG from! - and Sam, I believe U have the same rims as I got with My white, Series2 R33 GTS-T. (They're My trackday rims now).

Eh?

Oh yeah - If it's got a load of jizz on the front tyre, Thorpey sez it's fooolly Sik ! !

[Marco-R34GTT]

Put the hard word on Bernie for that $20 He owes Me, can Ya ?

Seriously though, I've had enough of 19,000rpm Mosquito motors. You can barely tell the difference in engine note between the V8 and the old V10's ! I'd like to see V8's Vs. V12s again, at 3 to 3.5 Litres, but with minimum piston weights imposed to regulate revs, and therefore Hp. I'm thinking . . . . . 11,000rpm -> 12,000rpm max?

Back in the 80's, they approached such revs but could never exceed 11k/12k, this was because conventional valves restricted such high engine revs. Then someone discovered pneumatic valves which opened and closed the valves with little mechanical impediment... They might have to regulate against pnuematic valves to lower revs... I think TDI is the future of F1, just need to lower the revs, even 15k would be ok....

[Hardman69]

Back in the 80's, they approached such revs but could never exceed 11k/12k, this was because conventional valves restricted such high engine revs. Then someone discovered pneumatic valves which opened and closed the valves with little mechanical impediment... They might have to regulate against pnuematic valves to lower revs... I think TDI is the future of F1, just need to lower the revs, even 15k would be ok....

I sez "Meh" to diesel - I watched a special on the Sebring 12-hour on "In pit liane" this week, and the Audi R10's sound SH!T !

I suggest a piston minimum weight, 'coz it still gives the engine designers room to increase revs through stronger cranks/conrods/pistons, although not by much! - also, it lets U alter the performance of the V8 vs. V12, through altering the piston weights every few seasons, as necessary. Chassis Ballast would do for mid-season changes.

[wolverine]

diesel F1.....no thanks.

how about petrol/electric hybrid (at least they might go from 0rwkw to 400rwkw in 0.2msec) that'll keep the greenies happy.

[ctjet]

Team-Mate Wars: Sepang

LOLLL

always a good read

Edited April 11, 2007 by ctjet

[djr81]

Back in the 80's, they approached such revs but could never exceed 11k/12k, this was because conventional valves restricted such high engine revs. Then someone discovered pneumatic valves which opened and closed the valves with little mechanical impediment... They might have to regulate against pnuematic valves to lower revs... I think TDI is the future of F1, just need to lower the revs, even 15k would be ok....

Back in the eighties Renault were the first to use pneumatic valves on their 1.5 litre six cylinder turbo motors. They revved quite a bit more than 12,000rpm. Some bloke called Senna used to drive something called a Lotus with them installed. The reason they didn't rev them harder was that by that period F1 had started in on its stupid fuel capacity restriction era. Caused some of the lamest results you could imagine, ie people running out of fuel in the last few laps of the race & not being able to do anything about it.

Why do people want to lower revs and change the engine formula. What is wrong with having a motor screaming its tits off at 20,000rpm? Personally I don't think TDI is the future of anything, not even road cars. Road trains & merchant ships, maybe.

[ctjet]

The problem (apparently) with motors reving to 20,000 rpm and beyond is that teams spend rediculous amount of money chasing small increments in horsepower in the top end. The FIA see this as a waste of money that could be better spent in other areas... like paying Max Mosely to come up with ludacris ideas year after year while simultaneously trying to destroy the sport by making it impossible for average joe to follow

[djr81]

The problem (apparently) with motors reving to 20,000 rpm and beyond is that teams spend rediculous amount of money chasing small increments in horsepower in the top end. The FIA see this as a waste of money that could be better spent in other areas... like paying Max Mosely to come up with ludacris ideas year after year while simultaneously trying to destroy the sport by making it impossible for average joe to follow

Well firstly, I cannot believe that any Formula One team would ever waste money. I mean, running a couple of wind tunnels per team 24/7 + ungodly amount of CFD grinding away on massive computers to produe a few little aero tweaks can't be viewed as a waste, can it?

Teams will spend ridiculous amounts of money in any type of motorsport chasing any gain they can. Doesn't matter if it is in getting a motor to rev from 20,000rpm to 20,100 rpm or just finding a few more Nm of torque in a rev limited motor. The may as well spend it on engineering, they only end up pissing it away on corporate entertainment that I can't get a sniff of.

You are right. F1 used to be pretty straight forward. Fill the thing up with petrol, drive the ring out of it & change the tires if you have to. Now it is endless amounts of bullshit - presumably to give the commentators something to rabbit on about whilst the procession drones around and around. It's sooo f$cking boring as Murray Walker was impersonated as saying.

[ctjet]

Well firstly, I cannot believe that any Formula One team would ever waste money. I mean, running a couple of wind tunnels per team 24/7 + ungodly amount of CFD grinding away on massive computers to produe a few little aero tweaks can't be viewed as a waste, can it?

Teams will spend ridiculous amounts of money in any type of motorsport chasing any gain they can. Doesn't matter if it is in getting a motor to rev from 20,000rpm to 20,100 rpm or just finding a few more Nm of torque in a rev limited motor. The may as well spend it on engineering, they only end up pissing it away on corporate entertainment that I can't get a sniff of.

All true... but

Investing in more areo effeciency will not make the car any less reliable. Pumpin 10million bucks into 700 more rpm only to make it infinatly more fragile does seem a bit nonsensicle. Were here to see them get the finish, not give it up 2/3 the way through like Mclaren and Williams. Although there is a limit of course... too many areo pieces hanging off the top of the cars is starting to look a stupid. Example number one would be the new horns sprouting from the midsection of the Renaults monocoque... yuk

[djr81]

All true... but

Investing in more areo effeciency will not make the car any less reliable. Pumpin 10million bucks into 700 more rpm only to make it infinatly more fragile does seem a bit nonsensicle. Were here to see them get the finish, not give it up 2/3 the way through like Mclaren and Williams. Although there is a limit of course... too many areo pieces hanging off the top of the cars is starting to look a stupid. Example number one would be the new horns sprouting from the midsection of the Renaults monocoque... yuk

Gee I don't know. Used to be that the cars were much less reliable than they are now. Habitually you would be lucky to get half the field home. Hell I was reading the history of March last night & from the '71 Monaco GP seventh place was two laps down & not running at the end. Field was bigger than it currently is.

I would prefer the money be spent on mechanical improvements than on aero. There is basically zero chance an aero development will ever help anyone or anything other than an F1 car designed to the current regs. Atleast with the motors & other mechanical bits there have been gains in such things as metallurgy, adhesives, fuel systems etc etc etc. The idea is to get more performance without eroding the reliability.

[SAM916]

(Shrugs) I dunno - can't even remember where I got the JPG from! - and Sam, I believe U have the same rims as I got with My white, Series2 R33 GTS-T. (They're My trackday rims now).

Eh?

Oh yeah - If it's got a load of jizz on the front tyre, Thorpey sez it's fooolly Sik ! !

where you at oran park last monday? if you were, then yeh i saw you rims on the front, AVS series 5 i think they are...

[ctjet]

Gee I don't know. Used to be that the cars were much less reliable than they are now. Habitually you would be lucky to get half the field home. Hell I was reading the history of March last night & from the '71 Monaco GP seventh place was two laps down & not running at the end. Field was bigger than it currently is.

I would prefer the money be spent on mechanical improvements than on aero. There is basically zero chance an aero development will ever help anyone or anything other than an F1 car designed to the current regs. Atleast with the motors & other mechanical bits there have been gains in such things as metallurgy, adhesives, fuel systems etc etc etc. The idea is to get more performance without eroding the reliability.

Love the last bit, couldnt have said it better. I agree with you there 100%, now just type that up into a formal letter and send it of to

Bernie and Max for their perusal, im sure we'll start seeing changes in the next... 7 to 9 years. What the FIA are chasing these days are transferable technologies from F1 to us schmuks on the road... why? i dont know. I think that is what is getting up a lot of purists noses. F1 is F1 stop touching and let them race.

We are in an era of change. So many rule changes in so little time frame. The reason the whole field is so reliable these days is because they have to be. Points have changed, engines have changed and so has the amount of competition. Im sure that if we ran the 1999 system today we'd still be watching a fair few cars drop out. By the end of 2008 hopefully they'll have their game sorted and we can sit and watch in peace.

Edited April 12, 2007 by ctjet

[djr81]

Love the last bit, couldnt have said it better. I agree with you there 100%, now just type that up into a formal letter and send it of to

Bernie and Max for their perusal, im sure we'll start seeing changes in the next... 7 to 9 years. What the FIA are chasing these days are transferable technologies from F1 to us schmuks on the road... why? i dont know. I think that is what is getting up a lot of purists noses. F1 is F1 stop touching and let them race.

We are in an era of change. So many rule changes in so little time frame. The reason the whole field is so reliable these days is because they have to be. Points have changed, engines have changed and so has the amount of competition. Im sure that if we ran the 1999 system today we'd still be watching a fair few cars drop out. By the end of 2008 hopefully they'll have their game sorted and we can sit and watch in peace.

I think your timeframe is a bit ambitious.

Yeah fair point. I don't think the likes of Williams gives two squirts of donkeys piss whether or not their latest seamless shift transmission ever makes it into someones bloody Camry or not. Patrick Head has basically said so, just no quite so eloquently.

I think half the problem is that, with unanimous agreement required for most of the rule changes there is always someone tryign to protect their immediate, short term advantage. Usually to the detriment of the spectacle of the sport. I wish they would just piss the T/C off & allow the cars to go back to their 200cm widths.

Here is hoping the Bahrain race is a goodun. Would like to see Wurz stick it up Rosberg.

[Necx0]

Personally I think the best thing ever done was to ban TC for next year. I have held the belief that it is responsible for many F1 problems. It should spice the racing up a lot, now if you put the throttle down too much, TC kicks in you lose 0.2 of a sec. Next year if you put the throttle down too much the rear tyres wheelspin the car kicks sideways and you lose 0.4 of a sec as well as killing your speed down the next straight......this allows more overtaking.

It will also make the tracks a lot more entertaining, for example turn 5 at Albert Park. It is flat in an F1 car, but on the exit you will hear most cars TC systems kicking in saving the sideways moment that would send the less experienced drivers into the wall. Then there is places like Eau Rouge, Turn 8 at Bahrain, the manhole covers of Monaco etc. etc.

Also ban all those stupid winglets that teams spend 100s of hours developing for 0.015 of a sec advantage. Make the downforce come from Front wings, Rear Wings and sidepods with air vents restricted in size and shape. Then switch back to slick tyres which gives the cars back the time they lost from aero, but now they are relying on mechanical grip like a CAR, not downforce like a bloody upside down fighter jet.

Finally, may I suggest a change to the points system that gives more incentive to overtake. If you are stuck in 2nd you are not going to risk a big overtaking manouvere to get 10 points instead of 8. 20 points (1st) instead of 15 (2nd) is a more attractive proposition.

[SAM916]

Personally I think the best thing ever done was to ban TC for next year. I have held the belief that it is responsible for many F1 problems. It should spice the racing up a lot, now if you put the throttle down too much, TC kicks in you lose 0.2 of a sec. Next year if you put the throttle down too much the rear tyres wheelspin the car kicks sideways and you lose 0.4 of a sec as well as killing your speed down the next straight......this allows more overtaking.

It will also make the tracks a lot more entertaining, for example turn 5 at Albert Park. It is flat in an F1 car, but on the exit you will hear most cars TC systems kicking in saving the sideways moment that would send the less experienced drivers into the wall. Then there is places like Eau Rouge, Turn 8 at Bahrain, the manhole covers of Monaco etc. etc.

Also ban all those stupid winglets that teams spend 100s of hours developing for 0.015 of a sec advantage. Make the downforce come from Front wings, Rear Wings and sidepods with air vents restricted in size and shape. Then switch back to slick tyres which gives the cars back the time they lost from aero, but now they are relying on mechanical grip like a CAR, not downforce like a bloody upside down fighter jet.

Finally, may I suggest a change to the points system that gives more incentive to overtake. If you are stuck in 2nd you are not going to risk a big overtaking manouvere to get 10 points instead of 8. 20 points (1st) instead of 15 (2nd) is a more attractive proposition.

well said,

ban of TC is great, brings more responsibility back to the driver and will seperate the men from the boys. I think F1 should be focusing more on how to make the sport interesting and the racing good...not how they can make the sport related to the real world. We don't watch F1 to see what could be normal in a couple of years, we watch it to see the fasted track cars in the world with the best drivers.

[djr81]

If you can get your hands on a tape/DVD of the 94 GP from Adelaide you will see how hard the things were to drive without T/C or good downforce. The cars had been hacked about in the wake of the Senna tragedy & by god did they look ugly to drive. Entertaining, but ugly.

[djr81]

well said,

ban of TC is great, brings more responsibility back to the driver and will seperate the men from the boys. I think F1 should be focusing more on how to make the sport interesting and the racing good...not how they can make the sport related to the real world. We don't watch F1 to see what could be normal in a couple of years, we watch it to see the fasted track cars in the world with the best drivers.

Yeah good point. If I want to see control chassis & crap drving I will watch the A1 GP's.

Half the reason you watch F1 is to see what stupid amounts of money & talent applied to racing cars can achieve.