2017 F1 Constructor technical info/developmentFormula 1
- Thread starter LMSCorvetteGT2
- 2,124 comments
- 135,046 views
- 2,981
- Nowhere
- TheSweeney_
Ditto^^
I don't see this as a "backwards step in technology" per se either. Sure, one of the big points in F1 are the groundbreaking ideas and technological advancements, but it's not the "be all and end all" of F1, and as @TheElbows said is doesn't directly add or change anything with regards to the racing itself.
If anything, I think a little bit of simplification (if you can call it that) with regards to regs, is a good thing in the world of F1.
I don't see this as a "backwards step in technology" per se either. Sure, one of the big points in F1 are the groundbreaking ideas and technological advancements, but it's not the "be all and end all" of F1, and as @TheElbows said is doesn't directly add or change anything with regards to the racing itself.
If anything, I think a little bit of simplification (if you can call it that) with regards to regs, is a good thing in the world of F1.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Current engines don't run at 15k, they run at 11,5 to 12,5. So while they may increase 3k they'll probably be running more likely at 14-15k finally all to make sure they can last long enough over a season.
As for the giving up efficiency, I agree, it's a bad move to me, but fans on a great level seem almost child like with what they fixate on to enjoy a race. I like the element of strategy they're giving with the MGU-K more than ever, but more fans would rather have tons of noise to fulfill their experience.
- 3,600
- Middelburg
The never ending story of negotiations continue:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferrari-f1-future-974190
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferrari-f1-future-974190
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
It had been a couple of years since their last quit threat, I was starting to worry they might concentrate on improving their performance rather than trying to drag everyone else back.
- 271
- India
- dingodile_r89
Nailed it.
- 12,952
- United Kingdom
The pinnacle of engineering is being able to produce more power than they did at 20000rpm while running at 12000rpm. The pinnacle of engineering is being able to get an engine more than 50% thermal efficient, which Mercedes have done. rpm isn't the be all and end all of engine design.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Hey look another concept that makes no sense, considering even bike series like WSBK and such are turning down the RPMs your point is without merit. And who uses such engines as you suggested in this day and age, and the limited that do, to what longevity? There is a reason these cars dont run such high rates anymore.
Because the engine technology alone in the ICE has hit a peak and it isn't possible to make them more thermal efficient through ICE means alone. So you have to have other systems that utilize fundamental situations like thermal energy and vibration energy and converting that. The situation you suggested is no where near that. Also the current ICE engines in F1 cars are more efficient alone than the engines prior, while making as much or more power, we're talking about cars that run 100kgs an hour in fuel vs old v10s that were around 195.
Last edited:
- 716
Wsbk is getting simpler because the cost needs to be kept down so more than two teams can fight for win, the championship is becoming more akin to the wstk1000 class. F1 should not have any kind of restrictions, except for fuel consumption/ max exhaust pollutants/km and how many engines they should be able to use per season. The cars are too similar because of all the restrictions.
F1 is not that exciting compared to say Motogp racing or other car racing classes/championships.
F1 needs to get its act together.
F1 is not that exciting compared to say Motogp racing or other car racing classes/championships.
F1 needs to get its act together.
- 716
Haha, Mm but it is because of just that the two wheeled motorsport/racing is more demanding and takes more balls and talent than when driving a 4wheeler.
When you have been racing for say over 20 min and you come back to the pitlane/box you are shaking, but when you are racing a 4wheeler you can keep on doing it and doing it and doing it and doing it
- 12,952
- United Kingdom
Shattered bones aren't well known for their strength and anti-shaking abilities.Haha, Mm but it is because of just that the two wheeled motorsport/racing is more demanding and takes more balls and talent than when driving a 4wheeler.
When you have been racing for say over 20 min and you come back to the pitlane/box you are shaking, but when you are racing a 4wheeler you can keep on doing it and doing it and doing it and doing it
- 9,554
- Vermont
- catamount39
Your thought process is missing the fact that F1 cars have banished many technologies over the decades already for the sake of show/competition/money/efforts to allow drivers to make the difference. This is no different.
Don't forget ABS, 6-wheels and active suspension/cars programmed with track geometry into them.
Last edited:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
You can't have an unlimited budget in F1, so restrictions have to be made, because of a global company like a Mercedes is allowed to spend endlessly no one will ever keep up. Then the sport dies because of one team and then no teams see a reason to race, and a great series ends because myopic fans like you exist not ever stopping to think why.
Teams don't want to compete in a series where they get nothing out of it, it has no pay out toward their other market interests and so on. The cars aren't too similar if they were you wouldn't see such a disparity in points between 1st through 9th. Also Motogp is dominated by the same teams season to season. Tires have been a critical reason MotoGP has produced closer racing, narrow tire temps make it hard for even the faster teams to be dominant all season long, this has nothing to do with less restrictions.
Your argument is all over the place, you want to argue WSBK is being reigned in simply because it's too open and somehow F1 isn't open enough, yet F1 has had a bigger dominant team than Kawasaki in WSBK. Two you want to claim F1 needs to be more open to produce better racing it seems, but use MotoGP as the comparison, when in fact over the years MotoGP was highly regulated and the bikes being not all that different other than the front farring development for this season. So what is it more open? Or more regulated? You can't ask for more open of a series and then ask for racing of the same degree as MotoGP when talking about regs.
- 3,035
- Kingston, Jamaica
- pj-gm
- PJwasHere876
This isn't exactly the same. Things like movable aero, fan cars were banned for the same reason ground effects were. They were too dangerous. Cars were getting too fast too quickly, and any simple failure of the system to work results in an accident that may have been fatal back then. Any 'movable aero' banned in modern day was to stop frivolous spending on rule bending philosophies.
They banned driving aids because the cars were very quickly reaching a point where they could almost drive themselves. Technology that is very road relevant, but wasn't for the good of the 'sport' side of motorsport.
They're taking out MGU-H because the cars aren't loud enough anymore. Every current and prospective manufacturer has or will have enough time to close the gap and level the playing field in MGU development by then, so I wouldn't buy the excuse that it's to open it up to new manufacturers.
Sorry I just meant the current limit was 15k but it doesn't really matter because of the fuel flow limit. Raise one without the other and the results will be the same.
- 44,185
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
Alright time to cut this one up into ribbons!
Okay Point #1 - series is being simpler and trying to make it easier for teams to win. Fair enough. However WSBK is not the premier form of bike racing, it's MotoGP.
Okay so please answer me this....
1) How does allowing unlimited regulations help racing?
2) There will only be short term variety. People will try differing concepts then copy the winning ones.
3) Under what financial model is this sustainable? Who can keep up with unlimited development, and throwing money is not a guarantee of success (Toyota F1 take a bow).
4) Cars are too similar? Okay let's take a look at fields from differing era's of F1, and see if they look radically different within the same grid:
1957
1967
1977
Don't see significant radical design variety there - same base concept and regulations.
Rendering this:
Incorrect.
Ironically people including myself prefer 1998-2001 era, overtaking was harder then. But the racing was closer than now arguably without gimmicks.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Pete05
Premium
- 7,080
- Melbourne, Australia
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 716
Motogp has made big strides when it comes to competitiveness and even now the win is often up for grabs for the non factory teams. The thing is, even a "bad" bike can win with a good rider especially if it is mixed condition.
Wsbk is owned by dorna and it seems they dont want the class to be challenging the Motogp championship just like it did in the past. Look at the race calendar, it has gotten much better now when those two classes do not intertwine, which is good. And because sportbikes have dropped in sales many brands have dropped since long their official support for the class making the wsbk a fight between Kawasaki and Ducati, rest are what one should consider private teams so holding cost down is good here as the cashflow to the class seems not even close to motogp or F1.
Look, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of engineering and motorsport, meaning if you dont have the cash to develop highly competitive car then you should not be racing. Because a brand has cash does not mean a smaller brand cant get sponsors that are wealthy. Look at the redbull even though they are the team/brand here.
I dont want f1 to be like indycars or other classes where they in the end share the same chassis but maybe have different brands of engines if even that.
The thing is, as it is right now it is a race for the F1 teams to adopt to the new regulations, not how to make the greatest racing car. Now they are in an arms race to make a car which is pretty much the same car as the other ones, the team that gets this best will be the winner.
If the regulations would be a lot looser then we would see more variations, and the road to a fast car would be different depending on who you ask.
We would probably see a lot of excitement on the track just because of how differently the teams go about to make a win a reality.
Would it not be fun "insert a brand here" would start the season with a pretty much orthodox F1 car but then end the season with an electric powered one with Wankel engine as a generator/help engine and with a canopy or what not. The overall look is adhered by the the physics, but why should a nose or a wing be regulated to fit a certain dimension or look. And why should all cars adhere to a certain power plant restriction. turbo, electric, otto, wankel, diesel, let it loose I tell ya, let it looose
At least it would be a real exhibition and not a snooze feast as it is today when only the start is exiting and that the biggest discussion is of one driver was blocking/pushing the other car wide in a turn...
Last edited:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Yes I gave the reason why that is, equalization over the past few years, add that to the very narrow working window of the current tires, and you'll easily have teams that are on bikes that aren't the best fighting for podiums. However, they're still at times easily beat and in mixed conditions by stronger more developed bikes, as this past GP proved. This however has nothing to do with answering the question I posed.
Other than you, this has nothing to do with the discussion and comparison in how to make F1 better based on your prior post. You doing a background on WSBK that many of us know isn't necessary.
Considering how much cash it takes even for groups that are multinational automakers...and the series has made them go bust before, your comment is pretty hollow and without merit. RBR what? We're talking about a multi-billion dollar company that has enough money to spend on par with full fledged manufactures. There aren't too many of those about and those that do exist, would have to be one in a handful interested in F1 like Dietrich. It's quite the anomaly and not the best group to make a point with if at all.
Once again you compare your wants of F1 to what MotoGP is yet complain about other series that are more spec or equalized...which motogp is. Other than designing a prototype bike with more exotic materials than WSBK, they're even about the playing field outside of front farring design and frame. Engines are by and large pretty equal, ECU are very equal, and many parts are standard about the teams. There are satellite teams that essentially run the factory bike with less development and some times they actually test parts for the main teams. Yet the same three factory teams have been at the top for some time
If they're the same, then how does the team who bets the best win? This is contradicting. Also if they're the same essentially what arms race is there? They'll end up being the same so how is there such a vast division easily seen in the points table from 1st to 9th?
And we'd see a lot of teams leaving the sport because it would be a massive balancing act. The turbo era prior brought many manufactures and many ideas and arguably had a back and forth between what engine was dominant or wasn't. Then came the 3.5 era and not only did it see an exit of many manufactures it's efforts to try and allow open regs saw spending go out of control ( along with other regs like active suspension), and kill off another series. So explain if you would without unnecessary back story on what open regs you think would work to not only be a black hole where money goes, but give variety on such a large scale that will some how bring close fighting on track and not more of the current trend.
We would probably see a lot of excitement on the track just because of how differently the teams go about to make a win a reality.
Would it not be fun "insert a brand here" would start the season with a pretty much orthodox F1 car but then end the season with an electric powered one with Wankel engine as a generator/help engine and with a canopy or what not. The overall look is adhered by the the physics, but why should a nose or a wing be regulated to fit a certain dimension or look. And why should all cars adhere to a certain power plant restriction. turbo, electric, otto, wankel, diesel, let it loose I tell ya, let it looose
Never in the history of F1 has that been that been the case. Also your off the wall dream of F1 to give a hypothetical would probably bankrupt the team or not even see them finish the season in any competitive capacity.
Not sure what season you're talking about but this season had pretty nice fight for the title between two different teams for most of the season and then reliability turned the tide, along with questionable or ambitious moves that failed as well. The mid field has been massive with racing all season and produced interesting results, and the last half of the season has shown that it's not only Mercedes or Ferrari, now that RBR have come to life. What you seem to essentially want is a freak show or hodgepodge of tech in cars, and be entertained by the sights rather than actual racing, or workable technology. At least so far from what you've said.
- 716
The point is, a top end series like f1 should not be this restrictive for creativity. Simple as that. Even Motopg suffer from this, when they restricted the use of factory electronics to keep the cost down and try to keep field on the same level then the aerodynamics suddenly was taken into consideration and this was a money pit making the field to stretch again. Then Dorna decided to ban the winglets and suddenly the biggest teams started to throw even more money into aerodynamics just because of the winglets ban.
The thing is, as long as big money are allowed into a sport the team with biggest support will be producing the best results.
The thing is, regulations are making the machines way to similar, and the teams that are considered the best are simply the ones that have adapted their machine the best to the regulations, ie they are able to bring the most of what the regulations dictate even though their car is very similar to all other in the field.
Yes I want a "freak show" that has been the whole argument with making the F1 more exiting, not only on track but also when the racing machines are standing still
There should be a better format for F1. F1 is a money pit if they dont want it as such then they need to limit cashflow into a team and free up the regulations. It is the regulations itself at least as it is now that is a big money pit for the teams. adapt the machine and then get the best possible out of what you are allowed to do is extremely costly. That is what I am against.
The thing is, as long as big money are allowed into a sport the team with biggest support will be producing the best results.
The thing is, regulations are making the machines way to similar, and the teams that are considered the best are simply the ones that have adapted their machine the best to the regulations, ie they are able to bring the most of what the regulations dictate even though their car is very similar to all other in the field.
Yes I want a "freak show" that has been the whole argument with making the F1 more exiting, not only on track but also when the racing machines are standing still
There should be a better format for F1. F1 is a money pit if they dont want it as such then they need to limit cashflow into a team and free up the regulations. It is the regulations itself at least as it is now that is a big money pit for the teams. adapt the machine and then get the best possible out of what you are allowed to do is extremely costly. That is what I am against.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Formula 1 is not restrictive to the point of stopping creativity - that's why the cars all look so different and have such different engines.
Nothing about that is only true of a formula. If you removed the formula entirely you'd see the richest teams racing for the top and the poorest teams racing for the bottom. That's why budget caps and parts limits are in place in sports now.
Again, that simply isn't true of F1. You couldn't look at the Mercedes next to the Ferrari and say it's similar - but they're both capable of beating each other at various tracks. You couldn't say that the Sauber looks like either of them, and so on. I don't know where you keep getting "very similar" from unless you mean that the shapes of the cars are broadly similar? Of course, that would be because it's a formula.
So you mean making the cars uglier would be better? I don't get it.
The regulations are very broad and there's a spend/use limit. Perhaps you could be more specific about exactly which bits you feel aren't broad enough, and how that helps the poorer teams?
What you're against seems to be based on a whole set of incorrect assumptions.
