44 ms·

I don't follow F1, but this sounds pretty exciting. Hopefully the multiple variables introduced here will produce innovation that will flow down into normal pro

I don't follow F1, but this sounds pretty exciting. Hopefully the multiple variables introduced here will produce innovation that will flow down into normal production hybrid vehicles.

flyinglizard 13y ago
The new regulations certainly step up the engineering game, going into uncharted territories. I'm not sure that as a motorsport spectator I like these changes, though; there's something about the sound of the V8s or their predecessor V10s, revving at 20k RPM. It's a large part of what makes motorsport exciting. Compared to that, a 15k RPM 1.6L V6 seems pretty dull, regardless to how well it performs.
- TylerE 13y ago
  I wish they got away from such tight regulation of the technology, and let the teams really experiment. I'd like to see the F1 engine rules shortened to two rules. 1. Competitors have a total of XX GGE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent) of fuel per 100km of race distance. 2. Competitors may not use a device that prevents unusual risks to other drivers, spectators, or race officials. Done. End of rule book. The fuel mileage limit will encourage teams to optimize for effciency...beyond that let them have at it.
  - ericcumbee 13y ago
    You would like the Le Mans Prototype Rules. they are using something similar, except they are limited to how much fuel can be used over one lap.
    - TylerE 13y ago
      Yes, essentially...even Le Mans is a bit too restricted for my tastes.
      - ericcumbee 13y ago
        The main problem with that is building something that is sustainable. They tried a formula similar to yours back in late 80s called Group C. It was incredible cars and incredible racing but became so absurdly expensive no one could afford it. I would like the rules to be more open as well. The Hybrid Systems for LMPs have to be homologated at the start of the year which prevents development of them during the year. Also the Hybrid systems are limited to only being able to collect certain amount of energy. The problem is the people paying the bills on LMP projects are the ones that have the say on the rules. And the people paying the bills dont want the costs to get out of hand. Which admittedly if they went to a more unlimited rules package could happen.
        TylerE 13y ago
        You could easily keep costs under control by adding a claiming rule - e.g. allow the team that comes last to buy the winner's car for some fixed price, $500k, say.
        ericcumbee 13y ago
        They do have a cost capped formula intended for Privateers called LMP2. its cost capped where the manufacturer can only sell the car for a certain price.
        jsmeaton 13y ago
        Including spare parts (engines, wings, whatever), expertise, manuals, design documents? Or just the car? I can't possibly see how this could work.
        ericcumbee 13y ago
        Not to mention that when Factory LMP programs have sold customer cars there are pretty strict restrictions. From my understanding When Audi sold R8 LMPs as Customer cars. they put pretty strict restrictions on them. They could not start the engine with out a Audi Sport Engineer present. Even now that those cars have made it into the hands of collectors, Audi does not allow them to plug into the engine management system.
  - nabla9 13y ago
    It's called formula 1 for a reason. No rules would lead to dull competitions and bankruptcies. There has been times with less rules and it does not work. 1. Cars would be clued to the road with massive downforce and it would look like they are on track in turns. Very boring races without overtakes. Races would be determined in time trials. 2. Building competitive car would be even more expensive than it is now. There would be only few competitive teams, some years maybe only one. 3. Several teams would eventually drop out because racing would be too expensive.
    - TylerE 13y ago
      I'm not sure if your response is serious or sarcasm. Your points 1 & 3 encapsulate everything wrong with present day Formula 1.
      - nabla9 13y ago
        This is not sarcasm. These are still problems with F1. The reason why these rules are needed is because F1 racing has been in the constant "getting out of hand" state since 80's. Some races from the ground effect era 1977 to 1982 were ridiculous. Wing-profiled sidepods sealed to the ground by sliding lexan skirts. It took gigantic amount of rules changes to cover all loopholes.
  - jdietrich 13y ago
    Then you don't have a motor racing formula, just a spending contest. If you look at the technical regulations in F1, they have two main aims - ensuring driver and spectator safety, and controlling costs to maintain competitive racing. Most of the current technical regulations are just special cases of your rule 2. Moveable aerodynamic devices are banned to prevent sudden loss of mid-corner traction (causing the car to violently roll off into the grandstands). Many of the dimensional restrictions are there to prevent the use of ground effect, for similar reasons. Wheel tethers reduce the chance of a wheel flying off and killing a spectator (something that has happened in several motorsport formulae). Restrictions on fuel composition prevent teams from using explosive fuels or oxidizers. Limits on wing sizes and aspect ratios restrict downforce, to ensure that the drivers aren't subject to intolerable g-forces. The culture of F1 is based around a belief that there is no such thing as the spirit of the law, only the letter. Devious loopholes are applauded for their ingenuity and characterise most development in the modern sport. On the other hand, many people in the sport remember the dark days, when driver fatalities were just part of the sport. Teams and drivers understand that in the absence of regulation, the Nash equilibrium inevitably entails dead drivers and dead spectators. The F1 rulebook isn't an external imposition on the sport, it is a document that is designed by mutual agreement between Bernie, FOTA, the FIA and the GPDA. Every word of it has been hard fought and represents the least-worst compromise between those various interests. Unrestricted racing is a trope that is often raised by outsiders to motorsport, but the reality is that without the technical regulations, there is no racing at all, just a contest to see who can spend the most, with a mortuary full of charred and mangled drivers as collateral damage.
    - TylerE 13y ago
      Yes, because of course the current regulations are doing SO well at keeping the cost of F1 down. I should point out that there was a time (not, coincidentally, imo, arguable the greatest period in F1 history) when the constructors were given substantially more leeway - look at the golden age when some builds came out with mid-engined vehicles for instance, real innovation at the time, or other innovative layouts like the Tyrell P34 6-wheeler, or the fan cars, or the turbine cars that ran at Indianapolis (not F1, but close, and many F1 cars were entered at Indy in those days).
    - 13y ago
- ericcumbee 13y ago
  I think the innovation is going to come from the Sports Car Racing side. The engines are more or less unrestricted, the only limit on them is fuel consumption per lap. I've always liked the Prototypes more than F1 though. It seems like all the F1 teams more or less converge on how to design a car and they all look more or less alike. Whereas with LMPs there are multiple answers to the question of how to build a car and make it go fast and be efficient and last for 24 hours.
  - robryan 13y ago
    I think it is more that the regulations are so tight that the differences in designs between teams aren't immediately noticeable unless they are explained in depth.
Brakenshire 13y ago
Good to see F1 fulfilling some real purpose, rather than just entertainment.
- aunty_helen 13y ago
  Indeed. All that stuff they've done in the past is just rubbish on modern vehicles. Who needs more that 2 valves per cyclinder anyway or disc brakes or...
  - Brakenshire 13y ago
    No need to be sarky. Okay, well, good to see F1 directly optimizing towards something of real value, rather than relying on incidental outcomes.
  - sanoli 13y ago
    Well, I recall an interview with a Williams engineer saying that (in the mid 2000's, I think) the state of Formula-1 technology was so advanced and geared to its own brand of racing that, by the time it would eventually get to road vehicles, it would be too late, there would be other stuff outside of F-1 developed already.
fsck--off 13y ago
Actually, normal production hybrid vehicles have innovations that are banned in F1. Specifically, continuously variable transmissions. F1 rules that specify 8 forward gears and 1 reverse gear are written to make sure that CVTs can't be used.

I don't follow F1, but this sounds pretty exciting. Hopefully the multiple variables introduced here will produce innovation that will flow down into normal production hybrid vehicles.

flyinglizard 13y ago

The new regulations certainly step up the engineering game, going into uncharted territories. I'm not sure that as a motorsport spectator I like these changes, though; there's something about the sound of the V8s or their predecessor V10s, revving at 20k RPM. It's a large part of what makes motorsport exciting. Compared to that, a 15k RPM 1.6L V6 seems pretty dull, regardless to how well it performs.

TylerE 13y ago
I wish they got away from such tight regulation of the technology, and let the teams really experiment. I'd like to see the F1 engine rules shortened to two rules. 1. Competitors have a total of XX GGE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent) of fuel per 100km of race distance. 2. Competitors may not use a device that prevents unusual risks to other drivers, spectators, or race officials. Done. End of rule book. The fuel mileage limit will encourage teams to optimize for effciency...beyond that let them have at it.
- ericcumbee 13y ago
  You would like the Le Mans Prototype Rules. they are using something similar, except they are limited to how much fuel can be used over one lap.
  - TylerE 13y ago
    Yes, essentially...even Le Mans is a bit too restricted for my tastes.
    - ericcumbee 13y ago
      The main problem with that is building something that is sustainable. They tried a formula similar to yours back in late 80s called Group C. It was incredible cars and incredible racing but became so absurdly expensive no one could afford it. I would like the rules to be more open as well. The Hybrid Systems for LMPs have to be homologated at the start of the year which prevents development of them during the year. Also the Hybrid systems are limited to only being able to collect certain amount of energy. The problem is the people paying the bills on LMP projects are the ones that have the say on the rules. And the people paying the bills dont want the costs to get out of hand. Which admittedly if they went to a more unlimited rules package could happen.
      - TylerE 13y ago
        You could easily keep costs under control by adding a claiming rule - e.g. allow the team that comes last to buy the winner's car for some fixed price, $500k, say.
        ericcumbee 13y ago
        They do have a cost capped formula intended for Privateers called LMP2. its cost capped where the manufacturer can only sell the car for a certain price.
        jsmeaton 13y ago
        Including spare parts (engines, wings, whatever), expertise, manuals, design documents? Or just the car? I can't possibly see how this could work.
        ericcumbee 13y ago
        Not to mention that when Factory LMP programs have sold customer cars there are pretty strict restrictions. From my understanding When Audi sold R8 LMPs as Customer cars. they put pretty strict restrictions on them. They could not start the engine with out a Audi Sport Engineer present. Even now that those cars have made it into the hands of collectors, Audi does not allow them to plug into the engine management system.
- nabla9 13y ago
  It's called formula 1 for a reason. No rules would lead to dull competitions and bankruptcies. There has been times with less rules and it does not work. 1. Cars would be clued to the road with massive downforce and it would look like they are on track in turns. Very boring races without overtakes. Races would be determined in time trials. 2. Building competitive car would be even more expensive than it is now. There would be only few competitive teams, some years maybe only one. 3. Several teams would eventually drop out because racing would be too expensive.
  - TylerE 13y ago
    I'm not sure if your response is serious or sarcasm. Your points 1 & 3 encapsulate everything wrong with present day Formula 1.
    - nabla9 13y ago
      This is not sarcasm. These are still problems with F1. The reason why these rules are needed is because F1 racing has been in the constant "getting out of hand" state since 80's. Some races from the ground effect era 1977 to 1982 were ridiculous. Wing-profiled sidepods sealed to the ground by sliding lexan skirts. It took gigantic amount of rules changes to cover all loopholes.
- jdietrich 13y ago
  Then you don't have a motor racing formula, just a spending contest. If you look at the technical regulations in F1, they have two main aims - ensuring driver and spectator safety, and controlling costs to maintain competitive racing. Most of the current technical regulations are just special cases of your rule 2. Moveable aerodynamic devices are banned to prevent sudden loss of mid-corner traction (causing the car to violently roll off into the grandstands). Many of the dimensional restrictions are there to prevent the use of ground effect, for similar reasons. Wheel tethers reduce the chance of a wheel flying off and killing a spectator (something that has happened in several motorsport formulae). Restrictions on fuel composition prevent teams from using explosive fuels or oxidizers. Limits on wing sizes and aspect ratios restrict downforce, to ensure that the drivers aren't subject to intolerable g-forces. The culture of F1 is based around a belief that there is no such thing as the spirit of the law, only the letter. Devious loopholes are applauded for their ingenuity and characterise most development in the modern sport. On the other hand, many people in the sport remember the dark days, when driver fatalities were just part of the sport. Teams and drivers understand that in the absence of regulation, the Nash equilibrium inevitably entails dead drivers and dead spectators. The F1 rulebook isn't an external imposition on the sport, it is a document that is designed by mutual agreement between Bernie, FOTA, the FIA and the GPDA. Every word of it has been hard fought and represents the least-worst compromise between those various interests. Unrestricted racing is a trope that is often raised by outsiders to motorsport, but the reality is that without the technical regulations, there is no racing at all, just a contest to see who can spend the most, with a mortuary full of charred and mangled drivers as collateral damage.
  - TylerE 13y ago
    Yes, because of course the current regulations are doing SO well at keeping the cost of F1 down. I should point out that there was a time (not, coincidentally, imo, arguable the greatest period in F1 history) when the constructors were given substantially more leeway - look at the golden age when some builds came out with mid-engined vehicles for instance, real innovation at the time, or other innovative layouts like the Tyrell P34 6-wheeler, or the fan cars, or the turbine cars that ran at Indianapolis (not F1, but close, and many F1 cars were entered at Indy in those days).
  - 13y ago
ericcumbee 13y ago
I think the innovation is going to come from the Sports Car Racing side. The engines are more or less unrestricted, the only limit on them is fuel consumption per lap. I've always liked the Prototypes more than F1 though. It seems like all the F1 teams more or less converge on how to design a car and they all look more or less alike. Whereas with LMPs there are multiple answers to the question of how to build a car and make it go fast and be efficient and last for 24 hours.
- robryan 13y ago
  I think it is more that the regulations are so tight that the differences in designs between teams aren't immediately noticeable unless they are explained in depth.

Brakenshire 13y ago

Good to see F1 fulfilling some real purpose, rather than just entertainment.

aunty_helen 13y ago
Indeed. All that stuff they've done in the past is just rubbish on modern vehicles. Who needs more that 2 valves per cyclinder anyway or disc brakes or...
- Brakenshire 13y ago
  No need to be sarky. Okay, well, good to see F1 directly optimizing towards something of real value, rather than relying on incidental outcomes.
- sanoli 13y ago
  Well, I recall an interview with a Williams engineer saying that (in the mid 2000's, I think) the state of Formula-1 technology was so advanced and geared to its own brand of racing that, by the time it would eventually get to road vehicles, it would be too late, there would be other stuff outside of F-1 developed already.

fsck--off 13y ago

Actually, normal production hybrid vehicles have innovations that are banned in F1. Specifically, continuously variable transmissions. F1 rules that specify 8 forward gears and 1 reverse gear are written to make sure that CVTs can't be used.