5 ms·

They are limited to only a 100kg of fuel per race, and may only consume 100kg/h. Meaning that, as stated in the article, they may only consume 50kg of fuel in a

by bliti 13y ago

They are limited to only a 100kg of fuel per race, and may only consume 100kg/h. Meaning that, as stated in the article, they may only consume 50kg of fuel in a two hour race. Which is a very small amount of fuel for such cars. I find it outstanding that an owner of a Corvette is complaining about a lack of innovation in Formula 1. The LS-series engine in your Corvette shares the same bore-center measure as the original small block V8 Chevrolet (4.40 inches). It also places the camshaft inside the engine block. Which has made the development of Variable Valve Lift systems more complex (and more costly). Meaning that it has taken Chevrolet two more generations of Corvette after yours to introduce this technology. Something that was introduced into production vehicles by Honda in 1989, and later made its way into the U.S market in 1991 with the introduction of the NSX. The C5 still used the leaf-spring suspension, and balsa wood sandwiched between the floorboards as a cost cutting measure. Meaning that innovation in those areas was done as a way to cut costs down rather than to improve the efficiency or performance of the vehicle. It might sound like I'm a Corvette hater. Not really. I do appreciate the raw and crude approach the engine provides. How the relatively light chassis with a perfect 50/50 balance allows for the vehicle to excel in high performance driving events. Even how the C5 matched the 0-60 times of the Porsche 911 Turbo (996 generation). But its a bit hard to read about how F1 is lacking in technology when you drive a vehicle that lacks it. This coming from the guy that corrects anyone that says that NASCAR is boring and does not feature any innovative technologies.

zachrose 13y ago
What's new in NASCAR these days?
- ericcumbee 13y ago
  They finally have Fuel Injection.
- bliti 13y ago
  In which specific area?
  - zachrose 13y ago
    Are there any trends in efficiency regulations that compare to Formula 1?
    - bliti 13y ago
      Yes, the engines are always being pushed towards higher efficiency. They do lack any sort of innovation when compared to the KERS system, though. But the NASCAR Cup car V8 is just an amazing piece of machinery. It operates at 7K RPM and above for extended periods of time, and until 2013, had to use a carburetor. Which is mind blowing, given the amount of issues that such fuel system would bring into such scenario.
    - ericcumbee 13y ago
      Not in the racing itself. However nascar has been pushing to modernize it's race tracks with things like Solar Panels.
- ams6110 13y ago
  While I don't follow either NASCAR or F1 it's my impression that NASCAR has much less focus on technology development. They strive to keep all the cars technically identical, so that races are close and are won or lost almost entirely on the basis of driver and crew skills. F1 I think is much more about who can innovate technically within some parameter limits (of course in addition to having skilled drivers/crew).
  - bliti 13y ago
    They do focus on technology, but the rules are strict, and hardly ever change a lot. The basic ideas behind the Cup series has not changed much in a long time. But the implementations are quite amazing. Just look at the engines themselves. Or the safety improvements they have developed over the years. Plus, NASCAR is about being good at cheating and being great at not being caught.
- kunai 13y ago
  Unleaded fuel.
x0054 13y ago
I never intended to use the Corvette as an example of technical innovation. If you read my original post, you will see that I simply used it as an example of showing that smaller engine does NOT equal a more efficient engine by default. I do agree with the fact that the C5 V8 layout is quite old, though the actual engine was designed from scratch in 1997. It has it's problems, but it's a far more reliable engine then it's competitors. For instance, that same friend I mentioned recently had BMW purchase his 2008 M3 from him because at 76k miles the entire engine seized due to lack of lubrication to the main bearings. I know because I was the attorney representing him :) This is not an isolated event either, the previous generation of the M3 engine was recalled for the same issue, and this generation is going to be as well, as it's a significant issue. I ride a BMW K1200R bike, so I am not by any means a BMW hater, BTW. I am just pointing out that sometimes more complicated engines are not necessarily more economical or better. That goes for the leaf spring suspension on the C5 as well. The "leaf spring" suspension in the C5 shares absolutely nothing with the leaf springs in a pickup truck. The C5 has a transverse leaf spring that springs both sides of the axels. It's a genius solution that saves on weight overall weight and significantly reduces unsprung weight. [1] Leaf spring, the way it's implemented in the C5, is superior to a coil spring, regardless of the stigma that the name "leaf spring" carries with it. And what's so wring with balsa wood? So, to make my self clear, I am not arguing that F1 lacks innovation, it lacks diversity of ideas. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring
- bliti 13y ago
  I disagree. It does not lack a diversity of ideas. You have many different teams attacking the same problem, and achieving very different results. One thing to understand is that F1 is very driven by politics. Those politics take a toll on innovation. Go back to the year 1993, and the Williams-Renault team was able to dominate the field with their technologically advanced car. It featured an adjustable suspension that would allow the driver to take the turns much faster. Making the lead driver for the team (Alain Prost) much faster than other (better) drivers (like Ayrton Senna). The technology was banned due to a mix of inner-politics and protests by other teams. Even with all of the things that go down, we still get rules that push for engineering efforts like the KERS system. Which is making its way into other racing series (the ideas and technologies, not the actual system). That generation M3 required very strict oil change intervals with a specific oil that BMW strongly recommended. Due to the clearance in the main bearings. Not to say that this isn't bothersome, but that it is not a regular engine. Not like BMW has not been in any engine fiasco. They had a very notorious issue with Nikasil and quick degradation of the cylinder bores. The engine in the C5 started to be developed in the late 80's. It was part of the push to day view the LT-series. The LS-series was GM's answer to the increasing CAFE standards. As it is a more efficient engine. The point about smaller engines not being more efficient is correct. Size of engine does not imply efficiency. But from a pure fuel consumption point of view, the smaller engine will consume less fuel than the bigger one. Just like it takes less water to fill a bucket than to fill a pool. I know you did not try and make the C5 an example of innovation. It was just amusing (for me personally) that a C5 owner was making claims of great fuel economy and at the same time criticizing F1 for a lack of diversity of ideas (as you so eloquently put it). The K1200R is a fine bike, though. Drive safe.

by bliti 13y ago

zachrose 13y ago

What's new in NASCAR these days?

ericcumbee 13y ago
They finally have Fuel Injection.
bliti 13y ago
In which specific area?
- zachrose 13y ago
  Are there any trends in efficiency regulations that compare to Formula 1?
  - bliti 13y ago
    Yes, the engines are always being pushed towards higher efficiency. They do lack any sort of innovation when compared to the KERS system, though. But the NASCAR Cup car V8 is just an amazing piece of machinery. It operates at 7K RPM and above for extended periods of time, and until 2013, had to use a carburetor. Which is mind blowing, given the amount of issues that such fuel system would bring into such scenario.
  - ericcumbee 13y ago
    Not in the racing itself. However nascar has been pushing to modernize it's race tracks with things like Solar Panels.
ams6110 13y ago
While I don't follow either NASCAR or F1 it's my impression that NASCAR has much less focus on technology development. They strive to keep all the cars technically identical, so that races are close and are won or lost almost entirely on the basis of driver and crew skills. F1 I think is much more about who can innovate technically within some parameter limits (of course in addition to having skilled drivers/crew).
- bliti 13y ago
  They do focus on technology, but the rules are strict, and hardly ever change a lot. The basic ideas behind the Cup series has not changed much in a long time. But the implementations are quite amazing. Just look at the engines themselves. Or the safety improvements they have developed over the years. Plus, NASCAR is about being good at cheating and being great at not being caught.
kunai 13y ago
Unleaded fuel.

x0054 13y ago

I never intended to use the Corvette as an example of technical innovation. If you read my original post, you will see that I simply used it as an example of showing that smaller engine does NOT equal a more efficient engine by default. I do agree with the fact that the C5 V8 layout is quite old, though the actual engine was designed from scratch in 1997. It has it's problems, but it's a far more reliable engine then it's competitors. For instance, that same friend I mentioned recently had BMW purchase his 2008 M3 from him because at 76k miles the entire engine seized due to lack of lubrication to the main bearings. I know because I was the attorney representing him :) This is not an isolated event either, the previous generation of the M3 engine was recalled for the same issue, and this generation is going to be as well, as it's a significant issue. I ride a BMW K1200R bike, so I am not by any means a BMW hater, BTW. I am just pointing out that sometimes more complicated engines are not necessarily more economical or better. That goes for the leaf spring suspension on the C5 as well. The "leaf spring" suspension in the C5 shares absolutely nothing with the leaf springs in a pickup truck. The C5 has a transverse leaf spring that springs both sides of the axels. It's a genius solution that saves on weight overall weight and significantly reduces unsprung weight. [1] Leaf spring, the way it's implemented in the C5, is superior to a coil spring, regardless of the stigma that the name "leaf spring" carries with it. And what's so wring with balsa wood? So, to make my self clear, I am not arguing that F1 lacks innovation, it lacks diversity of ideas. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring

bliti 13y ago
I disagree. It does not lack a diversity of ideas. You have many different teams attacking the same problem, and achieving very different results. One thing to understand is that F1 is very driven by politics. Those politics take a toll on innovation. Go back to the year 1993, and the Williams-Renault team was able to dominate the field with their technologically advanced car. It featured an adjustable suspension that would allow the driver to take the turns much faster. Making the lead driver for the team (Alain Prost) much faster than other (better) drivers (like Ayrton Senna). The technology was banned due to a mix of inner-politics and protests by other teams. Even with all of the things that go down, we still get rules that push for engineering efforts like the KERS system. Which is making its way into other racing series (the ideas and technologies, not the actual system). That generation M3 required very strict oil change intervals with a specific oil that BMW strongly recommended. Due to the clearance in the main bearings. Not to say that this isn't bothersome, but that it is not a regular engine. Not like BMW has not been in any engine fiasco. They had a very notorious issue with Nikasil and quick degradation of the cylinder bores. The engine in the C5 started to be developed in the late 80's. It was part of the push to day view the LT-series. The LS-series was GM's answer to the increasing CAFE standards. As it is a more efficient engine. The point about smaller engines not being more efficient is correct. Size of engine does not imply efficiency. But from a pure fuel consumption point of view, the smaller engine will consume less fuel than the bigger one. Just like it takes less water to fill a bucket than to fill a pool. I know you did not try and make the C5 an example of innovation. It was just amusing (for me personally) that a C5 owner was making claims of great fuel economy and at the same time criticizing F1 for a lack of diversity of ideas (as you so eloquently put it). The K1200R is a fine bike, though. Drive safe.