 |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Peter Zambos
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 540
Location: United States, Illinois, near Chicago
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Chris Hurst wrote: | | Personally I think DRS and KERS need to go. They add a lot of artificial competition to the sport. Saying you can only use DRS when permitted is ridiculous and the guy in front can't use his to counter? I think thats stupid. |
But do you remember why DRS was actually initiated? This wasn't a push-to-pass solution that the brain trust of IRL devised, but a solution around a very important problem. The aero of F1 had developed to such a degree that it was absolutely impossible to be anywhere near the leading car during a turn due to the aero wake that resulted from that leading car. This was the artificial element that was trying to be corrected. The FIA had a choice of either allowing a DRS system, allowing the reduction of drag enabling a safe pass prior to the turn, or mandating the rear bodywork of a car, reducing the level of aero wake. No one wanted to have a spec piece bolted on the rear of their car, so DRS was the decision. Look, the only way you're going to get around the aero problem entirely is if you bring the cars back to mid 1960's spec.
As a side note, as more and more teams are focused on the drag produced by aero wake, DRS may become less necessary.
However, I do agree that the way that F1 uses KERS is just silly. Do you push a button to engage KERS on a Prius? No, it's a full-time, integrated part of the drivetrain, and, if F1 is serious about having technology mimic road vehicles, this is exactly what they should have instead of the button operated system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris Hurst
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 570
Location: United States, California,
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Zambos wrote: | | Chris Hurst wrote: | | Personally I think DRS and KERS need to go. They add a lot of artificial competition to the sport. Saying you can only use DRS when permitted is ridiculous and the guy in front can't use his to counter? I think thats stupid. |
But do you remember why DRS was actually initiated? This wasn't a push-to-pass solution that the brain trust of IRL devised, but a solution around a very important problem. The aero of F1 had developed to such a degree that it was absolutely impossible to be anywhere near the leading car during a turn due to the aero wake that resulted from that leading car. This was the artificial element that was trying to be corrected. The FIA had a choice of either allowing a DRS system, allowing the reduction of drag enabling a safe pass prior to the turn, or mandating the rear bodywork of a car, reducing the level of aero wake. No one wanted to have a spec piece bolted on the rear of their car, so DRS was the decision. Look, the only way you're going to get around the aero problem entirely is if you bring the cars back to mid 1960's spec.
As a side note, as more and more teams are focused on the drag produced by aero wake, DRS may become less necessary.
However, I do agree that the way that F1 uses KERS is just silly. Do you push a button to engage KERS on a Prius? No, it's a full-time, integrated part of the drivetrain, and, if F1 is serious about having technology mimic road vehicles, this is exactly what they should have instead of the button operated system. |
Personally I prefer the competition in the 60s to the competition today. I prefer the sport as a whole from the 60s to the 80s much more than I do today.
When have we seen ANYTHING like this since DRS / KERS?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNxL5E818-8
The desire to cultivate technology has outgrown the desire to produce great racing in my opinion. Because of this the rules are adjusted as a by-product of technology, not driving in and of itself.
Agreed with you though that KERS should be integrated like on a road car as opposed to being a button. Wondering if the decision is in part due to the driveability of something like a Prius style electric boost. This is F1 we're talking about though so there should be no excuses from a technical standpoint as to why something is implemented one way vs another.
I say go back to a more basic aero, but allow the engines to produce more power. Personally I think that would be much more of a drivers oriented sport.
Unless you allow them to run unlimited which would represent true progress the whole concept of F1 is artificial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joseph hollinger
Joined: 12 Sep 2002
Posts: 9485
Location: United States, California, san francisco
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Hurst wrote: | The desire to cultivate technology has outgrown the desire to produce great racing in my opinion. Because of this the rules are adjusted as a by-product of technology, not driving in and of itself.
|
I'm not sure that's right. F1 is one of the most technologically constrained series you can imagine. Here's the rule for brake calipers, for example:
| Quote: | 11.2 Brake calipers:
11.2.1 All brake calipers must be made from aluminium materials with a modulus of elasticity no greater than 80Gpa.
11.2.2 No more than two attachments may be used to secure each brake caliper to the car.
11.2.3 No more than one caliper, with a maximum of six pistons, is permitted on each wheel.
11.2.4 The section of each caliper piston must be circular. |
Not much room for innovation there--might as well buy off of the shelf. The same thing goes for countless other aspects of the car (no oval pistons, for one example and no unlimited revs for a second).
Ultimately that's what's so lame about F1. Everything that might be interesting is illegal leaving the teams to invest their virtually unlimited budgets developing the geekiest aspects of their cars. Maybe some people like that, but I'll bet the average fan can't even tell the difference between the cars that they are running this year and the ones they ran two years ago.
_________________
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. -- Winston Churchill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Martin
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | but I'll bet the average fan can't even tell the difference between the cars that they are running this year and the ones they ran two years ago. |
Don't want to be mean, but maybe F1 isn't for that type of person.... Maybe those type of people feel more comfortable with 2 turns, like NASCAR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Lindahl
Joined: 13 Jan 2011
Posts: 267
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
+1
F1 doesn't need to be for everyone.
It's great that there are two (F1 & LMS) series with interesting technologies for the many of us who like technology in racing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Zambos
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 540
Location: United States, Illinois, near Chicago
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joseph hollinger wrote: | | I'll bet the average fan can't even tell the difference between the cars that they are running this year and the ones they ran two years ago. |
I'm not sure about that. I read some of the results from that ING sponsored fan poll awhile ago, and those respondents seemed very in tune. Of course, it could be argued that only those that really care responded to the poll. So, whatever, I guess. What was I saying?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Go Top
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
