Formula 1 Discussion - And favourite driver?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
quaawaa said:
People (including me) said this back when they were initially unveiled. There’s no way that every engineer in F1 hasn’t been warning them that these regs are a terrible idea, but the idiot environmentalists in charge wouldn’t listen.
Click to expand...
But it’s tRAcK 2 COnSoOmEr technology! F1 is finally becoming environmentally responsible and sustainable!

makingmaker said:
it allowed car manufacturers to justify spending billions into f1 technology. it all made sense like a decade or so ago when EVs were something new but now this whole idea is stupid. they now have ways of making clean fuel, expensive as fuck but still "clean". theres nothing stopping them from bringing v8's or v10 back, clip those at 15k rpm to make engines cheaper and race on sustainable fuels. fuck, engineers could even mess with idea of recycling exaust gases into engine chamber or do some fun stuff with turbo or whatever but nah, as long as mbs is fia president we wont get nice things iyoure burning more fuel to charge battery.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the other day about how the innovation FIA talks about could be better realized if the regulations weren’t so prescriptive. Yes, perhaps performance disparities would be more severe between teams, but we would have arguably more innovation if teams could source their own fuel, have more freedom with body work, AND could make whatever engine they want as long as the engine fits into specified dimensions of the car’s width, height, and length. Instead, the only “innovation” we see these days are things like Ferrari’s flipping rear wing lol.
 
Last edited:
Großmann said:
But it’s tRAcK 2 COnSoOmEr technology! F1 is finally becoming environmentally responsible and sustainable!


I was thinking the other day about how the innovation FIA talks about could be better realized if the regulations weren’t so prescriptive. Yes, perhaps performance disparities would be more severe between teams, but we would have arguably more innovation if teams could source their own fuel, have more freedom with body work, AND could make whatever engine they want as long as the engine fits into specified dimensions of the car’s width, height, and length. Instead, the only “innovation” we see these days are things like Ferrari’s flipping rear wing lol.
Click to expand...
then without costcap only maybe 2 teams would be relevant with infinite funding like mercedes decade ago where everybody was playing catchup, making sport predictable and boring. Could it push technology forward? sure but then sport gets boring as fuck. "ground effect" era was fine because it was supervised by Brawn, an engineer that understands the sport but iirc mercedes with ferrari were bitching about porposing, that forced fia to raise the cars thus making all talking points of ground effect and cleaner air behind the car basically useless and nonexistent. I agree with more freedom when it comes to shape of the car itself tho
 
makingmaker said:
then without costcap only maybe 2 teams would be relevant with infinite funding like mercedes decade ago where everybody was playing catchup, making sport predictable and boring. Could it push technology forward? sure but then sport gets boring as fuck. "ground effect" era was fine because it was supervised by Brawn, an engineer that understands the sport but iirc mercedes with ferrari were bitching about porposing, that forced fia to raise the cars thus making all talking points of ground effect and cleaner air behind the car basically useless and nonexistent. I agree with more freedom when it comes to shape of the car itself tho
Click to expand...
The cost cap is something I’d leave in place. That’s been a good thing overall. But I think the attempts to force paddock-wide standardization have stunted innovation over the years.
 
makingmaker said:
then without costcap only maybe 2 teams would be relevant with infinite funding like mercedes decade ago where everybody was playing catchup, making sport predictable and boring. Could it push technology forward? sure but then sport gets boring as fuck. "ground effect" era was fine because it was supervised by Brawn, an engineer that understands the sport but iirc mercedes with ferrari were bitching about porposing, that forced fia to raise the cars thus making all talking points of ground effect and cleaner air behind the car basically useless and nonexistent. I agree with more freedom when it comes to shape of the car itself tho
Click to expand...
The cost cap has nothing to do with regulations on the design of the car.

They should also allow for unlimited simulator time, just with a standardized computer (that way a rich team can’t rent a National Lab’s supercomputer).
 
Großmann said:
The cost cap is something I’d leave in place. That’s been a good thing overall. But I think the attempts to force paddock-wide standardization have stunted innovation over the years.
Click to expand...
quaawaa said:
The cost cap has nothing to do with regulations on the design of the car.

They should also allow for unlimited simulator time, just with a standardized computer (that way a rich team can’t rent a National Lab’s supercomputer).
Click to expand...
fair enough
 
quaawaa said:
They should also allow for unlimited simulator time, just with a standardized computer (that way a rich team can’t rent a National Lab’s supercomputer).
Click to expand...
Teams already do have their own supercomputers specifically set up for this sort of work. They aren't going to rent someone else's computers because that's a security risk and they want maximum secrecy to guard their data.
 
quaawaa said:
They should also allow for unlimited simulator time, just with a standardized computer (that way a rich team can’t rent a National Lab’s supercomputer).
Click to expand...
There is a limit on the TFLOP of any compluter they use for any simulation they do now (the limit is 25) so it wouldn't really matter if they had their own or contracted to use one of the most powerful ones, they'd still be limited.
 
1771699000054.png

in other news, Bottas became a youtuber
 
makingmaker said:
it allowed car manufacturers to justify spending billions into f1 technology. it all made sense like a decade or so ago when EVs were something new but now this whole idea is stupid. youre burning more fuel to charge battery. they now have ways of making clean fuel, expensive as fuck but still "clean". theres nothing stopping them from bringing v8's or v10 back, clip those at 15k rpm to make engines cheaper and race on sustainable fuels. fuck, engineers could even mess with idea of recycling exaust gases into engine chamber or do some fun stuff with turbo or whatever but nah, as long as mbs is fia president we wont get nice things
Click to expand...
Champ cars were "environmentally sustainable" 50 years ago. They ran on methanol, which you can make from about 10,000 types of garbage. That's not the type of "environmental sustainability" EU elites want, and the people that run FIA are the same Davos-types.

EVs got such a massive push because they're incredibly inconvenient. The batteries are insanely expensive and you have to replace them, the price of charging is astronomical, and they're slow and it takes 90 minutes before they're out of juice. It's "sustainable" because it keeps the poors from owning cars.

It makes sense that the FIA would try to turn the sport into Formula E where it's an endless battery recharging competition. It's a governing body for a Euro sport run by Euro CEOs and manufacturers who need to get cozy with the EU bureaucrats. Incestuous back scratching all around.
 
The MGU-H was the only cool thing about the hybrid system (muffled sound notwithstanding, but that's what happens when you extract energy from the exhaust) and it even kinda sorta became road-relevant, so of course that's the one part they remove and turn the cars into gimped diesel-electric locomotives. They have to be doing this on purpose

Like, you've got fucking Audi, their whole brand is built around the quattro thing. Let them put electric motors for brakes at the front or something, so you can harvest however much energy you want and maybe a little torque vectoring at the front, whatever. Add something new and exciting if you're gonna mess around with the regs, and not just lower the energy limits and be surprised things are slower.

And that "active aero", gimme a break, that's just front+back DRS. It should be insane, with separate left and right airfoils moving around like a fighter jet (no air-brakes though, we need to harvest that energy so the car can finish a lap). Or just remove all gimmicks and let them make a pure ICE rocket. Pick super-tech or pure gasoline race car tech tree and max it out, no compromises.
 
More noise being made about the possibility of reducing the electrical power output limit from 350 kW to 250 kW (470 to 335 bhp in automotive relevant units) to reduce the need to recharge as much on the lap.

Hilarious if they do it because that means no 50% power from electric and an admittance that it is not possible.
 
Intel® Core™2 Duo E8400 said:
The MGU-H was the only cool thing about the hybrid system (muffled sound notwithstanding, but that's what happens when you extract energy from the exhaust) and it even kinda sorta became road-relevant, so of course that's the one part they remove and turn the cars into gimped diesel-electric locomotives. They have to be doing this on purpose

Like, you've got fucking Audi, their whole brand is built around the quattro thing. Let them put electric motors for brakes at the front or something, so you can harvest however much energy you want and maybe a little torque vectoring at the front, whatever. Add something new and exciting if you're gonna mess around with the regs, and not just lower the energy limits and be surprised things are slower.

And that "active aero", gimme a break, that's just front+back DRS. It should be insane, with separate left and right airfoils moving around like a fighter jet (no air-brakes though, we need to harvest that energy so the car can finish a lap). Or just remove all gimmicks and let them make a pure ICE rocket. Pick super-tech or pure gasoline race car tech tree and max it out, no compromises.
Click to expand...
adding torque vectoring directly on wheels would count as steering assist imo and thats lame
 
The Grognard said:
There are two reasons for this. First are activist shareholders who were the ones who pushed all the DEI and ESG to the forefront as part of their environmental plans. Second is political pressure from the various European and Anglosphere countries where the exact sort of hateable elitists do their damnest to drive these things out of business. FIA being a French org, is very much vulnerable for this sort of pressuring when it happens in France.
Click to expand...
And this is why we no longer have grid babes, replaced with childrens parades so some (((elites))) can pat themselves on the back (nevermind they are all pedos). I so desperately want back teams sponsored by wholesome things like hard liquor and cigs, instead of jeet spaghetti code vapourware mega corps.
 
Intel® Core™2 Duo E8400 said:
you've got fucking Audi, their whole brand is built around the quattro thing. Let them put electric motors for brakes at the front or something, so you can harvest however much energy you want
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, Audi proposed this, since they foresaw the harvesting issue. But it got shut down immediately by the other manufacturers since they feared that Audi would have an development advantage due to their endurance championship past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom