Comments on: CURSE – Complicated way to Undermine Revenue, Safety and the Environment

By: F1Yankee

F1Yankee — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:09:57 +0000

i think each team gets custom fuel, designed for both the engine tuning and the expected climatic conditions. these are closely related to pump gasoline. a few years ago, i believe it was shell that pushed too far for the fia’s liking, developing lightweight fuel – definately the wrong direction for the sport to go in.

By: Bernification

Bernification — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:40:41 +0000

Good point Todd. Do people flee when they see a Prius rolling up at the petrol station.

By: Bernification

Bernification — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:36:53 +0000

Sorry resin- it’s been a long day.

By: Bernification

Bernification — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:35:47 +0000

Carbon is conductive. The rein that is placed between layers and encapsulates the whole package, is not.

By: Martin

Martin — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:59:58 +0000

KERS is rightly characterised as a curse. Not surprisingly it is another ridiculous spin-off of the great Anthropogenic Global Warming Fantasy gratuitously stoked up by Gore and the Green Slime. Like all such it is appallingly costly and totally pointless. KERS as developed for F1 is not even relevant to road vehicles! To lumber teams with this unnecessary and ruinously expensive complication whilst at the same time requiring them (rightly) to cut costs (creating hundreds of redundancies) leaves me at a loss for words, it is so utterly wrongheaded.
Car racing should be about the simplest possible rules that contain speeds within some kind of sensible upper limit whilst at the same time allowing designers the absolute maximum scope for visible innovation. For example, slick tyres and just a (small) total permitted area for aerodynamic surfaces, and that subject to constant reduction as speeds increase out of hand. Certainly cap costs, if they can be successfully policed.
Why not standardise power trains, because engine technology has been pushed so far that further gains are exorbitantly expensive. After all the same power outputs can readily be produced by engines costing a fraction of current F1 power plants.
Why not have a formula that simply limited the total surface area of the car bodywork, as calculated by the CAD? That would give fantastic scope for creative design thinking.
It should not be forgotten that that the closest and most exciting racing in the history of Grand Prix was produced by cars which all used the same engine, the Cosworth DFV. The situation at the moment is that by far the greatest amount of competition in grand prix racing goes on behind closed doors in technical departments where it is invisible to the spectators, even if they were interested in it, which of course the majority are not. What on earth is the point of that?
The changes I outline would, on the contrary, maximise visible competition, which surely must be a good way forward, while reducing costs. And, what on earth is the point of the present battle of the budgets?
Above all, KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).

By: mindfields

mindfields — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:50:43 +0000

TBH I can’t understand why the regulations were not written to make KERS an undeniable benefit.

Currently the benefits delivered is offset by the weight that has to be carried around & not being used.

Just make a regulation that defines a shape, volume, weight that can either be used for a KERS system or it must be filled with Ballast.

Even a cheap & simple KERS system would be better than lugging around a dead weight. . .

By: todd

todd — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:29:26 +0000

how much cash does shell spend to develop custom fuel for ferrari…

By: todd

todd — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:17:04 +0000

sorry, it was a minority share, not controlling share, my point is still the same.

By: todd

todd — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:15:17 +0000

williams (correct me if i’m wrong) bought a controlling stake in a company that develops the technology already (so they own the company that creates the tech) thus, in the long term profiting from the development they do in f1 – not from f1, buy by selling the tech and tech services through the existing kenetic engineering company.

just a quick google
http://formula-1.updatesport.com/news/article/1209560038/formula_one/F1tech.talk/Williams-buys-into-KERS-technology/view.html

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:46:20 +0000

F1 cars have an earthing strip too (originally to make sure there was no static on the car in refuelling stops). But it’s not much help unless the car is sitting on a flat surface the right way up. Run-off areas are rarely flat.