Forum Replies Created
6th February 2014, 19:03 at 7:03 pm #248567
The hydraulic brake-lines can’t physically control the KERS harvest and that is what does most of the rear breaking this year, so brake by wire is the best option for the rear wheels.6th February 2014, 18:58 at 6:58 pm #248573
I simply don’t see where 100HP should come from. With the limits on fuel consumption, the Mercedes engine would have to be a whopping 16.6 percent more fuel efficient then the Renault. With so strict regulations, I simply cannot see that happening.6th February 2014, 16:32 at 4:32 pm #248563
Electronic braking, so no physical connection between the brake pedal and the brake fluid circuit.
Same as drive by wire in the throttle on your car. Just in the braking system.
But it will only affect the rear wheels. The front wheel breaking will be done as usual.29th January 2014, 20:06 at 8:06 pm #248426
Sorry for being such a joy-kill though. Nice topic! I will give it a go tomorrow. : )29th January 2014, 20:05 at 8:05 pm #248425
• The fuel limit for cars would be 150kg, but if a team uses electric only, the weight of the battery units would be 75kg – this will allow the weight loss of fuel-burning cars to be mitigated and averaged out.
That would completely rule out battery powered cars.
Petrol contains 46.4MJ/kg of energy, in a normal engine only a third of that would be converted to mechanical energy, so roughly 15.4MJ/kg.
The best Lithium Ion batteries, as most commonly used in cars, contains up to 1MJ/kg. But since nearly all of the energy stored in the battery can be converted to actual, mechanical energy, we can just assume that the actual, driving, power is 1MJ/kg.
Basically the battery, to contain the same propulsion power would need to weigh 15.4 times MORE then the fuel allowed in the petrol car in order to contain a similar amount of power.
So the battery weight would need to be something like two tonnes in order to compete with 150kg of standard petrol.29th January 2014, 19:42 at 7:42 pm #248377
The V8 engines didn’t run between 0-10,000RPM. At race speed the gearing made sure they were kept well above that at all times. Watch a few onboard laps. Even in the really slow corners they would only juuust get near 10,000RPM, and that has more to do with trying to limit wheelspin then anything else. They were practically always well above that.27th January 2014, 19:35 at 7:35 pm #248350
They still have Newey, effectively factory support on engines, and most of their key people still in place, so I see no reason why they shouldn’t be at the top.
That said, dominance always ends and 9/10 times it is because of a big regulation change.
So I do not expect them to be dominant, maybe not even championship contenders, but I doubt they will turn up with a dog.25th January 2014, 21:48 at 9:48 pm #248255
I think most of the cars from the 70′s and early 80′s were pretty horrid.
But since ’85, I don’t really recall seeing something nearly as bad as this.
Well yes, there were always the occasional ugly duckling, but that is one or two vehicles. This time, it’s across the board. Every single one so far is bad, and there is no reason to believe that any of the others will not be.
Picking the best looking is like picking your favourite STD.
Although 1996 weren’t so great either, with the raised side protection. It looked awkward. Still nothing in comparison to this year.11th January 2014, 11:39 at 11:39 am #248039
I think it is the future for road cars, but I wouldn’t like it on the racing cars.
Basically it would mean that the teams will run maximum downforce EVERYWHERE without loosing out on top speed, as well as it would make the slipstream less effective.
Basically having more downforce then the others would be a ‘free’ advantage in the sense that there would be virtually no drawback.
Not like today where teams running more downforce are usually slower on the straights. I like that sort of balancing act between downforce and top speed. I think it makes the racing more interesting.5th December 2013, 19:30 at 7:30 pm #245879
Introducing traction control wouldn’t reduce Red Bull’s traction advantage.
Traction is a measure for the amount of force you can put through the tyres at any given time.
Say Red Bull can put down 1000Nm at 80km/h (completely made up numbers!) but Mercedes are only able to put down 950Nm at 80km/h. Using traction control will allow the driver to on average come a little closer to those numbers then they normally do, but if we say that Vettel and Hamilton are equally good at applying their right foot, then the TC advantage will mean that Lewis can come closer to 950, and Vettel can come closer to 1000. Making no difference.
If a driver however has a bad right foot and while the car is able to put down 1000Nm, and he only applies 950, or 1050 (causing slip) then he will be no faster then a good driver with less traction.
Introducing traction control will allow the worse driver to get equally close to his cars maximum traction, as a better driver.
Meaning it is now a lot more about the car, then the driver.13th November 2013, 19:02 at 7:02 pm #239166
I am right now trying to persuade my girlfriend into watching F1 again from next year.
How am I going to do that if the cars looks like that? It is absolutely horrifyingly ugly!
Why can’t we just get back to 2008 proportions, but with the clean bodywork of the current cars? That would look incredibly sweet.
I really think that looks of the cars are important.
I want something I can use as my wall paper on my laptop, or that maybe one day accompany the picture of the Ferrari 156/85 on my wall.11th November 2013, 18:25 at 6:25 pm #244933
It depends on what McLaren are looking for. Another stable, Button’esque driver? Then Perez might be able to do it with a few years of experience. But I doubt that is what they are looking for. McLaren all ready have Button, so why would they look for another pretty good driver?
They need a hot-shot who can take the fight to even the best of them.
Will Magnussen be that guy? Who knows. But it is almost guaranteed that Perez will not. He has quite a lot of experience, and he is still not capable of beating Button in qualifying. Which is JB’s biggest weakness.1st November 2013, 20:02 at 8:02 pm #244454
I don’t think this is the way forward.
I often miss a rear facing camera on the cars, but this camera is simply too slow to rotate. And even if it was as fast as light, the guy controlling it, would not. So the only useful thing for this would be when a car overtakes another down a straight to view the car being overtaken all the way… but then when that car jumps to the other side and dives down the inside under breaking, this camera will be pointing everywhere but where the action is.
I think fixed cameras are better.1st November 2013, 17:05 at 5:05 pm #243802
Now you mention it, I do remember their flywheel KERS system being used in some Porsche racing cars for instance. But I don’t imagine that Williams makes quite as much money from the things they do, as McLaren. Whether that is just because every time someone at McLaren farts, we all have to hear about it, I don’t know.1st November 2013, 15:51 at 3:51 pm #243800
One of the problems for a team like Williams is also that, they are funded by their own success. One bad year, means less money for next year and so on. With the huge costs these days, and not a lot of technical freedom it is hard to bounce back in that situation.
McLaren has a pretty healthy side business going on. Not only selling loads of cars, but also supplying parts for racing cars all over the world. Their drive line up however, is a cause for concern. I doubt either of them has what it takes to win a championship.
But a Williams like situation? No.