F1 aero revamp delayed until 2009/F1 bosses reach 'green' accord

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by iGav, Sep 18, 2006.

  1. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #1
    Blimey, will wonders never cease. :p

    Highlights include...

    • The engine freeze has been bought forward from 2008 to 2007.
    • Homolgated engines to be limited to 19,000 RPM.
    • 30,000km testing limit (voluntary for next season)

    Linky

    I'm fascinated at the idea of F1 becomming more 'green', I've long since stated that I'd love to see a degree of technical and engineering freedom be re-introduced to F1, but focusing on making it more environmentally friendly could yield some incredible technology.

    Linky

    Thoughts?
     
  2. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #2
    I'm still on the fence. Nobody will deny that green is good in a general sense, but F1 is entertainment and bad racing, no matter how green is still bad. It all comes down to just what they plan to do and how they do it.

    Still, Audi's success with the diesel at LeMans shows that there are many ways to skin a cat - cleverly incorporated "green" tech could bring F1 a lot of positive interest and still keep the core business of racing.

    The only other thing that concerns me a bit is whether the new ways of propelling the cars will cause rules nightmares for a couple of seasons as the FIA scrambles to close the loopholes that inevitably appear whenever big rule changes are implemented.
     
  3. jbernie macrumors 6502a

    jbernie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #3
    I used to watch F1 all the time back in Australia..was also easier to find etc etc than in the US (speed channel).. however... as i recall.. the good ole days were when Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Mansell etc were battling away... don't recall any driver winning about 14 races in a year (Schumacher).

    The more things have changed the less exciting the sport has become. Sad to say, I watch more Nascar than I do F1. Even if part of that is to see a good crash or two hopefully involving half the field :).

    I know F1 has been trying to get the racing cheaper so more cars can run and more exciting where cars can pass, but to be honest, I don't think they have been successful at the passing part. Though the F1's did it nascar style turn 1 at Indy, though it made it more of a farce than anything due to a small field.
     
  4. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #4
    I still don't like the whole engine freeze idea, or the homologating of the engines. Green tech (like Audi's diesel) would be cool.

    I'm still floored that the team bosses decided technical rules unanimously though. :eek: :D
     
  5. RedTomato macrumors 68040

    RedTomato

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Location:
    .. London ..
    #5
    I'm not an american so I'm not 100% confidient in this, but don't Indycars run on methanol?

    In 2007, apparently, they'll shift over to ethanol (beware the drivers / technicans drinking the fuel :)

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060709/NEWS10/607090341/-1/archive

    Anyway, them's two of the most green fuels you can get. If a 650-horsepower Indycar can run on it, why not a F1 car?

    Yes, it'd need new engines, but they redesign and replace them all the time anyway, and it'd do wonders for their image.
     
  6. iGav thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #6
    I actually have no idea... it's not that they can't though.

    I can't even remember the reason for them switching from high octane fuels to conventional unleaded a few years ago.

    I'm not even sure if F1 cars ever ran methanol? though I believe that some of the '60's F1 cars may have done so, and the Mercedes/Auto Union cars of the '30's could well have done so too.

    So... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm I have no idea why they don't run ethanol though.
     
  7. anonymous161 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Location:
    Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
    #7
    I would imagine it has to do with the major sponsorship provided by Shell, Petronas, Petrobras, Elf, EXXON Mobil, etc

    I'm not that hot on ethanol, mainly because it has no real future in production cars (not that much in F1 has to do with road cars, nor does it necessarily have to) so I would prefer to see diesel, biodiesel, or perhaps even some hybrid option of some kind.
    Fuel cells would be cool, but a near-silent race car would suck

    Personally, I would prefer to see less regulation, not more, in F1.
    Regulation cannot, and will not, prevent those who can from spending large amounts of money, but money isn't everything.
    The more the car design is regulated, the more small mistakes effect your performance. Grand Prix cars used to have numerous options in terms of engine type and size, car/suspension, etc and the racing was close and exciting. Now the cars have been regulated the near clones of one another and there is a clear divide between the top 2 or 3 teams and the rest. One small difference in weight distribution, tires, or suspension can take you from first to last.

    Don't forget that the "golden era" of motor racing had big spendors vs small spendors two. Mercedes and before that Auto Union were large, wealthy companies and also had the might of the German government to help finance their operations and yet they lost to small independent teams. Sure, Alfa Romeo had a decent budget, but nowhere near the Germans and all three were beaten by smaller upstart teams (like Scuderia Ferrari after he left Alfa) at different points in time.

    It would be nice if we could go against the grain of overregulation (which every form of sport suffers from now) and just set some rules and let them be for several years. I don't think it would be as bad as everyone makes it out to be.
     
  8. RedTomato macrumors 68040

    RedTomato

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Location:
    .. London ..
    #8
    I completely agree. What's wrong with setting:

    1) a maximum budget for the class,
    2) health and saftely rules
    3) environmental rules

    4) a minimum level of definitions apropiate to the form of the sport e.g. 'a motorbike shall not have more than 2 wheels' - for F1 racing, there would be no limit on number of wheels. (there've been 6-wheeled f1 cars before, why not again?)

    Anything else goes :) Let the wild experimenting and novel designs run riot, counterbalanced by the need for reliability and proven history.

    One thing that really annoys me is cycle racing, which I used to follow. There are a vast number of design improvements, such as recumbents, space frames or drivetrain modifications that are banned from cyclesports, due to their idiotic insistence on the traditional diamond frame.

    Cycling technology globally would be far more advanced, millions more people would be cycling, if it wasn't for these idiots and their obsession with a 100 year old frame layout.
     
  9. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #9
    Don't forget that there was someone who won the TdF using aluminum rims, while they were still illegal. He painted them to look like wood.
     

Share This Page