"Our attempts to make Formula One greener is ruining the sport" - Bernie Ecclestone

[Spie]

a pure ICE is old and rubbish.

Probably the most ridiculous comment I have read for some time.

 

[Spie]

Another old and rubbish engine.

 

[Glaucus]

Great informative reply, good argument.

Is it old tech = yes
Is it inferior to a hybrid = yes

So how is it a silly argument.

You like NA great. But they are old and can never compete with a hybrid. they have tiny amounts of toque, they have an extremely narrow power band.

Ferrari if they want to remain good, will have no choice but to make a hybrid to compete with McLaren and Porsche.
So no the statement wasn't silly.
And again you ignore everything, simply because of what you like and your emotion. Rather than actually replying to why NA is old tech and rubbish compared to hybrids, which I included in that post,

Beautiful in no way means good, fast, cutting edge etc.
A NA could not compete with the p1.

The old Merlin powered cars are a thing of beauty, that doesn't mean they can compete with something a 10th of their capacity.

 

[Skeeter]

Top of the Flops
A while ago now, in the UK, there was a popular music chart television programme, made by the BBC, called Top of the Pops. It ran for 42 years. It was a countdown to find out what was the Number One that week. It drew a vast audience and every singer and every band wanted to be on it. Looking back now, in the age of whizzbangs and wonderment, it was all rather tame – and the clothing and hairdos were giggle-inducing – but it worked wonders for the pop music industry and kept the toothsome DJs amused with a constant stream of teenage girls, wanting to be in the audience, and willing to do whatever it took to get there… It worked because there was a structure, suspense and if some of the groups were awful (cue: The Bay City Rollers), there was always someone you liked. It was a win-win deal for all concerned.

Formula 1 used to be like that but in recent times it has all been getting rather confused and today, rather than everyone doing what they are told and singing in beautiful harmonies, we have Luca and the High Horses doing “Paint it Black”, Bernie & The Asset Strippers singing “Money, money, money”, Dietrich and the Untermensch warbling “My way”, Jean Todt and the Blazers doing “We are the champions” (without the sequins), the other teams singing “Ain’t no sunshine” and the media doing “Dancing in the Dark” all at the same time. It is a right old cacophony. A lot of noise.

Yesterday I read a Ferrari press release announcing that 83 percent of the fans do not like Formula 1. Fabulous! The team that gains the most from the sport, saying that the sport is rubbish.

Did they teach that one in PR school?

I read with fascination, it was like a chapter from Suicide 101, explaining how to load a pistol and point it at one’s head. I even went to ask the Ferrari PR man if there was any possible logical positive strategy for such a ridiculous release. His argument was not convincing.

Formula 1 is in the process of a brilliant technical revolution that has a real value to the world at large and the people in the sport are all whining and griping and trying to get things changed, because they have other agendas. It is incredibly depressing that the sport is delivering such a poor message to the public at a time when there is such a positive story to be told: the F1 cars of 2014 cover the same distance at the same sort of speed as the cars of 2013, but they do it using 35 percent less fuel. That’s impressive. But where is this great story being broadcast? Why can no-one remember the word HYBRID? The teams are squabbling as ever, the Formula One group does not do promotion (an odd stance for a promoter) and the FIA’s idea about communication is about as useful as a Trappist Debating Society.

It is as if everyone is working to bring down the value of the sport. Some may be, some may wish to drive away the investors so that they can buy the shares. The investors are, sadly, completely clueless. They look only at the bottom line and do not care how it is arrived at. And they don’t have the nous (nor the balls) to run the business as it could (and should) be run and they just don’t care whether the sport spins off into a wall and catches fire, so long as they have their pockets bulging with fivers when they depart. If they had any clue they would realise that there is still plenty of milk left inside this old cash cow.

What happened to the sport that we love? Why are the teams trying to get rules they like rather than buckling down and building better racing cars as racers do? The culprit today is Ferrari, and it is clear that the folk in Maranello have not mastered the new engines as successfully as Mercedes-Benz (major ooops). Yesterday it was Red Bull. They are not winning, so they are whingeing instead. They are trying to change the rules as Red Bull did last year.

They have no respect for the sport.

Well, as a fan of F1, my view is very simple: if you don’t like it, go away. There will always be other racers who will step in to replace these prima donnas. It is just a question of money. If we wish to see the sport destroy itself then we need to let everyone spend as much as they like. The dinosaurs can have a final party, but if we want to go forward, we need to do so with rules that restrict money and ego, just as they restrict wing size and tyre width.

Goodness me, I sound angry.

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/top-of-the-flops/

 

[jaybee]

The race at Bahrain was really good but again we have regulations that will ruin the viewing experience for fans wanting a competitive and close championship. Why? Because I can tell you the result of the 2014 Championship right now as could anyone. The top two drivers will be Mercedes drivers. Mercedes will also win the constructors. This could still be very entertaining to watch Rosberg vs Hamilton yes, but it's not the same when a team dominates all.

I totally applaud Mercede's innovation in the split turbo engine design. I really do, and I think they should benefit from that. What I don't like is that other teams have to sit and do nothing to their engines all season and now cannot respond. It damages them and us viewers of the sport. It's like a lottery dependent on who can exploit and/or push the boundaries of the rules which dictate everything. It wouldn't be so bad if they just got a big head start and boost early on then they catch up, but to lock the engines down for the year = season over. Another wasted year. It's about the now. We always talk of next season in Formula 1. What about the now?

Say they change the rules next season, we could have another split turbo/blown diffuser/flexing wing/suspension wizardry etc item, where one team gains too much of an advantage in one hit which is rubbish to watch. It's these tight rules and restrictions that overly complicate things and cause this. If it was more open, teams could come up with different solutions to the same problem all down the field and I truely believe it would be more competitive and closer and exciting.

As for naturally aspirated engines... The future has always been forced induction but it's difficult to let go in F1 specifically to the NA sound track.

 

[jaybee]

Well, as a fan of F1, my view is very simple: if you don’t like it, go away.

The irony here is that this very thread is to discuss just this problem. Fans will and are leaving F1. In what way is this good? No fan base in F1 = a sport that will die out as it's not cost effective.

 

[deuse]

If the fans don't like the new F1 and walk away then they will have to changed it to get them back.

I just wish the sound was better and the hybrid cars could go around corners faster. F1 is getting slower and slower

 

[this_is_gav]

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/top-of-the-flops/

I was going to post that the other day. It's a fantastic read from a die-hard F1 nut.

I just wish the sound was better and the hybrid cars could go around corners faster. F1 is getting slower and slower

But it has every so often since the year dot. Just in the last 15 years we went to narrower cars with grooved tyres. Mass Damper banned. V10s banned. One set of tyres for the race. Refuelling banned. Those ludicrous sci-fi flaps and winglets banned. Narrower rear wings (again). Traction control banned. Triple-deck diffuser banned. And now the blown diffuser has essentially been banned over two years.

They're still F1 cars and should you jump in one, they'd still try to rip your head off after going around a few corners.

 

[Alibaba99]

Another old and rubbish engine.

 

[this_is_gav]

F1 cars have always been slowed over time, unless you can keep making the circuits larger with greater run offs.

Indeed, if you didn't curtail the speed you'd have drivers passing out after a few corners.

If we had 1970s rules (fat tyres, ground effect, huge wings, the emergence of turbo engines) with 2014 technology the lap of the old Silverstone would probably have an average speed of 220mph+ (Keke's long-standing record was 160mph average around the old Silverstone (the pre-Bridge track, with the faster Stowe and Club corners) was quick enough). The human body couldn't cope with that level of force for long.

That's OK on relatively open ovals, but even in the last few years we had drivers with blurred vision and dizziness at Texas Motor Speedway with substantially less sophisticated cars than F1, less braking (don't think there usually any on the oval in Indycar, only when pitting?) and more open corners.

 

[deuse]

Indeed, if you didn't curtail the speed you'd have drivers passing out after a few corners.

Really? Lets look.

Australian race MSC 1:24.125 7 March 2004 (grooved tires)
Australian Race LH 1:44:231 16th March 2014

So in ten years they have slowed down by 20 seconds and no one FLEW off the track, no one died, no one passed out ect.

 

[this_is_gav]

And in Q3 in 2014 they were driving in the wet. With brand new cars. And engines. And tyres. Without traction control. Or big wings. Or V10s. Completely meaningless.

And you know fine well what I mean, you're trolling or you've not watched F1 for more than 10 years.

The idea is that you stop designers coming up with cars which will allow the driver to lose concentration (to the point of it becoming dangerous). To suggest anything else is borderline ridiculous.

 

[MissChief]

Deuse, do that same comparison at Brazil or Abu Dhabi and your example may hold water. The first race of a new Formula? Not so much.

 

[deuse]

snip

Any chance of you not following me around this forum? or put me on your ignore list

Deuse, do that same comparison at Brazil or Abu Dhabi and your example may hold water. The first race of a new Formula? Not so much.

As this thread is about 2014 cars\engines I can only post what races they have done so far.

Bahrain Webber 2005 1’29.527
Bahrain Rosberg 2014 1:33.185

Sepang JPM 1:34:223 2004
Sepand LH 1:43:066 2014(in the race and dry)

China MSC 1:32:236 2004

 

[El_Watcher]

Australian race MSC 1:24.125 7 March 2004 (grooved tires)
Australian Race LH 1:44:231 16th March 2014

But the fastest lap was by Nico Rosberg 1:32.478.

Plus Bahrain:
2004 MS 1:30.252
2014 NR 1:37.020

So actually only 7-8 seconds slower on a brand new type of car.

 

[deuse]

Each race will be different in lap times. But at the end of the day 2004 car with grooved tires was faster then most.

And 7 seconds in F1 is like a light year in our time

look I can do that to

 

[El_Watcher]

Each race will be different in lap times. But at the end of the day 2004 car with grooved tires was faster then most.

And 7 seconds in F1 is like a light year in our time

look I can do that to

But I don't think grooved tyres made that much difference. Compare 1997 to 1998, the year they came in.

Mid season German grand prix at old Hockenheim where high and low speed grip was very important.

1997 Berger 1:45.747
1998 Coulthard 1:46.116

So the grooves were basically the same speed as the slicks.

 

[dannyjo22]

2014 NR 1:37.020

So actually only 7-8 seconds slower on a brand new type of car.

Its quite a gap especially when you consider how much harder the grooved tyres where as well. It will be interesting to watch year on year how that is reduced as the engine manufacturers go for it.

 

[deuse]

But I don't think grooved tyres made that much difference. Compare 1997 to 1998, the year they came in.

Mid season German grand prix at old Hockenheim where high and low speed grip was very important.

1997 Berger 1:45.747
1998 Coulthard 1:46.116

So the grooves were basically the same speed as the slicks.

As I say this thread is about the engines not tires. And 2004 looks to be the best year for engines.

I and many other miss the sound and raw speed of the older engines.
Simple test, make a sound now of a old V8 engine...ok
now make the sound of the new V6..ok..yes it sounds like a bunch of farts

back on topic

 

[dannyjo22]

But I don't think grooved tyres made that much difference. Compare 1997 to 1998, the year they came in.

Mid season German grand prix at old Hockenheim where high and low speed grip was very important.

1997 Berger 1:45.747
1998 Coulthard 1:46.116

So the grooves were basically the same speed as the slicks.

Is that a good comparison?

The cars where also narrower, the tyres thinner iirc allowing better top end at a circuit like hockenheim. I think a better comparison anyway would be the same team as the renault became mechacrome and didn't move on at all. Mercedes made huge strides.

Basically just saying it's really hard to make a comparison