Nothing that you know of, but technology from F1 is finding its way into road cars all of the time quite subtly. I know of 1 technology, or more accurately a process, that could make a dramatic change to road vehicles when it is announced publicly.
Audi dismiss F1 as Irrelevant
- Thread starter dannyjo22
- Start date
Nothing that you know of, but technology from F1 is finding its way into road cars all of the time quite subtly. I know of 1 technology, or more accurately a process, that could make a dramatic change to road vehicles when it is announced publicly.
Such as?
I understand the one you can't talk about until it's public but what about all these others that have made it. I'm sure they would want to tell the world especially as it needs that kind of exposure to prove it's relevance.
I'd wager more of the processes and techniques in F1 come from aerospace.
Soldato
I think manufacturers would have much less of a problem with the new engine regs if they weren't being locked into the inline-4 configuration. Something has gone seriously wrong somewhere when TPTB are saying "you must use this engine design and no other, we don't want you spending a fortune on engines" and then allowing teams to spend the kind of money you could use to throw a small nuclear war at finding a tricky little piece of ingenuity to make the diffuser work better.
Of what possible relevance to road car technology is an exhaust blown diffuser that works when you're off the loud pedal? What's that, none whatsoever? Okay, and what possible relevance to road car technology would we see in engine regs that allow teams to come up with better designs that use less fuel for the same (or more) power? Sorry, I can't quite hear you....
Putting it together yet, FIA? Get it done. Oh, and allow ground effect. Then maybe you won't need gimmicks like a rear wing flap that can only be used in specific scenarios.
Of what possible relevance to road car technology is an exhaust blown diffuser that works when you're off the loud pedal? What's that, none whatsoever? Okay, and what possible relevance to road car technology would we see in engine regs that allow teams to come up with better designs that use less fuel for the same (or more) power? Sorry, I can't quite hear you....
Putting it together yet, FIA? Get it done. Oh, and allow ground effect. Then maybe you won't need gimmicks like a rear wing flap that can only be used in specific scenarios.
I agree, the ommision of ground effects is a major missed trick.
But I don't agree about the engines. They could have opened the formula up, but then you have the possibility that some designs outperform others. You have to rememver that 'back in the day' grids were spread out by 15 or 20 seconds top to bottom. Ignoring HRT and Vigin, current F1 grids are seperated by only 5 seconds or less. The FIA cant allow massive gaps to occur.
Just imagine if they did, and the Renault engine was 2 seconds a lap faster than the Ferrari, which was 3 seconds a lap faster than all others, except the Cosworth, which had taken a risky route that didn't work so it could match them, but instead blew up after 20 laps... You would have a F1 championship decided before the racing even began.
Its something they have stopped successfully with the tyres by mandating a weight distribution. They just cannot afford to loose the currently very close F1 field. This is why they have designed almost a single specification rule. You might not agree with it, but its the only way we can guarantee close racing.
But I don't agree about the engines. They could have opened the formula up, but then you have the possibility that some designs outperform others. You have to rememver that 'back in the day' grids were spread out by 15 or 20 seconds top to bottom. Ignoring HRT and Vigin, current F1 grids are seperated by only 5 seconds or less. The FIA cant allow massive gaps to occur.
Just imagine if they did, and the Renault engine was 2 seconds a lap faster than the Ferrari, which was 3 seconds a lap faster than all others, except the Cosworth, which had taken a risky route that didn't work so it could match them, but instead blew up after 20 laps... You would have a F1 championship decided before the racing even began.
Its something they have stopped successfully with the tyres by mandating a weight distribution. They just cannot afford to loose the currently very close F1 field. This is why they have designed almost a single specification rule. You might not agree with it, but its the only way we can guarantee close racing.
Soldato
When was the last time that cars which actually qualified had gaps of 15-20 seconds from front to back?
Sure, when we had pre-qualifying in the late '80s and early '90s you got the odd hopeless car being that far off the pace (Life F1, I'm looking at you). And I suppose the '97 Lola effort could rate a mention in the one GP it attempted to qualify for. But we haven't generally seen gaps like that for decades.
As far as one dominant engine design emerging goes - in the early '90s, the Renault V10 was THE engine to have. Honda tried to match it, failed and pulled out leaving McLaren right up crap creek for '93 (rumour has it that Ron played for and didn't get a Renault engine deal for that year, and had used the potential for Renault engines as a bargaining chip to get Michael Andretti to join). Benetton went out and got Renault engines as soon as they could, and ended up becoming the Renault works team down the line. But it wasn't an instant ticket to success - Ligier ran them, and didn't amount to much. The engine is only one part of the package, or that LOLtus Renault and Team Lotus would be right up there with the Red Bull now....
I just think it's laughable that they can't spend money on engines (something that could produce real-world applicable improvements) but they can spend inordinate amounts of money on trick diffusers and F-ducts and bendy wings that don't really bend (which have no use on road cars whatsoever).
But we also haven't had truly open engine regulations for decades. The tighter and tighter rules have made tighter racing.
I totally see your point, but there is always the risk that they decide to open it up to car manufacturers to develop engines to provide them with rear road car development opportunities, and then someone scores a killer design. Then you would just see what has happened in the past (your same Renault/Honda early 90s example) where companies will decide they don't have the resources to keep up and leave. Opening up the regulations also means your development and therefore your pace is decided by your wallet and not your skills. We can't let Formula 1 go back to being astronomically expensive.
Open regulations wont work in today's climate as it opens doors to spiralling costs and huge performance disparities between manufactures, 2 things the FIA are rightly trying to pin down.
In a perfect world with infinate money and open development then maybe, but in the real world right now open engine regulations wouldn't work.
One point worth noting though... I haven't heard any word on a development freeze on the new engines once they are built. We have all got very used to the current regulations where the engines just turn up in a box off a shelf and are bolted on. I expect, for the first few years at least, the 2013 regulations would allow engine development, so while the regulations might be strict, they are nailed down to a single spec engine. Surely that must be exciting for car makers? To have the oportunity to develop a good early 1.6 Turbo for F1 and then cross brand them with their road car engines? I mean we have already seen 1 brand new company be formed just to make F1 2013 engines, so there must be something enticing in it?
Last edited:
Are you saying it does benefit road cars or doesn't?
That Renault engine is constantly passing gases over the diffuser, which means it is constantly burning fuel. That's pretty inefficient, so the engine has to be made more efficient without a drop in power to be able to do that. So by proxy, but no less legitimately, that process could help road cars.
Excuse the hyperbole of my previous post. But I'm referring to changes like how the fuel is injected, fuel rod production, crank development, butterfly inlets. No normal road user wants or would even understand what these things mean but they influence the engine development.
Soldato
Sorry gord, my dismay at the state of some things in F1 got in the way of writing clearly. I'm saying that the solutions being used to keep exhaust blown diffusers working off-throttle have no benefit to road cars. And never can, given the current rules in F1 regarding engine development.
But with the engine homologation rule in F1, they can't develop the engine to work more efficiently without a drop in power. Not significantly at any rate. Which is why the current solution sees engines using more fuel to keep the EBD working. If they could have developed a solution that didn't increase fuel consumption, they'd have done it already. They can't, so they haven't.
***edit***
FYI, the hearing aid crack that you ninja-edited out made it to the reply notification in my e-mail
If there is true homologation then the below release doesn't make much sense. They are using more fuel, but the engines are more efficient to do so. A by-product of the EBD, but being a by-product doesnt make it any less significant.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/renault-blown-floor-uses-10-more-fuel/
Ha! I had to remove it as I couldn't make a quip without knowing which side of the fence you were on. Now I know.. put your hearing aid in granddad!FYI, the hearing aid crack that you ninja-edited out made it to the reply notification in my e-mail
It just happened to be more efficient before the development ban and as such can waste a bit of fuel. They can't make the engines more efficient in the current rules. Although they do occasionally change parts for "reliability" there was quite a bit of gain from using different oils, early on in the ban.