Chinese Grand Prix 2011, Shanghai International Circuit - Race 3/19

But where mastered in f1 and used as testbed.

There's two categories
1) invented by f1
2) f1 used as a cheap and harsh test environment and later used in cars.

Plenty in both. Read the article and that doesn't even cover all of it.
 
AcidHell2 said:
But where mastered in f1 and used as testbed.

There's two categories
1) invented by f1
2) f1 used as a cheap and harsh test environment and later used in cars.

Plenty in both. Read the article and that doesn't even cover all of it.
Click to expand...


The yanks had traction control in their cars way before F1 i.e the Riviera, Estate Wagon, Electra 225, Centurion, and popular LeSabre family sedan, Cadillac had it.(taken from wiki)

All I am trying to say is that joe public won't ever see anything from a F1 car on his ford focus :D
but there again if you have loads of dosh you can have it now aka ferrari\Mclaren which are super fast cars.
 
You will and have.

Where do you think things like vtec come from. And other jazzy engine stuff, found in lots of modern engines. Where do you think brimstone tried lots of tyre technology first? Where do you think crumple zones came from.

Same as kers if they derestricted kers, it wouldn't of been invented f1 but it would be used as the test bed for new and improved kers and would bring in loads of money for ;0f1 and what is learnt would be filtered down to road cars.
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
You will and have.

Where do you think things like vtec come from. And other jazzy engine stuff, found in lots of modern engines. Where do you think brimstone tried lots of tyre technology first? Where do you think crumple zones came from.
Click to expand...

VTec came about because Japan has a tax on engine displacement so Honda(I think) came up with it for their ROAD CAR..Not F1.
 
Exactly people seriously over exaggerate how much technology from F1 comes from F1. Even stuff like ABS and traction control where not test bedded or perfected in F1. The systems are so simple anyway there is little to refine on them.

The only times those systems have been perfected in F1 is when you are trying to run them against the rules and are doing clever electronic work arounds. Which is of zero use on a road car.

Some of the gearbox technology and speed of gearchange is the only stuff I can think of but people could probably tell me those seemless microsecond gear changes came from somewhere else.
 
Nice.

My understanding is Sauber have gone to the very extremes of wing angle on the DRS flap, and slightly over shot it in Australia. Red Bull must be close then.

So let me get this straight, 'aggressive' DRS flap angles provide big gains when the flap is open, but compromises the overall rear setup, while less aggresive rear flap angles provide smaller gains when the flap is open, but a better overall rear end setup?

Cool!
 
Extreme angles give much more downforce and so speed through corners, on qualifying you can use DRS when you won't and so can negate much of that drag when needed on the lap. However this. Then compromises you in the race as you can't use DRS and so have that extra drag all the time.

So you either go for qauli pace or you go for race pace. Or a medium.
 
sunama said:
Would I be right in thinking that Vettel biases his set-up to work best in qualifying?
Click to expand...

No.

He doesn't bias his set up. The build of the wing is such that it gets better gains when they deploy DRS. So naturally when they deploy DRS they get more gain, as they use DRS more in qually they get the 0.7 gap. Then the race comes and they can only use it once if they are behind.

It's not a set up bias, it's a characteristic of the wing.
 
So its more a case of Red Bull have built a car that is geared towards utilising DRS, which is therefore more beneficial in qualifying.

Would explain why Vettel doesn't just vanish at 0.7 seconds a lap during the race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom