rufus_mcdufus
Champion Elect
That's a pretty sexy-looking nose actually, better than the impressions posted a few days ago.
Technical 2014 Technical Regulations
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
Even more stupid than Virgin not having a big enough fuel tank because they got their conversions wrong?
Bill Boddy - Yes, unless they did so because they forgot to convert litres and gallons.
sobriety - We have a new winner.
sobriety - We have a new winner.
Will the new engines be able to use the electric motor to start the petrol part of the engine? If not why not.
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
If you call 1998/99 "early." And that was all NASA. The Mars Climate Orbiter flew straight into the planet instead of slingshotting around it because the thrust control software on the spacecraft was interpreting the numbers being sent from ground control as Newtons, but the numbers ground control was sending were calculated in pounds.
It was a $125m OOPS!
Last edited:
Why didn't they test the software? Lots of software which is dealing with much cheaper hardware than this is subject to very intensive testing.
Josephiah
Podium Finisher
Sounds like each system was doing exactly what it was designed to do, and the error was in the information flow process - i.e. a human error where someone didn't check what units the system was expecting.
I'm always amazed* at Americans' ability to switch between unit systems - you'd think the space programme, being a pinnacle of scientific endeavour, would be an ideal place to use the internationally agreed system of consistent units...
*both admiration that they can and incredulity that they do!
I'm always amazed* at Americans' ability to switch between unit systems - you'd think the space programme, being a pinnacle of scientific endeavour, would be an ideal place to use the internationally agreed system of consistent units...
*both admiration that they can and incredulity that they do!
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
NASA lost their cloak of invincibility round about the end of the Apollo project. Like F1, their best days are behind them and they survive by trading on past glories. The space shuttle, IMHO, was the first faux pas in their fall from grace.
Even ignoring the two in-flight failures, the STS was a white elephant that never lived up to its billing. It was too expensive to maintain and too time-consuming to turn around, both several times greater than design objectives. And both of NASA's proposed replacements for it withered and died on the vine, leaving America conspicuously lacking of a vehicle capable of manned space flight for the first time in 50+ years.
Forty-four years ago, the USA put men on the moon. And brought them safely home. Today, they lack the capability to ferry their own astronauts to and from the International Space Station, which is about a 900x shorter trip than the voyage to the moon. Because NASA bollocksed the replacement for the STS. Twice.
Which also means whenever the USA need to refuel one of their many spy satellites (which happens every few months), they hire a ride from the Russians. Which means they're paying their old Cold War buddies to have a quite close look at their above-top-secret Keyhole series satellites.
All because NASA bollocksed the replacement for the space shuttle.
Twice.
The PRC have a project to put their own astronauts on the moon by the year 2030 (the Chang’e 3). Buzz Aldrin (second man on the moon) is encouraging the USA to open a dialogue with the Chinese about a "cooperative" lunar mission. People familiar with the details of the project are opining that the Chinese mission isn't likely to reveal anything that wasn't already known about the moon even before Apollo 9, which seems a clue the PRC's goal is purely image enhancement. So I fail to see what would be in it for the Chinese to share the glory with the Americans, especially when this would be little but a manoeuver by the USA to save face by glomming onto the PRC's mission.
But it's the Space Race part deux to see who will be the first to the moon, the Chinese or Burt Rutan/Richard Branson.
These days, the lads at DARPA are the smartest kids on campus, and largely for the same reasons that elevated NASA to that station in the 1960s: massive budget, clarity of mission, and generalised immunity to political meddling.
Even ignoring the two in-flight failures, the STS was a white elephant that never lived up to its billing. It was too expensive to maintain and too time-consuming to turn around, both several times greater than design objectives. And both of NASA's proposed replacements for it withered and died on the vine, leaving America conspicuously lacking of a vehicle capable of manned space flight for the first time in 50+ years.
Forty-four years ago, the USA put men on the moon. And brought them safely home. Today, they lack the capability to ferry their own astronauts to and from the International Space Station, which is about a 900x shorter trip than the voyage to the moon. Because NASA bollocksed the replacement for the STS. Twice.
Which also means whenever the USA need to refuel one of their many spy satellites (which happens every few months), they hire a ride from the Russians. Which means they're paying their old Cold War buddies to have a quite close look at their above-top-secret Keyhole series satellites.
All because NASA bollocksed the replacement for the space shuttle.
Twice.
The PRC have a project to put their own astronauts on the moon by the year 2030 (the Chang’e 3). Buzz Aldrin (second man on the moon) is encouraging the USA to open a dialogue with the Chinese about a "cooperative" lunar mission. People familiar with the details of the project are opining that the Chinese mission isn't likely to reveal anything that wasn't already known about the moon even before Apollo 9, which seems a clue the PRC's goal is purely image enhancement. So I fail to see what would be in it for the Chinese to share the glory with the Americans, especially when this would be little but a manoeuver by the USA to save face by glomming onto the PRC's mission.
But it's the Space Race part deux to see who will be the first to the moon, the Chinese or Burt Rutan/Richard Branson.
These days, the lads at DARPA are the smartest kids on campus, and largely for the same reasons that elevated NASA to that station in the 1960s: massive budget, clarity of mission, and generalised immunity to political meddling.
There was talk that the new formula would require that the driver be able to start the car from anywhere on the circuit. And that pit stops be conducted under electric power only. But I don't find either in the proposed 2014 TR published 08.07.2013. The starting never made any sense to me anyhow because it would have increased the cost to constructors but did exactly nothing to improve the show.
Last edited:
Westy
Pole Sitter
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111657?
Mandatory pit stops and predetermined maximum stint lengths.
I also read somewhere that the FIA are planning on permanent numbers for the drivers. What do you think of that?
Mandatory pit stops and predetermined maximum stint lengths.
I also read somewhere that the FIA are planning on permanent numbers for the drivers. What do you think of that?
rufus_mcdufus
Champion Elect
Primes not to be used for more than 50% of race distance, options not used for more than 30% of race distance... Houston, I spot a problem there... Do they have to run intermediates/wets for the remaining 20%+? Well it'll certainly be entertaining, in a baffling sort of way.
2 Sets of options 30% + 30% Sounds dull to me. At least they can break it up by changing the order of use and possibly age of tyres if they are used in qualifying as well.
rufus_mcdufus
Champion Elect
Ah, *per set*. That's what my misunderstanding was!
Josephiah
Podium Finisher
Here's an idea: why doesn't someone design tyres which are structurally incredibly strong, but whose gripping abilities gradually decline? That way there's no unpredictable explosions after the tiniest of touches, yet we still get the interest of different grip levels for different drivers on different ages of tyre?
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
The problem with all these 2014 horsepower estimates is they hem-haw around and don't state plainly and concisely what it is that they mean. An article in this week's Autosport by Edd Straw bucks that trend. Edd writes that they are capable of producing "more than 760bhp provided the maximum electrical energy is deployed on top of the engine’s own power."
Presuming 760 combined bhp is accurate, subtract 161 for ERS leaves 599 dinosaur powers. This is the first horsepower estimate I have seen that rings credible because that figure represents a ~12% increase in BSFC over the current engines. A change to direct fuel injection (GDI) typically will increase BSFC a few percent, which I'd allowed the wizzards of F1 might by some miracle stretch to 12-15. Plus I'm sure there were a few points of increase apart GDI due to other small innovations. But 12% sounds plausible, maybe even very slightly conservative, in light of the switch to GDI.
Wringing a further 10% dinosaur powers out of the V-6t (659 bhp) would mean an increase in BSFC of 23%, which strains credulity. Even if Edd's dinosaur numbers are low by 10%, that still comes to just 820 combined bhp. Shocking how little engine €21M buys these days.
Edd continues that some tactical thought must be applied to the manner in which the power is extracted from these new "power units" because they require two laps to fully charge the ERS but just one one to expend them.
Compared to the "gutless" V-8s, these engines will be torque-monsters, and any of the eight gears only occasionally will see redline. Wheelspin will be more of a problem. Drivers testing the 2014 formula cars in a simulator report the quickest way through fast corners is with throttle feathered, and slow corners will be taken in quite higher a gear ratio than for 2013. And drivers failing to respect the loud pedal might find themselves exiting a corner arse-end first (one of the few bright spots to the new formula).
Presuming 760 combined bhp is accurate, subtract 161 for ERS leaves 599 dinosaur powers. This is the first horsepower estimate I have seen that rings credible because that figure represents a ~12% increase in BSFC over the current engines. A change to direct fuel injection (GDI) typically will increase BSFC a few percent, which I'd allowed the wizzards of F1 might by some miracle stretch to 12-15. Plus I'm sure there were a few points of increase apart GDI due to other small innovations. But 12% sounds plausible, maybe even very slightly conservative, in light of the switch to GDI.
Wringing a further 10% dinosaur powers out of the V-6t (659 bhp) would mean an increase in BSFC of 23%, which strains credulity. Even if Edd's dinosaur numbers are low by 10%, that still comes to just 820 combined bhp. Shocking how little engine €21M buys these days.
Edd continues that some tactical thought must be applied to the manner in which the power is extracted from these new "power units" because they require two laps to fully charge the ERS but just one one to expend them.
Compared to the "gutless" V-8s, these engines will be torque-monsters, and any of the eight gears only occasionally will see redline. Wheelspin will be more of a problem. Drivers testing the 2014 formula cars in a simulator report the quickest way through fast corners is with throttle feathered, and slow corners will be taken in quite higher a gear ratio than for 2013. And drivers failing to respect the loud pedal might find themselves exiting a corner arse-end first (one of the few bright spots to the new formula).
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
This actually is an overstatement of my position, but the post was un-editable before it occurred to me. BHP figures around 750 have been being bandied about for some time, but it rarely was stated whether this included ERS or was dinosaur-only. And the last few months, those have been overshadowed by inflated 'qualies-only' figures.
I was watching Ted's summary of the rule changes due next year and i must admit that for the first time I'm hopeful we'll see a closely fought championship next season.
Which is why the FIA are trying to bring in 2 mandatory pit stops per race..
Similar threads
- Article
