Question about 2010 overtaking.

DOF_power

Banned
FB said:
Wow, 6-0-6 hits Clip The Apex LOL

I've got to agree with Brogan DOF_Power. You come onto a forum to express an opinion, which your perfectly entitled to do, but you have to accept that most (all?) of us here simply don't agree with you. Yes, modern F1 has problems but to suggest taking it back to the stone age is the solution is nonsense (remember Pol Pot tried that in Cambodia and it ended VERY badly).

Just out of interest is there a form of motor sport you do enjoy? If so a) why don't you watch that and b) can you explain what F1 could learn from it.


What do you mean by prehistory ?!
I don't want fragile death traps flying in the crowds.

I want a a modern F1 as opposed to the 1970s crapola circus we're getting.

Modern means modern technology to help both production cars and the on track passing/ spectacle.
 

Muddytalker

Points Scorer
DOF_power said:
Enclosing the suspensions on F1 car (like on an Arrows A2 ground effects car) plus HANS would have saved both Senna and Ratzenberger.
I've generally given up on responding to this topic and poster, but this is, with all due respect, tosh.
In the case of Senna -
How tough do you think the shrouding covering the suspension would have to be, to withstand the force at impact, given than the suspension pierced Senna's crash helmet? Enclosing the suspension would have done nothing to prevent what is widely thought of as a freak incident (i.e. the suspension breaking, and then impacting Senna), as the shrouding will never be a structural part of the car. However, increasing the strength of the joint between wishbone and chassis would have changed things, but then the forces have to be transmitted elsewhere. If you make the chassis and suspension stiff enough, the forces are then transmitted to the driver (resulting in the blackouts often experienced c78-82).

Ratzenberger was not killed by the suspension, the impact (initially caused by a failed front wing, leading to the accident at Tosa) broke his neck. The FIA responded by implementing HANS for this very reason. So what is your point?
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
DOF_Power said:
What do you mean by prehistory ?!
I don't want fragile death traps flying in the crowds.

I want a a modern F1 as opposed to the 1970s crapola circus we're getting.

Modern means modern technology to help both production cars and the on track passing/ spectacle.
Well that's as clear as mud then.

I wasn't suggesting "fragile death traps flying into the crowd" but your basic premise appears to be to take F1 back to the 60's. I'm sure the 60's were great but, having checked my calendar, it's now 2010 and the world, including F1, has evolved. As has been proven over many years, especially in F1, whatever the regulators do the engineers find a way round and so it will almost certainly be if your suggestions were implemented.

As we have seen this season with the Exhaust Blown Diffuser, what would stop the engineers finding clever ways to control the exhaust gases to disturb the air behind the car to prevent slip streaming? I'm sure there are lots of other things which could be done to interfer with your motor racing Xanadu.

You also appear to have avoid my questions, what form of motor sport do you feel fits your perception of "real motor racing"? Presumably I'll just get the usual diatribe and assertions that I'm a fool and, frankly, I'm pretty bored with the whole discussion.
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
DOF_Power raises some good points in this thread, when you can get around the slightly spikey approach.
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
Slightly off topic, but on safety, yeah, the HANS was about for at least 5 years before F1 even looked at it, pretty shocking. On the 94 season, i was also of the understanding that the problems and accidents were very much related to cars being designed around ABS, TC and AS and having them removed right before racing began. And on closed body work; if we closed the wheels in, it wouldn't be open wheel racing any more, so that one ends there. Indeed, open wheels are THE biggest hurdle for an F1 car to calculate its aero around, hence sports cars; GTP, Le Mans, ALMS etc can achieve higher speeds, with lower drag and similar downforce...

Back on topic. I'm a fan of the technology and engineering in F1, not quite so much 10 way battles on track, which would of course be great, but my interests lie in the pushing technical boundaries.

Both the technical supremacy, and on track thrills are still in great danger in modern F1 and it does need a good shake up. The 2009 changes helped reduce the stranglehold of highest budget wins, but did not improve the on track action IMHO.

Last year we were blessed with a mixed field due to everyone starting from scratch on the design, and Ferrari and McLaren getting caught out a) working too hard on finishing on top in 08 and b) developing new concepts like KERS. Allowing RBR to come through the field and Honda/Brawn with their very well and early developed car to show through.

2010 and we're pretty much back to the 08 situation within 2 years. The competition would be very close next year without the proposed KERS and aero changes taking place, but the sport would still be stale on track, because without mistakes and failures, there would be no extra overtaking/hard racing.

I really enjoyed this season! I have really enjoyed pretty much every season since 2004 and DOF_Power; i think before we go too far continually criticizing what has happened the last 10 years, we need to give the 2011 changes a chance. They could make the sport absolutely nail biting and unpredictable. They could also mean that no matter where you start the race, the fastest car on the day simply marches to the front and walks away which would be a far far worse situation than today.
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
How did we get here though?

R&D and limitation. We are our own worst enemies. When racing began there were no rules. The rule book wrote itself to an extent. The concept of GP racing was to build the fastest craziest machine possible and put the most skillful, craziest nutter behind the wheel.

I'm sure I'm repeating myself here, but we reached the limits of the crazy nutter behind the wheel and had to put limits in place. As we have grown around those limits, further limits need to be set. If one team makes a great innovation and moves forward, the rest must follow or get it stopped in its tracks to keep up. The rule book evolves further...

Without knowing or intentionally doing so, the racing, or GP racing we created actually becomes a very restricted science, not the balls out development race it started as. The rule book is evolved rather than created and this will rarely encourage innovation and tends to lead everyone down the same route. The rule book has come soo far in its evolution that really there is not much to designing in an F1 car. Sure there are 1 000 001 tiny changes and design details to get you to the front, but the rule book pretty much dictates what you build.

It has led us to having daft systems and regimes built into the sport, that its concept never envisaged, wanted or allowed for. The DD is a great example.

There is only one way to actually push the RESET button on F1 and get it back to an innovative design program, an industry leader (in the wider oil fueled world) and platform for drivers to really show their stuff.

Push the button. Hit RESET. The big red button that says don't press! start again from scratch with the rule book, but this time you have 60 years of knowledge, testing, designs, safety, tracks/corners/chicanes, wheels/wings/engines etc to show you what needs to be avoided at all costs (IE huge vacuums for 300m behind a car) and what really should be included (driver skill, on-edge design and innovation).

However: Ill hang around the next few years with patience and anticipation (anticipatience?) for what is to come. There are several new ideas coming to F1 next year that we've already said will go either way, and in 2013 we have another huge mix-up. Possibly going nearly as far as my suggestion to push RESET.

I'm excited about what F1 will bring me the next 5 years :)
 

DOF_power

Banned
Muddytalker said:
DOF_power said:
Enclosing the suspensions on F1 car (like on an Arrows A2 ground effects car) plus HANS would have saved both Senna and Ratzenberger.
I've generally given up on responding to this topic and poster, but this is, with all due respect, tosh.
In the case of Senna -
How tough do you think the shrouding covering the suspension would have to be, to withstand the force at impact, given than the suspension pierced Senna's crash helmet? Enclosing the suspension would have done nothing to prevent what is widely thought of as a freak incident (i.e. the suspension breaking, and then impacting Senna), as the shrouding will never be a structural part of the car. However, increasing the strength of the joint between wishbone and chassis would have changed things, but then the forces have to be transmitted elsewhere. If you make the chassis and suspension stiff enough, the forces are then transmitted to the driver (resulting in the blackouts often experienced c78-82).

Ratzenberger was not killed by the suspension, the impact (initially caused by a failed front wing, leading to the accident at Tosa) broke his neck. The FIA responded by implementing HANS for this very reason. So what is your point?


1] For starters the bodywork should have been equal or more than the front track measured at the rim-tire.

A twin-chassis enclosed suspension design with crumple zones/ deformable-absorbent frame for the outer "sandwich" parts would have saved Senna.





2] Dark Imola was in 94, HANS was first introduced in 1988 and implemented in F1 in 2003 (9 years after Imola 94).
Take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxx4kdCdn1w

The technology to save Ratzenberger was there already, but FIA was lagging behind and it still is in terms of safety (; as the Surtees and Massa incidents have shown).
 

DOF_power

Banned
Grizzly said:
How did we get here though?

R&D and limitation. We are our own worst enemies. When racing began there were no rules. The rule book wrote itself to an extent. The concept of GP racing was to build the fastest craziest machine possible and put the most skillful, craziest nutter behind the wheel.

I'm sure I'm repeating myself here, but we reached the limits of the crazy nutter behind the wheel and had to put limits in place. As we have grown around those limits, further limits need to be set. If one team makes a great innovation and moves forward, the rest must follow or get it stopped in its tracks to keep up. The rule book evolves further...

Without knowing or intentionally doing so, the racing, or GP racing we created actually becomes a very restricted science, not the balls out development race it started as. The rule book is evolved rather than created and this will rarely encourage innovation and tends to lead everyone down the same route. The rule book has come soo far in its evolution that really there is not much to designing in an F1 car. Sure there are 1 000 001 tiny changes and design details to get you to the front, but the rule book pretty much dictates what you build.

It has led us to having daft systems and regimes built into the sport, that its concept never envisaged, wanted or allowed for. The DD is a great example.

There is only one way to actually push the RESET button on F1 and get it back to an innovative design program, an industry leader (in the wider oil fueled world) and platform for drivers to really show their stuff.

Push the button. Hit RESET. The big red button that says don't press! start again from scratch with the rule book, but this time you have 60 years of knowledge, testing, designs, safety, tracks/corners/chicanes, wheels/wings/engines etc to show you what needs to be avoided at all costs (IE huge vacuums for 300m behind a car) and what really should be included (driver skill, on-edge design and innovation).

However: Ill hang around the next few years with patience and anticipation (anticipatience?) for what is to come. There are several new ideas coming to F1 next year that we've already said will go either way, and in 2013 we have another huge mix-up. Possibly going nearly as far as my suggestion to push RESET.

I'm excited about what F1 will bring me the next 5 years :)


I agree with that, relevance, overtaking and cost containment can all be put together, but as long as the crazy aero nonsense/ importance is put aside.

Look at adjustable spoilers on performance cars, after-market ground-effects kits (though some are more true ground-effects then others) and stuff like that.
 

fat jez

Race Winner
Valued Member
DOF_power said:
A twin-chassis enclosed suspension design with crumple zones/ deformable-absorbent frame for the outer "sandwich" parts would have saved Senna.
Sorry, but I don't agree. Senna suffered 3 injuries, any one of which was deemed fatal. He was struck by the front right wheel, pushing his head back into the head rest and causing fatal skull fractures. He was struck by a piece of the upright which partially penetrated his helmet and caused another trauma. Finally, another piece of the upright assemble penetrated his helmet above his eye. I don't believe enclosing the suspension assembly would have prevented him being struck by his wheel.
 

DOF_power

Banned
Grizzly said:
Slightly off topic, but on safety, yeah, the HANS was about for at least 5 years before F1 even looked at it, pretty shocking. On the 94 season, i was also of the understanding that the problems and accidents were very much related to cars being designed around ABS, TC and AS and having them removed right before racing began. And on closed body work; if we closed the wheels in, it wouldn't be open wheel racing any more, so that one ends there. Indeed, open wheels are THE biggest hurdle for an F1 car to calculate its aero around, hence sports cars; GTP, Le Mans, ALMS etc can achieve higher speeds, with lower drag and similar downforce...

Back on topic. I'm a fan of the technology and engineering in F1, not quite so much 10 way battles on track, which would of course be great, but my interests lie in the pushing technical boundaries.

Both the technical supremacy, and on track thrills are still in great danger in modern F1 and it does need a good shake up. The 2009 changes helped reduce the stranglehold of highest budget wins, but did not improve the on track action IMHO.

Last year we were blessed with a mixed field due to everyone starting from scratch on the design, and Ferrari and McLaren getting caught out a) working too hard on finishing on top in 08 and b) developing new concepts like KERS. Allowing RBR to come through the field and Honda/Brawn with their very well and early developed car to show through.

2010 and we're pretty much back to the 08 situation within 2 years. The competition would be very close next year without the proposed KERS and aero changes taking place, but the sport would still be stale on track, because without mistakes and failures, there would be no extra overtaking/hard racing.

I really enjoyed this season! I have really enjoyed pretty much every season since 2004 and DOF_Power; i think before we go too far continually criticizing what has happened the last 10 years, we need to give the 2011 changes a chance. They could make the sport absolutely nail biting and unpredictable. They could also mean that no matter where you start the race, the fastest car on the day simply marches to the front and walks away which would be a far far worse situation than today.


HANS existed since 1988
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxx4kdCdn1w

So what if the wheels won't be (fully) open anymore ?!

I rather lose the open wheels but gain back the sport (remember the closed fenders MB W196 of Fangio, the Lancia Ferrari D50, or the Afla P3 of Guy Mol ?!)
Nobody said the wheels should be opened in Grand Prix racing till the 1970s.
 

Muddytalker

Points Scorer
So from enclosed bodywork, you reply with twin-chassis...

Look! Someone stop those goalposts, quick!

As I and other have expressed before, there is a lot of sympathy for some of your viewpoints. Your method and process of expressing them however leaves a lot to be desired. Engage rather than antagonise and you might receive a warmer reception, however I suspect the current approach is by design.
 

DOF_power

Banned
fat_jez said:
[quote="DOF_power":280qdb2w]

A twin-chassis enclosed suspension design with crumple zones/ deformable-absorbent frame for the outer "sandwich" parts would have saved Senna.
Sorry, but I don't agree. Senna suffered 3 injuries, any one of which was deemed fatal. He was struck by the front right wheel, pushing his head back into the head rest and causing fatal skull fractures. He was struck by a piece of the upright which partially penetrated his helmet and caused another trauma. Finally, another piece of the upright assemble penetrated his helmet above his eye. I don't believe enclosing the suspension assembly would have prevented him being struck by his wheel.[/quote:280qdb2w]



I said enclosed and HANS.
Tell me how many sport-prototype drivers died like Senna, if you claim he couldn't have been saved ?!
 

DOF_power

Banned
Muddytalker said:
So from enclosed bodywork, you reply with twin-chassis...

Look! Someone stop those goalposts, quick!

As I and other have expressed before, there is a lot of sympathy for some of your viewpoints. Your method and process of expressing them however leaves a lot to be desired. Engage rather than antagonise and you might receive a warmer reception, however I suspect the current approach is by design.


I'm sorry you don't seem to get it. A twin-chassis enclosed suspension is nothing out of the ordinary. In the enclosure would work better.
 

DOF_power

Banned
Muddytalker said:
So from enclosed bodywork, you reply with twin-chassis...

Look! Someone stop those goalposts, quick!

As I and other have expressed before, there is a lot of sympathy for some of your viewpoints. Your method and process of expressing them however leaves a lot to be desired. Engage rather than antagonise and you might receive a warmer reception, however I suspect the current approach is by design.


That's because English is not my natural/ first language. And I have a problem expressing my ideas in my own language as well.

What I really want is this.
Take arrows A2, Lotus 88 and Lancia Ferrari D50 streamliner, Audi R15+ and mix them.
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
DOF_power said:
Take arrows A2, Lotus 88 and Lancia Ferrari D50 streamliner, Audi R15+ and mix them.
OK, now we're getting somewhere.
Anyone any good with Photoshop? ;)
 

Speshal

World Champion
Valued Member
DOF_power said:
What I really want is this.
Take arrows A2, Lotus 88 and Lancia Ferrari D50 streamliner, Audi R15+ and mix them.
To dream the impossible dream........

 

Muddytalker

Points Scorer
DOF_power said:
Muddytalker said:
So from enclosed bodywork, you reply with twin-chassis...
I'm sorry you don't seem to get it. A twin-chassis enclosed suspension is nothing out of the ordinary. In the enclosure would work better.
I get it. But the enclosed suspension you first asked for is not the same as having a twin-chassis, though one may (or may not) come with the other. It's like saying I want a toaster and then complaining that I didn't get a George Foreman grill.

Your grasp of the English language is much better than you protest. It's your manner that, in my opinion, is lacking.
 
Top Bottom