Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Motorsport' started by TenEightyOne, Aug 31, 2017.
Like the big man (with a big gun) said "a mans gotta know his limitations"
Why would they...?
All he's got to do is stay near the front and hope for the best... Maybe another podium?
Well, if Lewis isn't punted in the first turn, it'd be nice.
I'm personally anxious to see more Ocon/Perez shennanigans. No way they'll avoid each other.
Just interested to know .
It's been the major consideration of an automobile for the last 20 years why shouldn't an F1 car which is about 10 minutes old at the green light ?
Or does the millions of £$ involved mean that it doesn't matter ??
They are not road cars and do not have to meet road car regulations. They are race cars and, like all other race cars regardless of budget, only have to meet the regulations for the series they race in.
That's kinda my point .
F1 is supposed to be the cutting edge , leading light , and etc . ...
There is absolutely no point in all this hybrid shenanigans if they are as polluting as a 30 year old transit !
Good luck with that one .
Why'd you think the Ferrari's suddenly went south.
If it drys out I wouldn't bet against the top 2 steps being painted red .
Here's what Mercedes should do if the cars come out of turn 1 in the same order they qualified.
Let Lewis blast off into the distance. Bottas sits back and plays Abu Dhabi tactics, go very slow where you can't overtake and very fast where you can to just hold up and slow the Ferrari's down. Keep them stuck in 5th and 6th, unable to pass Bottas, and let the gap to Hamilton keep increasing. Bottas stays well behind Stroll and Ocon, letting them race their own race, and just back the Ferrari's into the rest of the pack. Let Vettel get caught up with Massa/Perez/Hulkenberg trying to overtake him, and potentially get swallowed up by the pack.
Whether turn 1 would allow them to try it, and if Mercedes are willing to risk it, but it could be a really useful strategy to get Lewis back into the championship lead.
I'm going to guess any pollution caused by race cars in any series is far outweighed by the pollution caused by spectators/teams traveling to/from the event.
That's because we're a load of junkies that don't know any better .
They on the other hand are a load of rocket scientist who do know better .
You might just be right. They could of taken the risk and went minimal downforce hoping for a dry race
They have the most efficient petrol engines in the world, at over 50%, in addition to the hybrid systems. But they produce nigh on 1000hp and consume a litre of fuel every 2.5km (that's 7mpg).
Still, that's at an average speed of 130mph, not bimbling around town with a 115hp diesel.
Not much of a risk . Have you looked at the forecast .
Obviously Mercedes didn't go complete down force either judging by Bottas, and it could be argued that Lewis didn't as well and just picked his timing along with simply being a great wet weather driver to get the lap he did.
I'm sure most have, but the point remains that there is a chance for the others to finish out where they started so long as strategies are kept well. If not then Ferrari can easily take over. This is a power track and the two cars starting behind Lewis are at the core built specifically for that especially the Williams. Then there is Bottas ahead of them as well and the Red Bulls. Sunday will be tough and if nothing goes wrong with Max I find it hard to see how Kimi and Seb find podium without pit strategy.
Plus, over the course of a weekend, how long are these cars running for? Four, five, maybe six hours at best. 20 of these cars running for 6 hours is lot less than the average road car running, a lot more often, and with millions more of them, at that.
Who says they are though? That's you thinking that without knowing the technology hence you asking the current state of questions you are. The technology is cutting edge, the engines are the most energy efficient engines arguably in the world right now, but this is racing not how fuel efficient you make your commute to work.
Who do know better what? I know better too since I'm in the aero/mech field which is most of the engineers degree of study in an F1 team, but it's quite strange to say "they know better". As if it some ethical ground being blurred, your question has lost the sense of really being a curious question of why not and more of a statement posed as a supposed question. The statement being, that fuel economy should be an inherent design of the cars, you've been asked why and still haven't answered it sufficiently.
Unfortunately it's , Apples n Oranges . Both fruit but different trees .
Ask an F1 car to bimble through trafic at 5:30 on a Friday and you can kiss goodbye to to even a third of 7mpg and its only got one person in it .
I was more interested in the principle .
What do I know , I've only spent the last 30+ years keeping all this **** on the road .
The car wouldn't lose more gas at idle, because the car wouldn't be able to sit at idle for to long before cutting out. The point is the car was designed for a certain ideal, and over that past 10 years the ideal has shifted into being a massive science experiment every gp weekend and testing, on how to take those millions spent and put them to real world applications. That's engineering, you build to what a design problem asks for. If the race asked for 10 fuel economy parade laps giving extra points to who ever has the best mpg, then they'd figure out an engine mode that could best do that.
Usually saying what you're confused with goes a long way. My posts share similar information others have said, so what's the confusion?
How's a Transit's fuel economy at 130mph for 100 minutes, with an eighth of the power?
What's actually your point in all this, having gone from inapplicable emissions testing to urban driving in a commercial vehicle?
Well, I'm no expert in stats and such, but maybe? Maybe we could compare F1 fuel consumption from say around the year 2000 and today? That should give us insight into if the "hybrid shenanigans" are doing anything useful. I really don't know, but I suppose they do.
And for the record, I still hate how the engines sound, but that's obviously all part of being efficient and reliable, all things that should translate to road car technology.
Actually that's the point behind those supposed "shenanigans".
As for if it's all just smoke and mirrors, I don't know, but should be easy to find out by comparing fuel consumption of the different F1 eras (btw I'm pretty sure they had bigger tanks in the past so there's that)
A Diesel F1 would be a nice concept
Diesel engine+Turbo+Hybrid system=Torque overload
They are doing something useful without even going into a difficult collections of data between a 2007 F1 car and 2017. @Famine gave a factual value on the efficiency of these engines. Which is that these engines are over 50% energy efficient. The v8 era cars I believe only saw 32% thermal efficiency and 29% from V10. So that means that more of the energy from the combustion of the engine is being used to power the vehicle and not being lost thermally out of the engine through a few reasons.
The best thing, in my opinion, F1 can do to stay relevant in terms of powertrain development, is move away from powering ICEs with gasoline. They should start to embrace any sort of viable, combustible fuel that will work with existing ICE concepts. Hemp fuel, the in-development E-Benzin (being tested by Audi actually), and whatever that algae stuff Mobil is working on, all come to mind.
Also, I heard several times among driver's that apparently wet weather setups don't "exist" anymore? Is this a recent trend to this season? Or even just the V6T era? In all the interviews they claimed the cars are very well setup equally for dry and wet weather now. I swear when I got in to F1 at the tail end of 2012, I would hear about wet weather setups...
It's just algea growing facilities, they had one at the University I'm at, and they are able to break it down and convert it to a very low emissions fuel, but most of the work they've done has been diesel so I can't see it being used in F1.
I didn't know about the second part though, I too thought there were two different set ups, and Kimi actually talked about this after post quali. Today so I still think there is some bias toward one or the other, but maybe not as bad as it was years prior.
Aren't the Red Bulls way behind the Ferraris on the starting grid?
yea . I kicked the hornets nest
Exactly, I've mentioned this earlier they used to be allowed to change the setups at any time during the weekend and thus had "full wet setups" with higher ride hide, more downforce, etc.
Nowadays they're still allowed to change things, but they must start the race with the same setup as they attended qualifying. Which means there usually aren't "full wet" setups anymore since it would be too big of a poker to go into practice with a wet setup just to have a sunny race day and the completely wrong setup for that.
And I think that's probably the most stupid rule change recently as I don't think it even saves much money?
It surely does save a bit, but it can't be much... Also it's obviously a safety risk when teams can't change the setups in changing conditions anymore...
Unless the site I use still hasn't updated, I have no idea
I'm probably wrong , as has been proven on more than one occasion (as the barman will testify) but the future of F1 is not diesel , it's Formula E .