Adrian Newey on quitting F1

[Aesto]

is F1 a sport ?
if so it has to be primarily a drivers formula rather than the designers formula that it has become


the pendulum needs to swing back ! as someone said recently , the drivers need to be the heroes , in which event interest will return

Where do people always get this idea that F1 has ever been more about the drivers than the cars? In the last 30 years, I can think of a total of three WDCs (2007,1995,1986) that weren't won by the driver in the best car, and even then it was the second best one.

There's an excellent quote about this in the movie ''1976: Hunt vs Lauda'' from Alastair Caldwell, who was McLaren's team manager at the time:

Press and the public like to concentrate on the drivers being the most important member of the team, but it's not at all. The drivers are very much replaceable. In the unfortunate idea of the two McLaren drivers being involved in a motorway accident and dying, do you think their team would be on the back row of the grid in the next race? No, they won't be because they'll just hire two more hot shoes and they'll be right up there.

This is how it always has been, and this is how it always will be. Deal with it.

[Gaz.]

It's kind of worrying that there are now more discussion about trying to find ways to slow down f1 than to make it go faster.

I've been watching F1 since 1986, and I can't remember a time when they weren't trying to find ways to slow the cars down.

[Andres125sx]

What if they limit aero to XXXX points of downforce at XXX speed?

Well if i was an engineer i'd design my wings that way that they stall just before speed xxx. By doing so you could achieve higher df than XXXX points below that speed but still be within the rules.

And then you´d have a fast car on slow corners, but not that much since aero is not that important there, and the slowest car on fast corners were aero is more important because a stalled wing does not provide downforce

What i want to say is that it was almost as difficult to control as a budget limit.

Why? The rule would be that, more or less downforce at higher or lower speeds would be legal

But it´d limit aero development to aviod current "ground planes" era, ease overtaking and equal cars perfomances. Or in few words, it would improve racing to avoid what we´re suffering since 2009....

[rayden]

Engine guys must be loving it though. Don't act as if you know what he's talking about, you sympathise with him and if it wasn't like that F1 would be great like in, I don't know 2003 or 1997. Another good old times vague subject: what happened to creativity?! I thought turbo thing Merc did was creative, same as Ferrari's no engine cover but their turbine not so much. Wasn't Newey leaving for a decade, I guess when you stop winning it helps you to make a decision.

He hasn't stopped winning though.

[xpensive]

...

Constant fuel flow is responsible for the flat part of the power curve, not for the high mid-range power, that´s thanks to the turbo.

Without fuel flow limit, mid range would be the same (or very similar), but the curve wouldn´t be flat at any rpm, it would continue raising as any other power curve

As any production car. Two cars with same peak power, one aspirated and one turbo, turbo will always have much better mid range power... and low range too, at least once turbo start blowing wich today is pretty soon

I'm afraid you got me confused, the artificially flat power curve is the consequence of the constant fuel flow, 10.5-15 kRpm,
resulting in a high mid-range power. This is how the curve might have looked like without the constant fuel flow, right;



The above characteristic is what I would label as a true racing engine, why I can understand Newey's frustration on that part.

[timbo]

I'm afraid you got me confused, the artificially flat power curve is the consequence of the constant fuel flow, 10.5-15 kRpm,
resulting in a high mid-range power. This is how the curve might have looked like without the constant fuel flow, right;

http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/af2 ... bution.jpg

The above characteristic is what I would label as a true racing engine, why I can understand Newey's frustration on that part.

Thing is, current power output is anything BUT flat below 10500, as the flow is proportional to revs. And that Honda is also rather tame above 11k due to boost limit. I don't think it's much different to what we have now.

[monsi]

Why would we want to limit aero ? What would we do without all those photos of front wings and little bits of visible aero optimisation to talk about ?

[bhall II]

Why would we want to limit aero ? What would we do without all those photos of front wings and little bits of visible aero optimisation to talk about ?

Or without all that cornering speed and braking power that makes F1 cars the quickest around any given circuit?

[xpensive]

I'm afraid you got me confused, the artificially flat power curve is the consequence of the constant fuel flow, 10.5-15 kRpm,
resulting in a high mid-range power. This is how the curve might have looked like without the constant fuel flow, right;

http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/af2 ... bution.jpg

The above characteristic is what I would label as a true racing engine, why I can understand Newey's frustration on that part.

Thing is, current power output is anything BUT flat below 10500, as the flow is proportional to revs. And that Honda is also rather tame above 11k due to boost limit. I don't think it's much different to what we have now.

But that is the point timbo, today's engine's has a 4500 Rpm gear-shifting window with constant power, where do you see that in the Honda 168E? Nowhere, as it is artificial due to regulated fuel flow, which makes them sound dull and xtremely boooring.

[Just_a_fan]

Why would we want to limit aero ? What would we do without all those photos of front wings and little bits of visible aero optimisation to talk about ?

Or without all that cornering speed and braking power that makes F1 cars the quickest around any given circuit?

Exactly - it's cornering speed and braking ability that marks F1 out as special - not the noise of the engine. To stand somewhere like Copse or Becketts at Silverstone and see the direction change at 170+mph is breathtaking. That is the essence of F1 in one corner.

[timbo]

But that is the point timbo, today's engine's has a 4500 Rpm gear-shifting window with constant power, where do you see that in the Honda 168E?

Much less than 4500. More like 2500, and on the 168E there's zone between 11-13k where the power changes little, and it too was limited -- via boost. I'd get if you posted '86 engine graph, but not '88.
The sound is dull, no question, but as engine 2014 is totally fine, especially compared to V8s, which were most of the time underpowered for the available grip.

[CHT]

It's kind of worrying that there are now more discussion about trying to find ways to slow down f1 than to make it go faster.

I've been watching F1 since 1986, and I can't remember a time when they weren't trying to find ways to slow the cars down.

You are talking from FIA point of view due to safety concern. Right now, F1 fans are getting all excited about finding the best way to control power and speed, instead of discussing loopholes to make the car go faster.

[Just_a_fan]

Anyone read the entire issue? I'm really curious as to what he considers his top 6 cars.

I don't have the magazine but had a quick flick through it in the shops today. From memory:

March 881
Williams FW14/14B
Williams FW18
McLaren MP4-13
RedBull RB5
RedBull RB7

[xpensive]

But that is the point timbo, today's engine's has a 4500 Rpm gear-shifting window with constant power, where do you see that in the Honda 168E?

Much less than 4500. More like 2500, and on the 168E there's zone between 11-13k where the power changes little, and it too was limited -- via boost. I'd get if you posted '86 engine graph, but not '88.
The sound is dull, no question, but as engine 2014 is totally fine, especially compared to V8s, which were most of the time underpowered for the available grip.

I hate to break it to you, but the 2013 to 2014 power-figures are very close, only the artificially flat power curve differs.

But again, it's not a racing engine if you ask me, just a dull sounding, boooring and politically correct power unit.

[mikeerfol]

Anyone read the entire issue? I'm really curious as to what he considers his top 6 cars.

I don't have the magazine but had a quick flick through it in the shops today. From memory:

March 881
Williams FW14/14B
Williams FW18
McLaren MP4-13
RedBull RB5
RedBull RB7

I'm surprised there's no RB6.