PNSD wrote:Before you post a load of sh*t first make sure it's correct sh*t at least!
ay I suggest a corrected signature for Tomba
Help building this site: [url=http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=7]Send feedback![/url] - Motivate your posts!! Correct your sh*t!!!
Well, thanks, modbaraban. I laughed for 15 seconds or so... chévere.
@AeroGT: damn, you're right.
I agree with some of you about the consequences: yes, there are going to be some engineers without work and some wind tunnels that no longer will work on F1.
On the other hand, I heartily agree with the regulations.
First, the cars are ugly
. I know I'm not alone here, c'mon, raise your hands those that think that winglets, chicken wings and the such are things that deserve
to be designed in a car, because they improve the line. How many of you? Yes, I imagined that.
Second, about top speed: the electric sharpener motors that the europeans call "engines" are, to an american, things to be used in chainsaws and grass mowing equipment. I've seen akward smiles in the faces of my american friends when confronted with things like a Renault Dauphiné.
They wonder if it's for humans...
So, to be brief, if NASCAR cars weren't properly regulated, they would reach a gazillion kilometers per hour. Simple: they run in ovals
with tens of degrees of banking.
Dragsters reach 450 kph in 4 blocks. Why? They run in a straight line
You have seen a NASCAR race in a circuit. So, you know these cars, that I love, have the gracility of an elephant. Watch it and then we talk about how you compare series and the tracks where they develop
It's like an ecosystem, or so I think. What's better, the savanna or the artic? Is that a question that has an answer? I don't think so.
You all know perfectly well that no one of these racing concepts is superior: every one has more power, more speed or more cornering. You cannot design a car that does all of the above in a perfect way: if you do, then patent it and let's be done with design!
Well, I've taken some impulse, so here I go: what causes shivers in you, that is, the fact that what the series does better has to be limited
, it's a nice and decent fact of racing.
If you don't then you get:
- 1.500 bhp cars at CANAM
- 50 kg turbo engines rated at 800 hp and cars with three times its weight in aerodynamic force at F1
- 600 cubic inches engines at NASCAR
- Cars with a trillion hp and kilometer-high wheels at NHRL
- Dangerously unstable and ugly (yes, ugliness, the crux of the good designer!) cars at Le Mans.
We've all seen the accidents you get with that line of development. Drivers are still humans, fans shoud have mercy with them...
Besides, evolution has its problems: some dinosaurs were too big. All these designs were impractical
. So, another testy question for a designer: is aerodynamical design practical
? And I don't mean practical as in "applicable to the general public", but practical as in "it works well".
I predict happily that the excess in aerodynamic design in 1990-2005 will be one day just a footnote in encyclopedias, along with triple boiler locomotives of the 1930's: rococo design, an evolutionary dead end. So, one day all the "aero" will be wiped by a new, powerful idea, as the designs of the past were outmoded by the invention of the ground effect.
Pacific RR Q-2, the most powerful steam locomotive in history.
Finally, I believe, respectfully, that only those of you that have never raced have not had the opportunity of blaming your defeat on the fact that your adversary is a rich kid with all the gadgets, a kid that maybe learned to drive with a mortuary, but throws a pile of money into the car. Is that just? Yeah, sure.
I know I'm a little lonely here, but the money thrown into wind tunnels is obscene, not just a waste.
Look, my country spend roughly half
of what F1 invests in 22 cars
, for heavens sake, in building and maintaining its entire road network
. Maybe a cap on spending would be rational, or you risk creating a "bubble" of salaries and prices that can easily explode in the face of the investors, unless carefully tuned by FIA.
You could think I'm arguing for investing that money on roads for the poor. No. That's not my problem with F1 aerodynamics: I'm with Ogami Mushashi here. It's just that I don't see any return on that chicken wings
, or whatever its name is, to be sincere. And, as the example of the road network shows, it's a huge amount.
My last point: are you really for innovation, Mr. Gates? Then, if you complain about restrictions, cover the damn wheels
, which are a huge turbulence factor, a danger to drivers and a fun killer because of the difficulty to overtake they create, and "throw the wings into the wind", once and for all. How much simpler could be aerodynamic research with that kind of regulations?
I'm sure you can think of better ideas here before accepting covering the wheels,
but I'd say that the basic requirements of aero design seem inflated by other factors based in tradition and not in engineering.