USF1 -- F1's All-American Challenger

[noname]

Actually, I'll answer my own question : Spaceship One, winner of the Ansari X-Prize.

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/

I watched the X-Prize winning sub-orbital flights live on webcast (I love watching history being made), so I can't believe that I didn't think of this earlier.

If the American private sector can produce the first civilian craft to leave the earth's atmosphere, then F1 shouldn't be too much of a problem.

hat off to Burt Rutan (not only for Spaceship One) but he is in this business for tens of years. USGP1 needs to to be successful faster.

[djos]

I agree that the US defense industry does produce some mighty fine hardware, but would you care to list some examples that are neither government funded or military projects?

Racing is a civilian activity carried out in the private sector, so your examples should be relevant, otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.

The company I work for spends a ----load of R&D money developing ESM/ECM systems and other electronic systems off it's own back and plenty of it finds its way into civilian use. eg. the A380 is full of our Tech (as is the F35).

[WhiteBlue]

So we all agree that they will most likely be on the grid next year? I will absolutely love to see that because they are going to pump out a ton of documentaries. They are likely to produce a lot in HDTV and that should put Bernie to shame.

They are also likely to get some support by a leading competitor like Ferrari, McLaren or Brawn going by the agreement between FOTA and FIA. That could take care of the missing bits of know how that would be hard to aquire. So they might be more competitive than they would be on their own devices.

I'm very much looking forward to it.

[Houser]

I agree that the US defense industry does produce some mighty fine hardware, but would you care to list some examples that are neither government funded or military projects?

Racing is a civilian activity carried out in the private sector, so your examples should be relevant, otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.

The company I work for spends a ----load of R&D money developing ESM/ECM systems and other electronic systems off it's own back and plenty of it finds its way into civilian use. eg. the A380 is full of our Tech (as is the F35).

Same here, the company I work for creates many electronic/antenna systems and many other parts for the F35. This is all in civilian hands. It will be interesting to see what this team does come the off season. I know I'm excited!

[Jersey Tom]

since then America was focused mainly on financial engineering. how smart was that move we can see around. it's true there are quite a few smart people in US but personally I think GM better describes current potential of the US than SR71.

So unbelievably off-base and out to lunch...

[Giblet]

Sr-71 (Well, the YF-21 blackbird originally) is from the 60's. Unrelated.

GM is a company, and GM and ingenuity are far from being hand in hand.

Gm conceived the Hybrid car in the 60s, long before anyone else. Never built it. GM had the electric car before anyone else was serious, and they destroyed all evidence of it.

They were too greedy to allow anything that might upset the oil companies.

The Space Shuttle is the most complicated vehicle ever made.

I had mentioned Rattan, voyager, and spaceship 1, a long time ago in this thread when WB thought the US couldn't lay carbon or use an autoclave

I have a carbon fibre hardhat. It's made in the states.

[DaveKillens]

I can be argued that the only thing that has flowed out of the USA in the last eight years is bad politics, just don't mistake this for inferior technology. The problem is that the US spends an obscene amount of money in it's military spending, and any programs are classified, and invisible to the public. But from the many articles I have scoured, just about every weapon system imaginable is being upgraded or replaced in the US military inventory. New warships, aircaft, drones, nuclear warheads, command and control, you name it, money is being spent somewhere in the US in an effort to be at the leading edge.
For example, a team has just come up with liquid body armor. http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/armyweap ... darmor.htmIf that isn't high-tech, nothing is.
Since the US GP team is based out of the heart of NASCAR country, it is easy to assume that it's quite low-tech in that part of the world. But the NASCAR regulations stricly restrict technology, despite the fact that some of the smartest minds in the racing industry are there in North Carolina. Trust me, it isn't like "Days of Thunder", where a mechanic can construct a car in a barn. That cannot be further from the truth.
It's just a matter of the US team collecting the resources and talent to be able to achieve their goals. They do have the potential to be successful.

[Professor]

I spent about 4 years of my life doing contract work at National Semiconductor in Portland, Maine and Advanced Micro Devices in Austin, Texas. That's what I think of when I think of technology in the States. Please don't ask me to explain or condone our international politics or obsession with war technology. I cannot, because I have a problem with it myself.

As far as GM is concerned, I haven't owned an American vehicle since 1979 with the exception of a 3/4 ton work truck.

[Jersey Tom]

Gov't projects, GM, all this crap... is completely irrelevant.

First hand, I will say, a good chunk of NASCAR engineering talent and facilities in the Charlotte area are at or beyond the F1 level. Period. End of discussion.

[DaveKillens]

This forum is definitely not the place to discuss politics. My point is that due to the present circumstances, a LOT of US technology is hidden, and the public is unaware of how much and how amazing it is. For instance, the F-22 Raptor is the magic bullet, and will set the standard for air-to-air combat vehicles for a very long time.

[donskar]

In addition to current fighter aircraft the US is a world leader in current civil aircraft. That means a high level of skill with aerodynamics, metallurgy (especially light alloys), carbon fiber, and very advanced electronics of all types.

And, of course, the US computer industry -- hardward and software -- is world class.

The US is also world class (meaning among the best) in a very important part of F1 -- marketing, including advertising and branding.

[timbo]

I think these days F1 is not about ultra-high tech. With restrictions on exotic materials and such it is all about experience in exploiting regs to their limit and tuning car to extract maximum of the tires.
So I don't doubt it is possible to get enough technological background in US to get going but I seriously doubt there's enough experienced race-car designers and manufacturers.
What was the last all-american openwheeler? I remember Penske and Eagle CART chassis from late 90's and that's all... And not that Eagles were very successful.

[Giblet]

Technology is both learnable, upgradable, and importable, making it a non issue for any developed nation.

[Jersey Tom]

So I don't doubt it is possible to get enough technological background in US to get going but I seriously doubt there's enough experienced race-car designers and manufacturers.

Seriously, you're nuts. Read my post above.

[timbo]

First hand, I will say, a good chunk of NASCAR engineering talent and facilities in the Charlotte area are at or beyond the F1 level. Period. End of discussion.

Well, maybe at but I don't think beyond...
http://www.ohgizmo.com/2007/04/17/giant ... r-testing/
here's the first rolling road tunnel at USA circa 2007. Old news for F1.
Good news for USF1 as it is rental facility.

Talentwise - well it is possible, they gotta be pretty good in understanding tuning, but that's kinda like comparing cello player to violinist. You can (well, could) give Rostropovitch a violin and he probably won't suck, but I don't think he could immediately get to the Oistrakh's level.