Wurz: TC ban won't be big change [Archive]

View Full Version : Wurz: TC ban won't be big change

wedge

27th July 2007, 15:22

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=40174

luvracin

27th July 2007, 16:29

For the best teams and drivers and in the dry I would agree.

But the ride buyers who shouldn't be there will be that much more obvious.

Hendersen

27th July 2007, 16:31

For the best teams and drivers and in the dry I would agree.

But the ride buyers who shouldn't be there will be that much more obvious.

I was just gonna say: "I wonder if Wurz has ever raced in wet conditions without TC". Doesn't sound like it.

Robinho

27th July 2007, 16:40

I was just gonna say: "I wonder if Wurz has ever raced in wet conditions without TC". Doesn't sound like it.

i'd say he has, can't say for sure, but i'd have thought in his time at Bennetton he probably raced in the wet, if not he certainly tested, and they had no TC (allegedly) then. plus the teams are testing non-TC cars now already in preparation.

i agree with him on the whole, there may be a few drivers whose style allows them to get closer to the limit without TC than others, butt hese guys are the best out there and will be able to drive the cars pretty close to the limit.

what it will do will mean drivers mistakes will be punished more, arther than the TC mopping up a moment before it begins, but these cars have that much grip we won't see that much other than in the wet - and in this case the TC doesn't do that much now anyway - the drivers skill is much more important

Brown, Jon Brow

27th July 2007, 16:45

I don't expect to see the cars move around on the track any differently but I expect to see more driver mistakes and more overtaking, hopefully ;)

Kevincal

27th July 2007, 18:02

Well that just doesn't make sense. Rear tire wear is going to be much more significant without traction control in my opinion. Whoever can save their tires the longest would benefit greatly. There is sure to be many more pit stops per race for each driver without traction control than there are now.

jens

27th July 2007, 18:45

Agreed. Compare F1 races before TC and after that. What's the difference? The best cars have always been in front and it has been very difficult to make up a difference in an inferior car. Even the amount of driver errors may differ very slightly. And as the drivers are top professionals, then I believe most of them will have no problems in adapting to a non-TC car.

Mickey T

27th July 2007, 19:27

i can't see that it will promote overtaking.

it will benefit drivers with clean throttle control, though, primarily because of their rear tyre consumption rates.

one thing that will be interesting is that all the front teams will be forced into a significant redesign of their rear suspension geometry, because losing TC will change their parameters so much.

truefan72

28th July 2007, 04:02

I'm somewhat indifferent to the TC on or off. but I would say that more pit stops may be nice, although, I would hate to see all the races decided on pit stop strategy. But TC off does make a goiod difference in how one handles the car, especially on apexes and managing entry/exits of slower corners. you can't just throw the car in there anymore. The cars will also all be runnig with a little more downforce in order to compensate and get more grip.

It will not promote overtaking and will stretch the gap between the top cars and the rest.

Valve Bounce

28th July 2007, 05:38

Well, I'd like to see them ban the computers also. That would make the drivers use the clutch to change gears around the track. Now THAT!! would sort the really capable drivers from the also rans.

tinchote

28th July 2007, 12:38

I remember in 2001 when TC was about to be introduced, all of the drivers were saying that it wouldn't make much of a difference. And it wasn't.

I'll be glad to see it go, but I don't expect to see many things happening.

And Wurz may or may not have raced in the wet, I don't remember, but he certainly has lots and lots of wet laps in testing, so his opinion is as good as anyone else's.

jso1985

28th July 2007, 22:33

Wurz raced in the 99 Europe GP, so he has run on wet conditions without TC

didn't make a big change when it was introduced and it's not gonna make an average driver suddenly fast when it's gone, yet I'm glad it's gone, TC is for safety in road cars not to make a racing car easier to drive

Bagwan

28th July 2007, 23:43

It is going to make a big difference , but not just for the drivers .
It will be back to the engine mapping drawing board , where much of the rubber hits the road .

They've been mashing the pedal for a few years now , not having to worry too much about wheelspin , as the max power available is used .
In fact , they have to shut the TC off to burn out in the pitstalls for more grip . You can't spin the damned wheels if you wanted to .

Good feet will rule the track again .
And engine mapping will become a skill to re-learn .

Wurz is using this as a way to show his value . He's not scared of going without TC .

Roamy

29th July 2007, 04:46

wurz is full of **** - he was two seconds adrift mS when MS had it and he didn't

ClarkFan

29th July 2007, 05:28

It will benefit drivers with clean throttle control, though, primarily because of their rear tyre consumption rates.

I believe you are right, but it may be more important than you say. With TC, the drivers are simply mashing the throttle in the corners, counting on TC to limit wheelspin and reduce power oversteer. If you remove TC, that technique will lead to faster tire wear. But the wheelspin and loose rear ends will also lead to slower corner exit speeds for drivers poorer at throttle control. Speed lost at exit is lost for the full length of the following straight, so drivers with better throttle control should be noticeably faster and wear tires out more slowly.

ClarkFan

seppefan

29th July 2007, 12:44

I was just gonna say: "I wonder if Wurz has ever raced in wet conditions without TC". Doesn't sound like it.

Yes he has many times. Look back and you will see.

seppefan

29th July 2007, 12:45

wurz is full of **** - he was two seconds adrift mS when MS had it and he didn't

Probably the staightest talking guy on the grid and without doubt a no bs merchant.

ioan

29th July 2007, 16:48

Don't know about Wurz but Heidfeld must be very happy with the banning of TC!

wedge

29th July 2007, 17:47

Personally I don't think TC will make much difference.

The cream of the crop always rises to the top. Alonso and Kimi have managed to fully adapt to this years tyres, Kimi never drove that much differently with 2005's single tyre rules when most people kept mentioning how it would benefit Button.

The noticeable differences will be on comprising circuits where mechanical grip is just as important, but not much difference for most races because most cars are set up for high downforce and high speed corners.

Also its worth noting that today's technology the engines develop smooth torque curves. When TC was banned in the mid-late 1990s, there were parameters and loopholes in what did and didn't constitute as TC (eg. Benetton messed with their fuel system but was never constituted as TC). Obviously things will be slightly different with control ECUs.

Wurz made this interesting point:

On the racecar, traction control doesn't make the driving easier, it just pushes you to a different level of the limit and how you work with the tyres, and therefore the engines were constructed very differently as you don't need driveability and can go for maximum power.

I'm quite happy to see TC go because it means I'll be able to sleep better knowing F1 drivers are actually driving!

ottostreet

29th July 2007, 19:01

ok...wurz deuted at...canada 1997 didnt he? i think canada. since then there has been a few wet races, until his disappearance at the end of 2000.

1997: Only raced in three races and all were dry

1998:
British GP, qualified 12th, right behind team-mate Fisichella, finished 4th, behind the two Ferraris and Hakkinen.
Belgian GP, qualified 11th, 4 places behind team-mate Fisichella, retired on Lap 1

1999:
French GP, qualified 13th, 6 places behind Fisichella, retied on lap 25, after an accident.
European GP, qualified 11th, 5 places behind Fisichella, retired on lap 1.

2000:
European GP, qualified 14th, 7 places behind Fisichella, retired on lap 61, after an accident.

So, Wurz was pretty much outclassed by Fisichella, in both qualifying and the races, in the non-tc wet races hes participated in. Fisichella is renowned as a bit of a wet-weather specialist, and that is quite a long time ago at this stage so i don't think its fair to judge him on them at this stage.

ClarkFan

30th July 2007, 04:17

It will not promote overtaking and will stretch the gap between the top cars and the rest.

I think you are right about overtaking. TC just doesn't get to the root issue. Passing usually originated from slipstreaming the lead car down a straight, using the draft to draw alongside, and then outbraking the other driver into the corner. TC doesn't really aid that sequence or detract from it.

To promote overtaking, the FIA needs to address the aerodynamic issues that cause cars to lose grip in a slipstream. In addition, longer braking distances would make outbraking more likely. Braking distances are so short now that if a driver waits to brake until he is past, he can't make the corner. Braking distance also mainly come down to aerodynamics, but banning carbon fiber brakes would also be a useful step.

But I'm not sure about a TC ban extending the gaps in the field. Standing near a corner and listening, it is pretty apparent that the slower cars are using TC harder - there is much more TC-induced misfire, and the cars even get loose. They are obviously already limited by grip issues, and that might not get worse without TC.

ClarkFan

Hawkmoon

30th July 2007, 04:44

I don't think the drivers, the good ones at least, just mash the throttle and let the TC sort it all out for them. The drivers still need to control the throttle because I'm sure that I read that excessive use of TC will lead to a slow lap.

TC alters the engines performance according to wheel spin, does it not? Less wheel spin means that the engine will be performing closer to it's peak than if the TC is modulating power to stop the wheels from spinning. A peak performing engine has to lead to a better lap, no?

Valve Bounce

30th July 2007, 05:13

I think you are right about overtaking. TC just doesn't get to the root issue. Passing usually originated from slipstreaming the lead car down a straight, using the draft to draw alongside, and then outbraking the other driver into the corner. TC doesn't really aid that sequence or detract from it.

ClarkFan

Well, there are exceptions in everything, of course. Suposing a driver comes out of a corner and plants his foot down just a little too hard, and the back end snakes just a little. The following car directly behind, having gone round perfectly then exits the corner faster and has the drop on the first car down the straight and into the next corner.

Ralfie did make a mistake and Heidfeld didn't, so he came out faster and was able to run into Ralfie at the next corner. :eek: SEE!!

Roamy

30th July 2007, 05:17

Valve Bounce

30th July 2007, 10:59

:up:

ioan

30th July 2007, 11:07

Easy Drifter

30th July 2007, 18:21

Not that it matters much now but JV hated traction control. He was of the opinion that a better driver could get out of the corner faster than a poorer one. If you do, as posted above, you have a bit of jump on the next guy wether he is in front of you or behind you.I would agree that making the drivers do there own shifting would improve things although there would be more gearbox and engine failures from missed shifts.

Flat.tyres

30th July 2007, 18:44

TC and automatic gear boxes don't do much for me in trying to recognize a true driver. they should make them use a clutch and shift also. there is enough technology in the world regarding automatic transmissions so we don't need them in F1

19k revs going through a gearbox is a lot of clutch control just to stop it detonating on one lap. boxes would need a big beef up and clutches would be important again instead of just the start although a lot of short shift would still occur.

if it could be done, then great but I dont think they will.

as for TC, the quicker it goes the better. I want to see drivers getting pressured, losing the back end, sliding the car in and out again. superb :up:

markabilly

31st July 2007, 01:21

At Seca, a couple of riders from the USA got to jump on the motogp bikes as wild cards and the younger Hayden was stunned by the TC of the bikes. He said it similar to riding a superbike but about half-way through, you just push the throttle to the max. Do that on a superbike and you are toast. Throttle control on the superbike makes or breaks riders.

Indeed, the reason Rossi was so unbeatable for years, (and the same with Nick D. before him) was due to his ability to control the throttle, and max accelerate out of the corners.

Casey Stoner on the other hand was always high siding or losing the front end from too much power. He goes to Ducati who is rumored to have developed excellent traction control that permits wheel spin, but not excessive spin, out of the corner and even if the rider backs off the throttle inapporapriately (the usual reason for a high side) the engine TC does not permit the bike to respond so as to cause a high side.

Watch Stoner from last year at Seca-hand working the throttle really heavy and then his race crash as a direct result of failing to properly control the throttle.

Watch him this year (and a number of other drivers) just twist the throttle to the max about mid corner and just go out blazing with a certain amount, but not excessive amount of wheel spin. And they are not using misfiring of the engine to accomplish this, but engine mapping and controlling fuel delivery to the engine, overiding throttle control coupled with measuring g forces and lateral lean angle of the bike to produce a maximum accleration out of the corner.

best example, if you have the highlights of practice was Dani Pedorsa crashing in practice. He was already committed to the corner, and slammed on the gas, just as he clipped the other slow rider. His hand shut and came off the throttle, slamming on the front brake but the rear wheel continued to accelerate even as he went into the gravel pit and then the the wall. Indeed, the spinning rear wheel even ran over his foot, as he departed the bike, and the rear wheel was still continuing to accelerate the bike after he was half off the bike......

ban it but ban engine mapping as well

wedge

31st July 2007, 01:51

markabilly

31st July 2007, 01:53

best example, if you have the highlights of practice was (SORRY MARCO MELANDRI--NOT DANI)crashing in practice. He was already committed to the corner, and slammed on the gas, just as he clipped the other slow rider. His hand shut and came off the throttle, slamming on the front brake but the rear wheel continued to accelerate even as he went into the gravel pit and then the the wall. Indeed, the spinning rear wheel even ran over his foot, as he departed the bike, and the rear wheel was still continuing to accelerate the bike after he was half off the bike......

ban it but ban engine mapping as well

ok one character

Valve Bounce

31st July 2007, 02:21

ClarkFan

31st July 2007, 04:24

I don't think it would be possible to ban engine mapping simply because so much derives from the ECU in modern F1.

With the introduction of control ECUs I'm guessing there's limited scope/parameters when it comes to writing engine management software.

Engine management software should be the happening event if F1 goes to a fuel-restricted formula, so I don't think that banning it is in the cards. However, if the FIA policed a ban that eliminates any data feeds to the engine management software from the wheels (i.e., the software can't monitor wheelspin), that should effectively eliminate traction control.

And Valve, you win. Drivers that manage exit traction better should have an advantage that could lead to overtaking. But I will say that back in the days of skinny tires and dog-cut gears the slipstream/outbrake scenario was the most common one for passing. You would see different scripts at a place like Monaco, where drivers like Hill and Clark took very different lines that led them to very different places at corner exits.

ClarkFan

Valve Bounce

31st July 2007, 07:01

Engine management software should be the happening event if F1 goes to a fuel-restricted formula, so I don't think that banning it is in the cards. However, if the FIA policed a ban that eliminates any data feeds to the engine management software from the wheels (i.e., the software can't monitor wheelspin), that should effectively eliminate traction control.

And Valve, you win. Drivers that manage exit traction better should have an advantage that could lead to overtaking. But I will say that back in the days of skinny tires and dog-cut gears the slipstream/outbrake scenario was the most common one for passing. You would see different scripts at a place like Monaco, where drivers like Hill and Clark took very different lines that led them to very different places at corner exits.

ClarkFan

Then, if we cut out computer operated clutches and gear boxes, and make the buggers use the clutch and shift gears, then missed gears and/or bad downshifting cum braking might see a little more opportunity for passing.

You know, if we banned ECU's and all those crazy compound wings and winglets, F1 would be one helluva spectacle.

But I am pissing into the wind, arn't I?? :(

Roamy

31st July 2007, 07:19

wmcot

31st July 2007, 07:45

But I am pissing into the wind, arn't I?? :(

Yep!!!

Valve Bounce

31st July 2007, 08:34

yes it would be like champ car racing where the last grid was less that a second apart. However unless they do something with the brakes passing won't happen very often. The braking in F1 is incredible

OK, let's ban brakes also!! :p :

Gibbsy

31st July 2007, 11:11

How about all F1 teams have to use drum brakes and radial tyres....

How about a carbeurretor...

With a manual choke for cold morning practice sessions...

Oh and an optional Peter Brock energy polariser!

Mickey T

31st July 2007, 11:31

Indeed, the reason Rossi was so unbeatable for years, (and the same with Nick D. before him) was due to his ability to control the throttle, and max accelerate out of the corners.

Casey Stoner on the other hand was always high siding or losing the front end from too much power. He goes to Ducati who is rumored to have developed excellent traction control that permits wheel spin, but not excessive spin, out of the corner and even if the rider backs off the throttle inapporapriately (the usual reason for a high side) the engine TC does not permit the bike to respond so as to cause a high side.

his success this year might have also had something to do with casey changing from a privateer bike to a works bike.

and if the bike is so easy to ride now, where is his team mate? Loris is an accomplished bike racer, and he's been blown away.

you can't get rid of engine mapping. What is the point of F1 if it no longer bears a relationship to road cars? If you get rid of engine mapping, you get rid of ECUs, and if you get rid of ECUs you get rid of electronic fuel injection.

that leaves you with the option of carburettors or mechanical fuel injection, and in either case you're back to 10-12,000 rpm max.

you would struggle these days to find a road car that is not fuel injected. mapping the engine makes that injection more efficient and effective.

i would prefer to see F1 cars with ABS and traction control, because that's where road cars are going. if you're honda/bmw/benz/toyota/renault, how could you keep pouring millions of dollars into something that is, in the public eye, less technical than a road car and has no hope of giving your engineers experience to advance your road car?

the promotion of overtaking is far more easily controlled via aero changes and tyre changes - and the technology from those two areas has no bearing on road cars at all.

ShiftingGears

31st July 2007, 11:44

you can't get rid of engine mapping. What is the point of F1 if it no longer bears a relationship to road cars?

Well to be a spectacular and entertaining sport, really. I don't give a toss whether they have gadgets that are on road cars or not. I just want to see a racing series where the best drivers compete on the best circuits with cars that are fast, spectacular and can actually race with each other. What I don't want to see is more and more gadgets on the car that progressively limit the scope of a driver.
If F1 wants to be more road car oriented they should race on natural road courses.

ArrowsFA1

31st July 2007, 11:47

you can't get rid of engine mapping. What is the point of F1 if it no longer bears a relationship to road cars?...i would prefer to see F1 cars with ABS and traction control, because that's where road cars are going.
I don't agree with this argument that says F1 only exists as a test-bed for road cars. Why should it? Is touring cars, for example, not far more suited for that task?

IMHO the likes of ABS and traction control do nothing for F1 racing or the sport as a whole.

Erki

31st July 2007, 11:52

Flat.tyres

31st July 2007, 12:23

I don't agree with this argument that says F1 only exists as a test-bed for road cars. Why should it? Is touring cars, for example, not far more suited for that task?

IMHO the likes of ABS and traction control do nothing for F1 racing or the sport as a whole.

correct.

The arguement that the public wont be interested in F1 if we removed some of the technology is bogus. Joe Bloogs doesnt watch F1 to discover who has the best launch control but to watch cars go fast and hopefully pass. he wants to see cars leaving black lines everywhere as he cant do it in his Rover, he wants to see cars getting sideways as he cant do it in his Rover and he wants to see drivers lose control and stuff it in a barrier so he can feel superiour as he doesn't do that in his Rover.

all he wants to see is action and the last 10 years and more have been very little in the way of action. lots of technology and the perception of rigged races by not a lot of action.

you speak to Joe in the street and he will tell you that F1 is boring. That its all controlled by computers and geeks in Japan or wherever. He will explain how its so easy to drive F1 cars these days with all the technology that even his Mother could do it. he will also tell you that it was boring with the red cars winning everything with that German bloke so he stopped watching but now that we have a Brit winning again, he might try and catch a race (and BTW, did you know he was black).

Thats the perception of F1 to Joe Bloggs and whether there's any truth in it is immaterial because millions of people have that perception. This is the real problem.

Honda, Toyota, BMW, etc dont come into F1 to develop excellent technology for their cars. if anything comes out of F1 that is useful is a bonus. They get into F1, or Rallying, or Touring Cars to sell cars and maintain Brand awareness. they want Joe Bloggs to say BMW are doing well at the moment, Ferrari are struggleing with McLaren Mercedes, Honda are getting beaten by their last years car and Toyota are crap. Yep, they want people to notice them even if they are doing badly because people are still talking about them and they hope they will improve to get people talking positivly but they wont if theyre not watching.

F1 needs to get back to its roots a bit. not with the technology but with the spectacle. Not with cheap gimmicks and falsehoods like the Americans have been guilty of but by making the drivers drive the bloody cars. get 22 young men, high on adrenalin and testosterone, and chuck 900HP of brutish car at the buggers. Limited aeros, No TC, No LC, No ABS etc. Just a steering wheel, 3 peddles and a gear shift and let them mess the rest up by themselves.

Thats what the public want to see, thats what will get people back watching on a Sunday afternoon and thats what will sell more cars, and computers, and mortgages, and whiskey.

larantuka

31st July 2007, 12:35

Does this ban mean manually operated car would humanly familiar for driver to overcome themselves if it has engine trouble in the middle of the race?

wedge

31st July 2007, 13:58

Personally, I don't mind engine mapping. Part of a driver's skill is engine conservation just as much as tyre conservation. Turning the engine settings up and down is no different to playing with boost pressure or the air/fuel mixture.

I don't agree with this argument that says F1 only exists as a test-bed for road cars. Why should it? Is touring cars, for example, not far more suited for that task?

F1 is the pinnacle, Touring Cars is much more restrictive in its regulations because its primary purporse is entertain and cost efficiency.

F1 needs to get back to its roots a bit. not with the technology but with the spectacle. Not with cheap gimmicks and falsehoods like the Americans have been guilty of but by making the drivers drive the bloody cars.

Try watching NASCAR racing on road courses.

800BHP, no engine management software, no fuel injection, just plain old V8 pushrod technology.

H-pattern shift stick, and lots of heel & toe (gotta love those in-car cameras!)

Flat.tyres

31st July 2007, 14:44

sorry wedge, I was talking about things like contrived pace cars and the likes for no real reason but to bunch the leaders up.

markabilly

31st July 2007, 15:01

correct.

The arguement that the public wont be interested in F1 if we removed some of the technology is bogus. Joe Bloogs doesnt watch F1 to discover who has the best launch control but to watch cars go fast and hopefully pass. he wants to see cars leaving black lines everywhere as he cant do it in his Rover, he wants to see cars getting sideways as he cant do it in his Rover and he wants to see drivers lose control and stuff it in a barrier so he can feel superiour as he doesn't do that in his Rover.

all he wants to see is action and the last 10 years and more have been very little in the way of action. lots of technology and the perception of rigged races by not a lot of action.

you speak to Joe in the street and he will tell you that F1 is boring. That its all controlled by computers and geeks in Japan or wherever. He will explain how its so easy to drive F1 cars these days with all the technology that even his Mother could do it. he will also tell you that it was boring with the red cars winning everything with that German bloke so he stopped watching but now that we have a Brit winning again, he might try and catch a race (and BTW, did you know he was black).

Thats the perception of F1 to Joe Bloggs and whether there's any truth in it is immaterial because millions of people have that perception. This is the real problem.

Honda, Toyota, BMW, etc dont come into F1 to develop excellent technology for their cars. if anything comes out of F1 that is useful is a bonus. They get into F1, or Rallying, or Touring Cars to sell cars and maintain Brand awareness. they want Joe Bloggs to say BMW are doing well at the moment, Ferrari are struggleing with McLaren Mercedes, Honda are getting beaten by their last years car and Toyota are crap. Yep, they want people to notice them even if they are doing badly because people are still talking about them and they hope they will improve to get people talking positivly but they wont if theyre not watching.

F1 needs to get back to its roots a bit. not with the technology but with the spectacle. Not with cheap gimmicks and falsehoods like the Americans have been guilty of but by making the drivers drive the bloody cars. get 22 young men, high on adrenalin and testosterone, and chuck 900HP of brutish car at the buggers. Limited aeros, No TC, No LC, No ABS etc. Just a steering wheel, 3 peddles and a gear shift and let them mess the rest up by themselves.

Thats what the public want to see, thats what will get people back watching on a Sunday afternoon and thats what will sell more cars, and computers, and mortgages, and whiskey.

That was my point--sooner or later motogp is going to be a joke and F1 an even bigger joke--TC that will not shut off the throttle!!--and for those wondering, the current TC in motogp is far more sophisticated than in F1, because F1 primarily relies on too much power, TC then reduces power. (well atleast the older versions did...)

On racing bikes, reducing power after wheel spin starts or even before it starts--causes the rear wheel to regain traction--the result is the infamous and very painful high side---in the good ole days, one could watch in slow motion video, a rider think he was in trouble and cut back too much on the throttle, and the bike would literrally stand up and toss the rider off on the high side. (hence Melandri's bike running over his foot--sorry not pedrosa--with the current traction control at Seca)

Ouch--so the bike TC has to AVOID relying on reducing or shutting down power, and instead rely on lean angles, g-forces and so forth. Indeed rumor has it that the bikes have computers that are being programmed to literally learn the track, with different power curves being applied to different corners.

Such is probably already happening in F1 because as noted here, the top teams do not seem to have the misfire so bad--leading the poster to mistakenly believe that the top teams must have superior drivers that do not use it so much--I think that is wrong, the top teams have far more sophisticated traction control such that misfiring the engine to reduce wheel spin, will become a thing of the past!!!

If they can do it in motogp, then there is no reason not to be able to do it in F1 where the driver "turns on" the throttle, and engine management applies the perfect power control for each corner, measuring g forces and steering wheel input for minor adjustment, with different power curves for different corners

Soon the engineer can completely replace the driver--the throttle and transmission is already done by "wire" inboard, all that is necessary is to convert braking and steering to wire control, couple with ABS and some radio conections to the computers in the trailers. The inboard video and data already provides enough information for visual control

So no more Scott speedie to mess up the car compared to Hamie making the car go faster....no more wasted debates on whose car is faster--we will know the answer :dozey:

Of course, many folks, myself included will no longer be asking the question---too :dozey: :dozey: :dozey: to care

Valve Bounce

31st July 2007, 15:07

Personally, I don't mind engine mapping. Part of a driver's skill is engine conservation just as much as tyre conservation. Turning the engine settings up and down is no different to playing with boost pressure or the air/fuel mixture.

HE CAN USE THE ACCELERATOR PETAL FOR THAT

F1 is the pinnacle, Touring Cars is much more restrictive in its regulations because its primary purporse is entertain and cost efficiency.

SO IS LIMESTONE

Try watching NASCAR racing on road courses.

800BHP, no engine management software, no fuel injection, just plain old V8 pushrod technology.

H-pattern shift stick, and lots of heel & toe (gotta love those in-car cameras!)

I guess if the F1 cars were racing around without the pinacles, nobody would even notice they were missing. :rolleyes:

The Bold caps above are my pinacles - I couldn't work out how to do the multiple quotes :(

ArrowsFA1

31st July 2007, 15:17

F1 is the pinnacle, Touring Cars is much more restrictive in its regulations because its primary purporse is entertain and cost efficiency.
We're getting into a much wider discussion here, but wouldn't manufacturers benefit more from a series which uses at least the shell of their road cars? Spectators (and therefore consumers) would clearly identify the race and road-going versions for one thing.

The difference between F1 and touring cars is as much about marketing as technology. You're right that F1 is seen as the pinnacle and so manufacturers want to be involved, particularly if their rivals are, so F1 spending has escalated to an absurd level because every manufacturer wants to win.

wedge

31st July 2007, 16:55

We're getting into a much wider discussion here, but wouldn't manufacturers benefit more from a series which uses at least the shell of their road cars? Spectators (and therefore consumers) would clearly identify the race and road-going versions for one thing.

The difference between F1 and touring cars is as much about marketing as technology. You're right that F1 is seen as the pinnacle and so manufacturers want to be involved, particularly if their rivals are, so F1 spending has escalated to an absurd level because every manufacturer wants to win.

F1 is the pinnacle. Bernie has made F1 globally universal. The best drivers want to be in F1 so naturally the manufacturers want the same slice of pie.

As a rule of thumb, tin tops and GTs are there to entertain. Technology increases costs and is a detriment to the 'show'. Each region has their own particular tastes eg. America has NASCAR, Aussies have V8SCs, Japan has Super GTs. Personally I wish they revived Group A tourers and copied the V8SC template and we'd see a lot more Vauxhall VXR8s on the UK streets ;)

leopard

1st August 2007, 04:57

It may have positive side, there will not be any electronic failure as one of classic problem besides gearbox, tires, and hydraulic. Driver should be able to sort out minor problem, such like maybe switch the engine on and off everywhere when it need be during the race.

Previously I thought F1 is always in advance of auto technology industry in general mostly of which currently has implemented such electronic and digital device. But if it hinders driver from showing the real ability, I don't think it is a compulsory to stay using them either.

We may have to lose more sponsors for such electronic device which I don't think would be good in the light of one of source of money, and more space bald on the car.

Yelnats

1st August 2007, 15:29

FI is missing an opportunity to couple TC systems to a surplus energy storage system.

This system would bleed off excess torque to an energy storage system (such as flywheel or storage batteries) and return this energy on the next straight for increased acceleration. I am not sure how this system would affect driving techniques but I suspect that the better drivers would select lines through corners that maximized power-boost on the exit.

Similarly excess traction under braking could be stored and would function as type of antilock braking. This type of system cannot function without the intervention of TC under braking and acceleration. To highlight the advantages of this system fuel capacity restrictions would be imposed.

The fact that many fans would know even less about driving technique than they do now would be more than offset by the technological advances that FI could claim. This is important in an age where many environmentally sensitive people consider F1 a big waste of fuel and money.

Otherwise I can see the day when manufacturers and sponsers and the public in general will be discouraged from participating in F1 due to a potential image problem.

markabilly

1st August 2007, 16:19

F1 is the pinnacle. Bernie has made F1 globally universal. The best drivers want to be in F1 so naturally the manufacturers want the same slice of pie.

As a rule of thumb, tin tops and GTs are there to entertain. Technology increases costs and is a detriment to the 'show'. Each region has their own particular tastes eg. America has NASCAR, Aussies have V8SCs, Japan has Super GTs. Personally I wish they revived Group A tourers and copied the V8SC template and we'd see a lot more Vauxhall VXR8s on the UK streets ;)
So much for the best drivers, half are useless...no recycled drivers at mclarent--of course that explains Alonso's status quite well.......

SteveA

1st August 2007, 16:55

(joe bloggs) wants to see cars leaving black lines everywhere as he cant do it in his Rover, he wants to see cars getting sideways as he cant do it in his Rover and he wants to see drivers lose control and stuff it in a barrier so he can feel superiour as he doesn't do that in his Rover.

Joe Bloggs never owned a Rover 3500 Vitesse then ;)

ClarkFan

2nd August 2007, 00:11

You're right that F1 is seen as the pinnacle and so manufacturers want to be involved, particularly if their rivals are, so F1 spending has escalated to an absurd level because every manufacturer wants to win.

Which will, in due course, lead to another set of problems. Look at LeMans after the Ford-Ferrari-Chevrolet wars in 1967 and after the Ferrari-Porsche wars in 1971. Spending collapsed, and the top tier of the field went with it.

ClarkFan

MontoyaRules

2nd August 2007, 02:20

without TC Shumi can comeback from retirement and kick everione's ass in a toro rosso.

markabilly

2nd August 2007, 04:10

See all you really need is a rookie to do what he is told...must make alsono really feel all warm inside to know he is recycled.....

http://msn.foxsports.com/motor/story/7070814

:eek: :vader: :s mokin: :s mokin:

Valve Bounce

2nd August 2007, 04:49

you can't get rid of engine mapping. What is the point of F1 if it no longer bears a relationship to road cars? If you get rid of engine mapping, you get rid of ECUs, and if you get rid of ECUs you get rid of electronic fuel injection.

that leaves you with the option of carburettors or mechanical fuel injection, and in either case you're back to 10-12,000 rpm max.

you would struggle these days to find a road car that is not fuel injected. mapping the engine makes that injection more efficient and effective.

i would prefer to see F1 cars with ABS and traction control, because that's where road cars are going. if you're honda/bmw/benz/toyota/renault, how could you keep pouring millions of dollars into something that is, in the public eye, less technical than a road car and has no hope of giving your engineers experience to advance your road car?

the promotion of overtaking is far more easily controlled via aero changes and tyre changes - and the technology from those two areas has no bearing on road cars at all.

Your argument sounds really good until you get to those wings and winglets, and the tyres used. That's where the relationship to road cars argument falls apart. There really is very little relationship between the current F1 car and any road car when you look at the details. Just look at that steering wheel, that high revving engine, that F1 racing car's body, the materials used. We could go on forever. I'm sure even the brakes are different, the suspension, and so on.

The way I see F1, it is the formula where the best drivers race each other on "road" circuits. (as distinct from ovals). Sure, we can allow ECU's, and extremely complicated aero, special road stability gizmos, active suspension, turbo diesel engines, anything that Mercedes, Lexus and BMW can dream up in the foreseeable future. F1 will not be about drivers racing each other but manufacturers who can spend huge sums in the right direction to get the cars going fastest around any circuit.

Once we start going down that road, one or two manufacturers will dominate the competition and the rest of the manufacturers will pull out. Money for nothing will be their argument.

In the history of F1 that I know of, there have always been restrictions in one direction or other. Arguments can be made in the guise of safety, costs, whatever. There used to be a Formula Libre once upon a time, buy that died rather quickly.

leopard

2nd August 2007, 06:26

Normally driver would select lines trough corners besides power-boost on the exit, that would be the shortest line from the race which can save more time at the end. That would also save the task of braking and suspension system because effect of the brake requires the perfect balance which suspension is the point.

I see the point is right about restriction on the fuel capacity relating to effect of braking and antilock braking. More than it, how much fuel added is more coupled with the whole strategy of the race because the heavier fueled car would have a not too good speed and its acceleration.

As long as F1 technology did not exceed the fancy story of technology as filmed on 007, it would be still within the limit of reasonable issue, which need not have been worried about.

The possibility of usage of biofuel would not be considered to prevent participant from discouraging, but more as part of technology which is more friendly to environment and in the scheme of socializing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) principle.

leopard

2nd August 2007, 07:34

Atop of it, each race need different solution, and they work based on statistic in certain last period, the very last period usually the closest approach strategy to be implemented in current race.

Actually their own right of each team whether or not to use the same set-up for every race, but there is not any guarantee that it would be suitable and relevant to every single different race, I think those who work with data that have what they have to do for competition.

It doesn't mean that data and computer will have total control over the rider or driver, but it should do otherwise. They have measured, for instance, that normally speed in the corner shouldn't exceed, let's say 150 kph, it doesn't mean restrain the rider from making speed more than it but more as cautious that if riding more than that figure rider will crash, riding wide, hitting the barrier etc. Better still if it is single accident and no other driver/rider are suffered from our fault :)

Mikeall

3rd August 2007, 17:43