|
|
Post by René on Feb 4, 2019 19:20:56 GMT
Hi Racers, If you are ready for some 2019 F1 technology information. Autosport have released a podcast discussing the 2019 aero regulations, with Pat Symonds, plus views from Gary Anderson and AS's technical editor (Jake Boxall-Legge). I listened to it in the car when driving home. It was interesting at times, at least I know now what a Y-250 vortex is  , but I still have the feeling Symonds and co. are making everything way too complicated. I am not technically educated but I do understand why it is difficult to close race with these cars; too complex and dominant aero and too short braking distances. I don't have the feeling they are really addressing these issues but only circling around the pain points with overly complex CFD vortex swirls... if you hear what went wrong in 2008 or how the focus was wrong for the 2017 regulations, I am not holding my breath for improvements. But I do understand it is not easy. Indycar is doing a nice job but F1 is not Indycar. F1 is not a spec series. And when you truly overhaul F1, say smaller simple wings or ground effect and steel brakes, it has also implications on the lower classes. 2019 will not be very different than 2018 so we can only hope for two or three teams to be very close on pace and maybe one team that makes the jump towards the top three (Renault, Alfa?). I am still very excited about the new season though. Only a few days before we see the new cars and then testing. Bring it on! |
|
|
|
Post by René on Feb 4, 2019 20:13:19 GMT
Back on the Alfa Romeo subject, I found this picture I made at Zolder in 1979. As I have told before this was my first F1 meeting but it was also the first race of the Alfa Romeo comeback in modern times. I remember I didn't particularly like the looks of the car at the time but it was a historic moment nonetheless. Bruno and and Niki are ready to race. Alfa mechanics in classic light blue overalls behind the pit wall.  |
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Feb 4, 2019 20:43:24 GMT
Rene, that is one gorgeous photo, the contrast says so much, man I loved that Alfa engine,
Jim, Rene, I thought the vortex was something out of Star Trek or Star Wars, I enjoy technical knowhow and insight but to a point, what these modern beasts represent are way beyond my understanding and whilst it is enjoyable to read others enthusiasm for such technical awareness it does kinda pass me by, in saying that I am hopeful of this season, it will be great if Alfa, Honda and Renault do close the gap, in fact it will be brilliant, hopefully my two favourites the Hulk and the Shark win many races.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Feb 4, 2019 23:41:25 GMT
Back on the Alfa Romeo subject, I found this picture I made at Zolder in 1979. As I have told before this was my first F1 meeting but it was also the first race of the Alfa Romeo comeback in modern times. I remember I didn't particularly like the looks of the car at the time but it was a historic moment nonetheless. Bruno and and Niki are ready to race. Alfa mechanics in classic light blue overalls behind the pit wall. Rene, The Alfa-Romeo design is a bit clumsy and disjointed, but their return was indeed as historic as you say. It's surprising that Niki Lauda qualified so far behind his teammate, Nelson Piquet, but not that your favorite driver set fastest race lap. Cool photograph!
Cheers, Carl
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Feb 4, 2019 23:50:42 GMT
Rene, that is one gorgeous photo, the contrast says so much, man I loved that Alfa engine, Jim, Rene, I thought the vortex was something out of Star Trek or Star Wars, I enjoy technical knowhow and insight but to a point, what these modern beasts represent are way beyond my understanding and whilst it is enjoyable to read others enthusiasm for such technical awareness it does kinda pass me by, in saying that I am hopeful of this season, it will be great if Alfa, Honda and Renault do close the gap, in fact it will be brilliant, hopefully my two favourites the Hulk and the Shark win many races. Chris, Well said. I understand rocket science better than race car aerodynamics and suspect Adrian Newey is an alien from a planet surrounded by vortexes. Hopefully Hulkenberg and Ricciardo consistently worry the top teams and stand on top of the podium a few times.
Cheers, Carl
|
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Feb 5, 2019 14:27:25 GMT
Just a thought about the blind alley of too optimized aerodynamics that F1 unfortunately has strayed into:
Imagine that the Monaco GP counted the most; for example, imagine that there were a single World Championship Final, as in karting, motorcycle speedway etc. (in the "old days" at least), always held at Monaco. Then the cars would (most surely) look very differently from how they look now. Then acceleration (both positive and negative) and "nimbleness" would be much more important than aerodynamics, and the minibus-like wheelbases would disappear like snow in the sun.
Of course that's not how the F1 World Championship is nor how it should be. But if there were more Monaco-like circuits (a bit like the Formula E street circuits maybe) along with the real, high-speed F1 circuits like Spa, Silverstone, Suzuka, etc., then the optimally designed F1 racing car might be more of a compromise(*) between nimbleness and high-speed cornering ability, as it once was. This might be a way out of the blind alley ...
[ (*) In technical jargon it's called Pareto optimality, see e.g.: |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Feb 5, 2019 17:18:01 GMT
Back on the Alfa Romeo subject, I found this picture I made at Zolder in 1979. As I have told before this was my first F1 meeting but it was also the first race of the Alfa Romeo comeback in modern times. I remember I didn't particularly like the looks of the car at the time but it was a historic moment nonetheless. Bruno and and Niki are ready to race. Alfa mechanics in classic light blue overalls behind the pit wall. Excellent picture René, which really illustrates the difference between the two cars. In all fairness I seem to recall that the Alfa Romeo actually ran the flat 12 motor in that first chassis, whereas the Brabham BT48 had the new V12 Alfa engine. So in a way the Alfa was really old technology at that time, but quite a quaint looking car which does actually have appeal. |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Feb 5, 2019 17:35:32 GMT
Just a thought about the blind alley of too optimized aerodynamics that F1 unfortunately has strayed into:
Imagine that the Monaco GP counted the most; for example, imagine that there were a single World Championship Final, as in karting, motorcycle speedway etc. (in the "old days" at least), always held at Monaco. Then the cars would (most surely) look very differently from how they look now. Then acceleration (both positive and negative) and "nimbleness" would be much more important than aerodynamics, and the minibus-like wheelbases would disappear like snow in the sun.
Of course that's not how the F1 World Championship is nor how it should be. But if there were more Monaco-like circuits (a bit like the Formula E street circuits maybe) along with the real, high-speed F1 circuits like Spa, Silverstone, Suzuka, etc., then the optimally designed F1 racing car might be more of a compromise(*) between nimbleness and high-speed cornering ability, as it once was. This might be a way out of the blind alley ...
[ (*) In technical jargon it's called Pareto optimality, see e.g.: Good post Mikael. You have highlighted some very important factors, but you show far too much common sense for those in F1 today. Personally I don't think that either Anderson or Symonds are the right people for talking about this as they are still entrenched in the bubble that has been F1's problem for many years. It needs someone distanced from the business who is able to see the wood for the trees, we enthusiasts can see the problem but these guys cannot for many differing reasons. One guy who could, and has, looked at the problem with clarity is Gordon Murray, however he isn't going to be asked as he talks too much sense. I am no luddite, and actually I embrace technology in many applications but sometimes we get sent down blind alleys which are not healthy. I am certain that some of these individuals get off on all this aero stuff, but it is nothing more than an avenue, and one that is counter productive to the whole of motor sport in general. It would be quite easy to eliminate all of these ridiculous add-on bits and pieces that adorn the cars, and make the wings both smaller and more simple. There could still be an opportunity for designers to explore shape etc. Also there are other areas that need addressing, such as the amount of communication that happens between pit and car/driver; the quantity of personnel who work on the car during a pit stop. This is just for starters and it isn't rocket science. Just to add, I noticed over the weekend while watching the excellent Bathurst 12 Hour race that even the GT3 cars were festooned with bits and bobs around the sill line and lower making them look like the Disney Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, absolutely bloody ridiculous. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 1:26:55 GMT
Hi Racers, If you are ready for some 2019 F1 technology information. Autosport have released a podcast discussing the 2019 aero regulations, with Pat Symonds, plus views from Gary Anderson and AS's technical editor (Jake Boxall-Legge). I listened to it in the car when driving home. It was interesting at times, at least I know now what a Y-250 vortex is , but I still have the feeling Symonds and co. are making everything way too complicated. I am not technically educated but I do understand why it is difficult to close race with these cars; too complex and dominant aero and too short braking distances. I don't have the feeling they are really addressing these issues but only circling around the pain points with overly complex CFD vortex swirls... if you hear what went wrong in 2008 or how the focus was wrong for the 2017 regulations, I am not holding my breath for improvements. But I do understand it is not easy. Indycar is doing a nice job but F1 is not Indycar. F1 is not a spec series. And when you truly overhaul F1, say smaller simple wings or ground effect and steel brakes, it has also implications on the lower classes. 2019 will not be very different than 2018 so we can only hope for two or three teams to be very close on pace and maybe one team that makes the jump towards the top three (Renault, Alfa?). I am still very excited about the new season though. Only a few days before we see the new cars and then testing. Bring it on! Cheers Rene, I'm glad you took the time to listen to the podcast, and found at least parts of it interesting. I fear that it may be you making things way too simple, rather than Symonds and Brawn making things way too complicated. Even if creating close racing in F1 were as simple as a few sweeping changes, as we are seeing in the negotiation of the 2021 regulations, that would be very difficult to implement because of all the politics of the Teams, Owners, FIA, sponsors, promotors etc etc, plus as you allude, the position of F1 at the top of a stack of feeder classes, and the fact 1000's of very clever engineers are trying to figure out how to get around whatever regulations are put in place. BTW I don't think simple sweeping changes will be the solution. As everything that has been learned about aerodynamics isn't going to go away, and will be brought to bear no matter what the regulations. Also the reason we have so much reliance on aerodynamic downforce is that it makes putting 1000+bhp onto the road in any effective way possible. Better to embrace your inner nerd, and enjoy the technology of F1 for the fabulous thing it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 1:35:26 GMT
Rene, that is one gorgeous photo, the contrast says so much, man I loved that Alfa engine, Jim, Rene, I thought the vortex was something out of Star Trek or Star Wars, I enjoy technical knowhow and insight but to a point, what these modern beasts represent are way beyond my understanding and whilst it is enjoyable to read others enthusiasm for such technical awareness it does kinda pass me by, in saying that I am hopeful of this season, it will be great if Alfa, Honda and Renault do close the gap, in fact it will be brilliant, hopefully my two favourites the Hulk and the Shark win many races. I always suspected 'The Force' is just another term for 'outwash turbulance' "Use the Force, young master Lewis, Use the Force" |
|
|
|
Post by René on Feb 6, 2019 15:11:11 GMT
I listened to it in the car when driving home. It was interesting at times, at least I know now what a Y-250 vortex is , but I still have the feeling Symonds and co. are making everything way too complicated. I am not technically educated but I do understand why it is difficult to close race with these cars; too complex and dominant aero and too short braking distances. I don't have the feeling they are really addressing these issues but only circling around the pain points with overly complex CFD vortex swirls... if you hear what went wrong in 2008 or how the focus was wrong for the 2017 regulations, I am not holding my breath for improvements. But I do understand it is not easy. Indycar is doing a nice job but F1 is not Indycar. F1 is not a spec series. And when you truly overhaul F1, say smaller simple wings or ground effect and steel brakes, it has also implications on the lower classes. 2019 will not be very different than 2018 so we can only hope for two or three teams to be very close on pace and maybe one team that makes the jump towards the top three (Renault, Alfa?). I am still very excited about the new season though. Only a few days before we see the new cars and then testing. Bring it on! Cheers Rene, I'm glad you took the time to listen to the podcast, and found at least parts of it interesting. I fear that it may be you making things way too simple, rather than Symonds and Brawn making things way too complicated. Even if creating close racing in F1 were as simple as a few sweeping changes, as we are seeing in the negotiation of the 2021 regulations, that would be very difficult to implement because of all the politics of the Teams, Owners, FIA, sponsors, promotors etc etc, plus as you allude, the position of F1 at the top of a stack of feeder classes, and the fact 1000's of very clever engineers are trying to figure out how to get around whatever regulations are put in place. BTW I don't think simple sweeping changes will be the solution. As everything that has been learned about aerodynamics isn't going to go away, and will be brought to bear no matter what the regulations. Also the reason we have so much reliance on aerodynamic downforce is that it makes putting 1000+bhp onto the road in any effective way possible. Better to embrace your inner nerd, and enjoy the technology of F1 for the fabulous thing it is. Hi Jim, I enjoyed listening to the podcast so it was not a heavy task! And yes, I do understand F1 cannot be changed overnight and I think not everything needs to be changed. F1 has never been about close racing. If you want to see that you should watch F3 or other one make series. F1 is all about engineering excellence and driving excellence. The best drivers in the fastest cars. And I do enjoy that, still do so we agree on that. I am just not convinced by the direction they are taking (again). The front wing is becoming even wider than it is which will not help in the looks department (also important) and will not be very handy on twisty circuits. The cars are already so big. I don’t agree with you that you need all this downforce to handle 1000bhp+. They handled it in the 80s and even in the early 70s in the CanAm. Having so much horsepower with less downforce lays more emphasis on the driver’s quality which can only be good. I also think the teams have grown too big, too many people trying to take every possible uncertainty and mistake away. I know you can’t take knowledge away but you could make it more difficult for teams to get everything right. The ’NASA style’ homebases of the teams are ridiculous and bring nothing to the actual racing. It only tries to minimize human error which sterilizes the sport. Less mechanics around the car for a pitstop would also be better. A 1.8 second pitstop is impressive but we’ve seen that trick by now. I think ‘less is more’ would be a good focus point for the rule makers. Small and elegant wings, only to stabilize the car, would be a good starting point. And bring back ground effect which is way less sensitive to ‘dirty air’ so would make following other cars ‘easier’. But hey, as I said, I have no technical education so I don’t have all the answers. I am just a passionate fan hoping for a healthy Formula One and some good racing! |
|
|
|
Post by René on Feb 7, 2019 20:53:09 GMT
The first glimpse of the new season.  Nice carpet.   But the HAAS looks better than last year in this livery.  Romain is thinking: "am I back in the Lotus?".  |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Feb 8, 2019 4:58:25 GMT
The first glimpse of the new season. Nice carpet. Romain is thinking: "am I back in the Lotus?". Lotus deja vu! Will Gene Haas try to reanimate Colin Chapman? Even the carpet has laurel leaves similar to the championship symbols that adorned Lotus rear wings. |
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Feb 8, 2019 7:01:34 GMT
Ahem my first prediction for 2019, made last year, has proved accurate. Sauber are now called Alfa Romeo. Good for you Rob and good for F1! I love Alfa Romeo so two more cars to support!
Ok, they're not made in Milan but the Mercs are not made in Stuttgart. So is modern F1.
Let's hope the Alfa's will be red. Alfa Rosso, Cuore Sportivo!
My heart desires this more than anything else for this coming F1 season ❤️ Alfa is the most evocative brand for me...... However, it’s not really an Alfa is it so I’m unable to fully embrace this team as AC, much as I’d like to. It’s the Ferrari engine in the back.....such are modern economics that it would never, ever be a truly independent Alfa works entry but how I wish it was. On another note, I like the new Haas livery, so much better than the grey of last season. And I like the cut of the new sponsors jib......he looks like a maverick and likes to speak his mind so we may get some interesting stuff from him this year.......reminds me of that nutcase that funded Onyx for a while, Moneytron was it? His name escapes me but he was a colourful character alright, albeit slightly nefarious......😯 |
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Feb 8, 2019 7:38:25 GMT
the Haas is a good colour scheme, shame about so much of it, and I mean so much, it just looks so huge, unwieldy and with bits stuck on, I do so want to enjoy F1 but every-time I look at these things I groan,
Jean-Pierre Van Rossem was the extrovert who passed away in December and was described as a criminal, stock market guru, economist, politician etc, according to Wikipedia, sums up a lot of politicians doesn't it?
sounds like the start of an interesting thread Jamie, sponsors and their 'er foibles? the power they welded, the corruption some were involved in, their extravagance and their sheer personalities, the guy from Essex petroleum, AJS tyres who became owner, the Japanese sponsor who ended up in prison, the Italian one who was similar, when I get some time this may be an interesting subject.
|
|
, but I still have the feeling Symonds and co. are making everything way too complicated. I am not technically educated but I do understand why it is difficult to close race with these cars; too complex and dominant aero and too short braking distances. I don't have the feeling they are really addressing these issues but only circling around the pain points with overly complex CFD vortex swirls... if you hear what went wrong in 2008 or how the focus was wrong for the 2017 regulations, I am not holding my breath for improvements. 
