carpmart
|
| posted on 3/7/08 at 07:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nitram38
They are already trying to get maximum fuel efficiency!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No engine designer is going to make the highest power engine at the cost of using more fuel.
They WANT the most power at the least fuel.
The only way to reduce fuel by 50% is to introduce maximum speeds to 50% of what they are now.
That is called Formula Ford, GP2 etc where everyone has the same equipment which limits the top speed.
This is F1 and the cars are all different but within defined limits of the FIA.
This means that the teams are ALWAYS developing the car towards making it faster within these rules.
All Moseley is doing is joining the "green" clean brigade to take people's minds off his own dirty little secret.
He wants people to think that he is not so bad after all.
He is just part of the same propaganda machine that is extracting more money from everyone, while lining his own pockets.
It's about time that the FIA is lead by a proper racing driver and not this interfering idiot.
I'm sorry but I disagree. You are looking at this from one perspective within the realms of what is know today with regard to fuel efficiency
and 'inside the box'. Today we know what we know (your view) and we don't know what we don't know (the total BIG picture I am
suggesting)
......stay with me on this!
So, if F1 designers go looking for efficiencies in areas we don't presently know and have a bigger playing field through some of the present
boundaries (rules on engines etc) being relaxed then there is every chance with the talent employed in F1 that some fantastic, as yet unforeseen fuel
efficiencies will be gained.
Once again, I hope I have managed to articulate this in a way that is understood? 
You only live once - make the most of it!
Radical Clubsport, Kwaker motor
'94 MX5 MK1, 1.8
F10 M5 - 600bhp Daily Hack 
Range Rover Sport - Wife's Car
Mercedes A class - Son's Car
|
|
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 3/7/08 at 08:08 PM |
|
|
You seem to have forgotten a few things.
F1 is there to create winners and make money by driving faster, not increase the range on your Ford Focus.
Honda are using the Green image on their car and where has it got them?
Why do you want to put the responsibility of finding more effceincy to F1 teams when their objectives contradict what you are trying to achieve?
Why not tackle Boeing to make longer range engines as aircraft use more fuel than cars or ask Ford, Honda etc as to what they are doing on road
cars?
You are taking two ends of the spectrum and are trying to make them meet and it ain't going to work.
F1 wants 200mph and you want 80 mpg.
Now matter how we try, the two will never work together.
There comes a point where power in equals power out (laws of physics, not laws of Moseley)
All that will happen in F1 if Moesley gets his way (and he normally does) is put more limits that will impede F1 developement.
Where would we be now if tyre widths, turbos, wing size rules were taken away? A 300mph car? (plus a lot more dead drivers)
The 2CV brigade should go and watch 2CV racing and keep their noses out of F1.
[Edited on 3/7/2008 by nitram38]
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 3/7/08 at 08:32 PM |
|
|
Mr Carpmart - out with that Pinto Turbo.......... in with a 1.4di for you!!!
You can do your own bit then rather than make F1 slow and boring, rather than just boring!!!  
|
|
|
carpmart
|
| posted on 3/7/08 at 08:37 PM |
|
|
Nitram38 - I genuinely understand all the points you raise but you are looking at this from only one perspective based on what is known today not what
could be known. Innovation comes from thinking outside the box not inside. Your views are based 100% inside, I have been trying to suggested there
may be a bigger box! Taking you example, 'where would we be now' if mankind or to be more specific certain men, hadn't thought
outside the box and split the atom or sent pulses down bits of wires.
I also have to admit that I have been somewhat frustrated with myself this evening at my inability to communicate to you in a way that you could
understand the point I was trying to put forward. As they say, 'life is too short' and I haven't got the time or inclination to
try to explain the same thing again! 
I respect everyones opinion and I have enjoyed the debate but, I'm drawing a line there!
You only live once - make the most of it!
Radical Clubsport, Kwaker motor
'94 MX5 MK1, 1.8
F10 M5 - 600bhp Daily Hack
Range Rover Sport - Wife's Car
Mercedes A class - Son's Car
|
|
|
Mr Clive
|
| posted on 3/7/08 at 09:27 PM |
|
|
I think its a step in the right direction providing they open up the rules on engine development.
Finishing first will still remain the teams priority, not saving fuel needlessly, as any fuel left at the end of the race (bar a little for
contingencies) is dead weight that could either have been used to make more power or to left out to reduce weight.
I do think that a change like this would alter the way the teams have to approach the engineering and design and it might take some teams a season or
two to get to grips.
[Edited on 3/7/08 by Mr Clive]
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 3/7/08 at 09:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
Nitram38 - I genuinely understand all the points you raise but you are looking at this from only one perspective based on what is known today not what
could be known. Innovation comes from thinking outside the box not inside. Your views are based 100% inside, I have been trying to suggested there
may be a bigger box! Taking you example, 'where would we be now' if mankind or to be more specific certain men, hadn't thought
outside the box and split the atom or sent pulses down bits of wires.
I also have to admit that I have been somewhat frustrated with myself this evening at my inability to communicate to you in a way that you could
understand the point I was trying to put forward. As they say, 'life is too short' and I haven't got the time or inclination to
try to explain the same thing again!
I respect everyones opinion and I have enjoyed the debate but, I'm drawing a line there!
I am thinking outside the box as I work in engineering and I have raced cars so I do have some experience and I have watched engines change over the
last 25 years.
While engines have developed a lot, there will always be a limit to the fuel/power ratio.
Getting more out of engines has a limit, just like we cannot travel at the speed of light, even though it is a "nice idea".
F1 is advancing, but like all advances, they build one on top of the other.
F1 engines use a combination of high compression and high revs to produce horsepower.
Your road car could do the same for about 2 minutes while sitting in traffic and then destroy itself.
F1 engines won't even start without being warmed up or hours etc.
You car engine is constantly being developed by car companies, extra valves, high compression, fuel injection, variable cam timing etc.
What you are asking for is a utopia of engines that do 200mph on a thimble of fuel and it just ain't going to happen, even if some PR guru
says they can.
There is a finite limit to what energy you can extract from petrol, not an infinite one.
Olympic runners improve on records in thousandths of seconds and so does the evolution of car engines.
As scotty once said" Yer canny change the laws of physics!"
I live in the real world and not in some starwars concept world.
The reality is that , no matter how frustrating, man will always lag behind his dreams and car engines are progressing at the best pace they can.
|
|
|
carpmart
|
| posted on 3/7/08 at 10:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nitram38
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
Nitram38 - I genuinely understand all the points you raise but you are looking at this from only one perspective based on what is known today not what
could be known. Innovation comes from thinking outside the box not inside. Your views are based 100% inside, I have been trying to suggested there
may be a bigger box! Taking you example, 'where would we be now' if mankind or to be more specific certain men, hadn't thought
outside the box and split the atom or sent pulses down bits of wires.
I also have to admit that I have been somewhat frustrated with myself this evening at my inability to communicate to you in a way that you could
understand the point I was trying to put forward. As they say, 'life is too short' and I haven't got the time or inclination to
try to explain the same thing again!
I respect everyones opinion and I have enjoyed the debate but, I'm drawing a line there!
I am thinking outside the box as I work in engineering and I have raced cars so I do have some experience and I have watched engines change over the
last 25 years.
While engines have developed a lot, there will always be a limit to the fuel/power ratio.
Getting more out of engines has a limit, just like we cannot travel at the speed of light, even though it is a "nice idea".
F1 is advancing, but like all advances, they build one on top of the other.
F1 engines use a combination of high compression and high revs to produce horsepower.
Your road car could do the same for about 2 minutes while sitting in traffic and then destroy itself.
F1 engines won't even start without being warmed up or hours etc.
You car engine is constantly being developed by car companies, extra valves, high compression, fuel injection, variable cam timing etc.
What you are asking for is a utopia of engines that do 200mph on a thimble of fuel and it just ain't going to happen, even if some PR guru
says they can.
There is a finite limit to what energy you can extract from petrol, not an infinite one.
Olympic runners improve on records in thousandths of seconds and so does the evolution of car engines.
As scotty once said" Yer canny change the laws of physics!"
I live in the real world and not in some starwars concept world.
The reality is that , no matter how frustrating, man will always lag behind his dreams and car engines are progressing at the best pace they can.
Got to reply again as you are wrong and you have not demonstrated any outside the box thinking in your posts!
I too live in the real world and detest science fiction because of the word fiction, I deal in facts. Fact: F1 engines are very inefficient; just
look at the amount of heat and noise they make neither of which is using the fuel as efficiently as it could to make the car go forward. Fact: Where
there is this much inefficiently produced power and this amount of waste there is room for improvement.
I predict that 'should' F1 engineers have their priorities re-focused on improving fuel efficiency, they will over a reasonable time frame
of say 10 years be able to double the efficiency of F1 engines. To be precise they will find a way of extracting the same power from half the fuel.
My original post was based on this and if that filters down to mainstream 'production' vehicles that has to be good news. I hope you can
agree with that point?
You only live once - make the most of it!
Radical Clubsport, Kwaker motor
'94 MX5 MK1, 1.8
F10 M5 - 600bhp Daily Hack
Range Rover Sport - Wife's Car
Mercedes A class - Son's Car
|
|
|
martyn_16v
|
| posted on 3/7/08 at 10:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
I predict that 'should' F1 engineers have their priorities re-focused on improving fuel efficiency, they will over a reasonable time frame
of say 10 years be able to double the efficiency of F1 engines.
That won't happen in a hundred years. The Otto cycle is inherently fairly inefficient, there just isn't that much scope for improvement
available in petrol burning engines. Don't get me wrong, we're a fair way off having a 'perfect' otto engine, but not
that far.
I understand what you keep banging about in regard to 'thinking outside the box', but that is not the job of F1 engineers (or the sport as
a whole), but research scientists. The underlying principles need discovering first before engineers can actually make something useful from them.
|
|
|
jimmyjoebob
|
| posted on 3/7/08 at 10:36 PM |
|
|
F1 may have very talented engineers but they are too narrow minded to do new concepts, instead refining the conventional piston engine. They
wouldn't come up with radical new designs as it would be too risky (the wankel engine for example would never have made it off the drawing
board).
If at first you don't succeed, hide all evidence you ever tried!
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 4/7/08 at 12:09 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
Got to reply again as you are wrong and you have not demonstrated any outside the box thinking in your posts!
I too live in the real world and detest science fiction because of the word fiction, I deal in facts. Fact: F1 engines are very inefficient; just
look at the amount of heat and noise they make neither of which is using the fuel as efficiently as it could to make the car go forward. Fact: Where
there is this much inefficiently produced power and this amount of waste there is room for improvement.
For gods sake F1 is about as good as it gets for efficiency when it comes to producing power from a "petrol" engine!!! When an ex racer /
engineer, and a fuel additives chemist of 11 years experience tell you something then maybe they have a point!!! Do you not think that the F1
engineers are trying to maximise the efficiency of engines in order to produce power?? What Martin said about the internal combustion engine having a
limit to its efficiency is exactly the point - they produce heat, friction and noise and so will never be anywhere near 100% efficient. Some moron PR
prat saying they want a 50% reduction in fuel does not change the fact that the burning of petrol can only become so efficient. If the fuel that an F1
car can use during a GP is reduced by 50% then they are going to have to produce less power and at loads lower revs - simple!!!!
If an F1 team could design an engine (within regulations) that used 50% less fuel for the same power then they'd have already done it. If they
could do it and use 1% less fuel then they would have done that too - F1 is that competitive!!! We are talking real world science here, and not pie in
the sky Moseley science
This is getting stupid now!!! Try listening to a Pinto without a silencer and telling me its not loud - even at tickover. Now try revving it to
19,000rpm - do you think it'd be quieter than an F1 car?? Have you seen a silencer on an F1 car??? There's a good reason they are loud and
they produce a stack of heat and thats due to no silencers and the amount of fuel burnt with the bare minimum cooling
[Edited on 4/7/08 by Paul TigerB6]
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 4/7/08 at 02:20 AM |
|
|
F1 has no say in what the rules are. That's what Maxie and the FIA are for. And the drivers have less than zero say. If you think even the
average F1 engineer has the remotest chance of having his opinion heard on the big picture of F1 publicity/image/conservation etc, you are dreaming or
have been sniffing too many petrol fumes. They are there to win races within the rules. The rules are set for them ahead of time by Uncle Bernie and
Maxie. Business is about looking a certain way to sell products and that is what F1 is all about. The race itself is almost unimportant.
You can't say these things will never happen because they do happen regularly in life and they will happen in F1 if the big power people say
they will happen. They sell more phones if they do.
|
|
|
carpmart
|
| posted on 4/7/08 at 06:49 AM |
|
|
Well, it appears that I am in a minority of ME who thinks F1 running on less fuel, but using more innovation to do so is a good idea!
There is no need to get emotional in posts as the 11 year old 'fuel additive chemist' seem to be a little agitated! It's
clear that I must not have a view in such 'qualified' company!
My comments/observations are all tongue in cheek fellas!
You only live once - make the most of it!
Radical Clubsport, Kwaker motor
'94 MX5 MK1, 1.8
F10 M5 - 600bhp Daily Hack
Range Rover Sport - Wife's Car
Mercedes A class - Son's Car
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 4/7/08 at 08:01 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
Well, it appears that I am in a minority of ME who thinks F1 running on less fuel, but using more innovation to do so is a good idea!
Make that a mnority of two!
The job of F1 engineers is to win the race within the rules. Change the rules and they will start looking for new ways to win within the new rules.
Technology filtering down from top level racing to family cars has been going on virtually as long as cars have been raced.
It really matters little who has spent time doing what, everybody's opinion here is valid, because one thing is for sure, get n number of
engineers in a room discussing a problem and you will have n number of answers.
John
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 4/7/08 at 08:05 AM |
|
|
I still like the idea of no refuelling and no tyre changes - you run the race with what you started with. But F1 has never been like that, as even in
the earliest races tyres and fuel were part of the event, and the biggest wallet won most times.
Not sure what the answer is...
Maybe a totally radical change is required - how about:
You do whatever you like with your car, as long as it fits in a standard-sized box (of whatever size);
You can do whatever you like with your engine, but your air intake is restricted to a defined cross-section.
Could be interesting!
|
|
|
carpmart
|
| posted on 4/7/08 at 08:11 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
Well, it appears that I am in a minority of ME who thinks F1 running on less fuel, but using more innovation to do so is a good idea!
Make that a mnority of two!
The job of F1 engineers is to win the race within the rules. Change the rules and they will start looking for new ways to win within the new rules.
Technology filtering down from top level racing to family cars has been going on virtually as long as cars have been raced.
It really matters little who has spent time doing what, everybody's opinion here is valid, because one thing is for sure, get n number of
engineers in a room discussing a problem and you will have n number of answers.
John
Welcome to the minority club John!
You only live once - make the most of it!
Radical Clubsport, Kwaker motor
'94 MX5 MK1, 1.8
F10 M5 - 600bhp Daily Hack
Range Rover Sport - Wife's Car
Mercedes A class - Son's Car
|
|
|
martyn_16v
|
| posted on 4/7/08 at 08:45 AM |
|
|
Nobody thinks it's a bad idea, we're just trying to point out that what you seem to want just isn't possible. Agitation is only
appearing because you keep repeating the same point over and over without listening to what people are trying to say, that the F1 engineers are
already doing it to the best of their ability with what they have to work with (the laws of physics, essentially). It would take an entirely new form
of propulsion other than the internal combustion engine to get the kind of gains you and Mad Max are throwing around, which will take the work of
research scientists to come up with the underlying principles before engineers can adopt them to a working vehicle. We're not refusing to
'think outside the box', we're refusing to work in fairy-land.
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 4/7/08 at 09:17 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by martyn_16v
Nobody thinks it's a bad idea, we're just trying to point out that what you seem to want just isn't possible. Agitation is only
appearing because you keep repeating the same point over and over without listening to what people are trying to say, that the F1 engineers are
already doing it to the best of their ability with what they have to work with (the laws of physics, essentially). It would take an entirely new form
of propulsion other than the internal combustion engine to get the kind of gains you and Mad Max are throwing around, which will take the work of
research scientists to come up with the underlying principles before engineers can adopt them to a working vehicle. We're not refusing to
'think outside the box', we're refusing to work in fairy-land.
Well said Martyn. Moseley the nutcase is talking of what he wants to see by 2015 - he's out next year so wish he'd just dissapear into the
background for the next 13 or 14 months!! Seems like he just wants to cause a storm until he goes!!
[Edited on 4/7/08 by Paul TigerB6]
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 4/7/08 at 09:44 AM |
|
|
I am building an Atom like car but with an R1 engine and Air adjustable ride height suspension. How do I not think outside of the box?
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 4/7/08 at 10:38 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by martyn_16v
Nobody thinks it's a bad idea, we're just trying to point out that what you seem to want just isn't possible. Agitation is only
appearing because you keep repeating the same point over and over without listening to what people are trying to say, that the F1 engineers are
already doing it to the best of their ability with what they have to work with (the laws of physics, essentially). It would take an entirely new form
of propulsion other than the internal combustion engine to get the kind of gains you and Mad Max are throwing around, which will take the work of
research scientists to come up with the underlying principles before engineers can adopt them to a working vehicle. We're not refusing to
'think outside the box', we're refusing to work in fairy-land.
Perhaps it would be better if, instead of anybody suggesting that the same performance could be obtained with a dramatic reduction in fuel, that the
suggestion was to bring about a change in emphasis.
At the moment it's all about the most power. Although the engineers are looking for fuel efficiency it's the power which is the most
sought after. If there were to be a change in the rules, let's say for instance that the fuel was restricted to half what is presently used,
then I'm quite sure it would not be long before we were seeing interesting results.
Yes, of course the cars would be slower, but as F1 are always looking for ways to slow down the cars (witness the banning of various aerodymanic aids)
then that could only be a good thing
John
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 4/7/08 at 01:57 PM |
|
|
If you slow the cars down, why bother with racing?
It will save 100% of the fuel!
The arguement to slow the cars down is pointless.
You are gaining one thing but losing another.
What a pointless waste of time.
I can drive my car down the motorway at 56mph to save fuel, but I don't want to, the same as F1 drivers don't want to drive at 120mph.
That is called Formula Ford, not F1...........
I also think that if one F1 team came up with a faster car (and I mean the leap you are talking about) it will be banned.
Look at turbos, pop off valves, active suspension and ground effect cars to name but a few.
F1 does innovate and that does filter down to road cars, but these inovations soon get banned.
[Edited on 4/7/2008 by nitram38]
|
|
|
