Red Bull Racing's technical chief Adrian Newey has admitted to concern that the new lower nose regulations introduced in Formula One may have uninentionally made driver safety worse.
It's amazing how many people don't get this, but I guess they have to clutch at straws when they complain about F1 trying to move forward.WhiteBlue wrote:F1 does not change the formula to save 100,000 L of fuel. That isn't the purpose of the regulation. The purpose is to utilize and promote technologies that are meaningful for manufacturers, useful for the society and to reduce the exposure of F1 to environmental critique.
How moving forward? The V6 Turbo's are something that is already possible for like 50 years. Then KERS doesnt add anything apart from an additional boost, instead of a partial replacement. Increasing the weight limit isnt any moving forward either.King Six wrote:It's amazing how many people don't get this, but I guess they have to clutch at straws when they complain about F1 trying to move forward.WhiteBlue wrote:F1 does not change the formula to save 100,000 L of fuel. That isn't the purpose of the regulation. The purpose is to utilize and promote technologies that are meaningful for manufacturers, useful for the society and to reduce the exposure of F1 to environmental critique.
I think the opposite, just only people like WB are very very active with their ideas (or obsessions I might dare say) and create this wrong impression.King Six wrote:It's amazing how many people don't get this, but I guess they have to clutch at straws when they complain about F1 trying to move forward.WhiteBlue wrote:F1 does not change the formula to save 100,000 L of fuel. That isn't the purpose of the regulation. The purpose is to utilize and promote technologies that are meaningful for manufacturers, useful for the society and to reduce the exposure of F1 to environmental critique.
wesley123 wrote:How moving forward? The V6 Turbo's are something that is already possible for like 50 years.
It is good that you didn't bring it up because it was just the other way round. The FiA asked the manufacturers what they wanted and ran a working group with them for two years. I think you need not worry about future development. It will come when the new formula is established. There will be more scope in the years from 2015-2020 to develope the engines in many areas such as turbo design, variable geometries, competitive injection equipment, more advanced ignition systems and other stuff.wesley123 wrote:It is quite simple, you dont move forward with such a limited development on engines, and then I didnt even bring up the point about the FIA telling the car manufacturers how to make their engines.
Everybody is entitled to his opinion but some are clearly contradicted by the facts of life. The greatest race on earth has been pushing for green and is continuing to do so. It has done no damage whatsoever to the image of Le Mans. Quite contrary. The last decade has produced thrilling racing and it is only to get better. I'm looking forward to watch Audi, Toyota and Porsche fight it out and being joined by more manufacturers in the future.Dragonfly wrote:Motorsport and "green", as someone mentioned already, are mutually exclusive. You either have real sport and real racing, or something which lives on photosynthesis.
When will we see what changes have been made as far as the power unit?2014 F1 Technical Regulations
A new draft with numerous changes was discussed and agreed by the F1 Technical Working Group and Powertrain Working Group.
The requirement for cars to be driven exclusively under electric power in the pit lane has been postponed until 2017.
A number of changes have been made to the power unit regulations with the aim of limiting technology in some areas in order to reduce development costs.
Changes made to bodywork design, originally aimed at reducing downforce and drag for increased efficiency, have reverted to 2012 specification.
The minimum weight limit has been raised to compensate for additional power unit weight.
Most likely we will see a new version of the 2014 technical regulations on the FiA web site before the new year.pgfpro wrote:When will we see what changes have been made as far as the power unit?
Could you clarify the "real green energy" part of your statement.Dragonfly wrote:I think the opposite, just only people like WB are very very active with their ideas (or obsessions I might dare say) and create this wrong impression.King Six wrote:It's amazing how many people don't get this, but I guess they have to clutch at straws when they complain about F1 trying to move forward.WhiteBlue wrote:F1 does not change the formula to save 100,000 L of fuel. That isn't the purpose of the regulation. The purpose is to utilize and promote technologies that are meaningful for manufacturers, useful for the society and to reduce the exposure of F1 to environmental critique.
Leave ships and airplanes aside. When road vehicles start to use real green energy, then it will be the time for motor sport to look for a green image too. The opposite is just a big money spending exercise for false "green" image and all the wrong political reasons. Motorsport and "green", as someone mentioned already, are mutually exclusive. You either have real sport and real racing, or something which lives on photosynthesis.
Here we go again. One word: BS. Or is it two words? Anyway, on one hand they change the philosophy of F1 engines enough to come up with a whole wave of PR and try to create a 'green' image for F1. On the other hand engine specs are pretty much set in stone and written in the regs. Oh and lets also make cars heavier, because that's so green... Look! We're helping the industry to save fuel, we could have done much more of course, but we banned any meaningful development once again, because that would be mean spending money on new technology, which seems to be the only area in F1 where excessive spending is mauvais ton! Incredible architectural structures to be used just once per year for corporate hospitality? - no problem; moving masses of ground and changing whole landscapes, forming artificial islands for brand new F1 tracks? - sure; travelling around the globe (by far the biggest environmental contribution of F1, and it's negative) to visit places with empty grand stands? - of course, it's the pinnacle of motorsport! But allowing meaningful innovation and car development is way off limits. That's why even the proposed budget cap specifically didn't cover PR and hospitality.A number of changes have been made to the power unit regulations with the aim of limiting technology in some areas in order to reduce development costs.
Changes made to bodywork design, originally aimed at reducing downforce and drag for increased efficiency, have reverted to 2012 specification.
Fully agreePandamasque wrote:Here we go again. One word: BS. Or is it two words? Anyway, on one hand they change the philosophy of F1 engines enough to come up with a whole wave of PR and try to create a 'green' image for F1. On the other hand engine specs are pretty much set in stone and written in the regs. Oh and lets also make cars heavier, because that's so green... Look! We're helping the industry to save fuel, we could have done much more of course, but we banned any meaningful development once again, because that would be mean spending money on new technology, which seems to be the only area in F1 where excessive spending is mauvais ton! Incredible architectural structures to be used just once per year for corporate hospitality? - no problem; moving masses of ground and changing whole landscapes, forming artificial islands for brand new F1 tracks? - sure; travelling around the globe (by far the biggest environmental contribution of F1, and it's negative) to visit places with empty grand stands? - of course, it's the pinnacle of motorsport! But allowing meaningful innovation and car development is way off limits. That's why even the proposed budget cap specifically didn't cover PR and hospitality.A number of changes have been made to the power unit regulations with the aim of limiting technology in some areas in order to reduce development costs.
Changes made to bodywork design, originally aimed at reducing downforce and drag for increased efficiency, have reverted to 2012 specification.
Frankly, I don't fully understand the reasons behind this. Maybe, unlike us race fans, they just don't have any illusions about racing improving the breed so to speak, and realize that win on Sunday - sell on Monday is a thing of the past. One other reason is that restricting any innovation to exploiting loopholes in the regulations allows the powers that be to manipulate the competition, so that we have the Best Season Ever™ every year. Teams can get away with more cheating when they are trying to catch up, but the right loopholes can be closed at the right time to diminish the advantage of a team.
Excellent.Pandamasque wrote: One other reason is that restricting any innovation to exploiting loopholes in the regulations allows the powers that be to manipulate the competition, so that we have the Best Season Ever™ every year. Teams can get away with more cheating when they are trying to catch up, but the right loopholes can be closed at the right time to diminish the advantage of a team.
That's probably the most eloquent way of explaining how F1 works, that I've ever seen. Certainly one only had to see 2012 to witness which teams did or did not get away with loopholes - and more importantly, at what stage of the season it was brought to the surface and 'clarified'. All the while clarifications and changes to regs can happen through a season, there will be a dark cloud of 'string pulling' always hanging over the sport. This aspect is the single greatest dislike I have for the sport, followed closely by those &*%#ing Pirelli tyres.Pandamasque wrote: One other reason is that restricting any innovation to exploiting loopholes in the regulations allows the powers that be to manipulate the competition, so that we have the Best Season Ever™ every year. Teams can get away with more cheating when they are trying to catch up, but the right loopholes can be closed at the right time to diminish the advantage of a team.
