To me it is like a machanical swiss watch. Traditionally desireable elements of the car as a machine refined to perfection.
To me it is like a machanical swiss watch. Traditionally desireable elements of the car as a machine refined to perfection.
That might be a good anthology. The internals sourced from outside, once a master of engineering but now obsolete with the introduction of much more precise and efficient quartz and digital.PlatinumZealot wrote: โ14 Aug 2020, 15:43To me it is like a machanical swiss watch. Traditionally desireable elements of the car as a machine refined to perfection.
Apple watch is for pansies! I have smart phone already.Jolle wrote: โ14 Aug 2020, 15:51That might be a good anthology. The internals sourced from outside, once a master of engineering but now obsolete with the introduction of much more precise and efficient quartz and digital.PlatinumZealot wrote: โ14 Aug 2020, 15:43To me it is like a machanical swiss watch. Traditionally desireable elements of the car as a machine refined to perfection.
Although I do appreciate the effort going into a nice automatic, I stick with my Apple Watch.
It works well but itโs still a myth that NA is better in light cars.PlatinumZealot wrote: โ14 Aug 2020, 15:52Natrually aspirated works well in light weight cars.
McLaren P1 and its derivatives have to use all sort of electronic maps to make the cars even fun to drive. Driver's throttle input to the engine is not even real.
This T. 50 is for purists. Those who want the thinnest of membranes between them and the track.
There are plenty of other mechanical things to collect like typewriters, electromechnical (pre-transistor) calculators etc. Regardless I think electrical stuff is perfectly interesting -- don't you think traditional orthicon tube video cameras are fascinating? A CRT in reverse -- amazing!
Just because you are a mechanical geek, does that really mean you demand your car to have a nice mechanical carburettor instead of electronic fuel injection!? Does it really matter that much if there are some transistorised integrated circuit chips here and there working their magic?PlatinumZealot wrote: โ14 Aug 2020, 15:43To me it is like a machanical swiss watch. Traditionally desireable elements of the car as a machine refined to perfection.
So now FIA rules dictates what is up to date or not? I know FIA allowed the use of the fan car for the rest of the season but Brabham, for whatever reason, decided to not race it again, but if it would have been declared legal it would be the norm nowadays
Does it comply with the 2018 EU WLTP manufacturer average emissions limit of 95 g CO2/km, reducing to 68 g CO2/km by 2032??
The Chaparral 2J in 1970 beat the Brabham fan car to the punch by 8 years.Andres125sx wrote: โ15 Aug 2020, 12:54So now FIA rules dictates what is up to date or not? I know FIA allowed the use of the fan car for the rest of the season but Brabham, for whatever reason, decided to not race it again, but if it would have been declared legal it would be the norm nowadays
Fan cars were the biggest discover in F1 history. No other idea improved cars perfomance a quarter of what fans did. They did qualify with full tanks and even so started from first row. What other new idea could get remotedly close to this? None. Not even active cars/suspensions.
It would have erradicated dirty air problem too
GM t50 fan is very different btw, as Murray explains in the video it makes very different functions, itยดs the XXI century version of a fan car. How can that be outdated?
We don't know how many child slaves mined the rare earth metals that make that big ole battery. And not to mention how many blue whales will die when the battery land fill leeches into the ocean.JordanMugen wrote: โ15 Aug 2020, 16:50Does it comply with the 2018 EU WLTP manufacturer average emissions limit of 95 g CO2/km, reducing to 68 g CO2/km by 2032??
Given a 900cc 2-cylinder FIAT 500 already produces 90 g CO2/km I suspect the T.50 does not comply with this modern day regulation, and GMA is using the low volume loophole for manufacturers making less than 10,000 vehicles per annum...
Likewise WLTP requires vehicles to meet driveby noise limits in their loudest modes -- so no more obnoxious factory sports exhausts after 2018. Yet again however, I believe manufacturers under 10,000 units per annum are exempt and are allowed to fit old-fashioned obnoxiously loud factory sports exhausts!
By definition, this makes the T.50 outdated, doesn't it, as it does NOT comply with the basic regulations of the present day? GMA is just using the exemption for niche manufacturers on emissions and noise?
Manufacturers like Honda and BMW that do need to comply with the average fleet emissions, choose to make their supercars like NSX and i8 as hybrids, there must be a reason for that? It is certainly a more socially acceptable 'look' than the vehicles being non-hybrid -- the NSX and i8 are socially responsible by having that electric-only quiet mode for pootling around town without disturbing alfresco diners, none of that obnoxious supercars of Monaco business . Then beyond that there are manufacturers like NIO who choose to make their supercars as electric, which makes them easily compliant with the emissions regulations.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar ... -ep9_0.jpg
The high emissions output, given the modern day regulatory drive to continually reduce vehicle emissions, surely has to be a criticism of the T.50 and GMA's (lack of) range of vehicles, compared to similar but zero emission supercar vehicles from manufacturers like NIO?
I think youยดre confusing terms here. When a manufacturer fitยดs the exemption of a rule, itยดs complying the rule as itยดs not breaking it. When someone with asthma does not wear a mask, heยดs not breaking any rule as people with respiratory problems are not forced to use it. This is the same, GMA is not forced to comply that rule, ergo itยดs complying, ergo itยดs not outdated because of this, as itยดs not forced to comply.JordanMugen wrote: โ15 Aug 2020, 16:50Does it comply with the 2018 EU WLTP manufacturer average emissions limit of 95 g CO2/km, reducing to 68 g CO2/km by 2032??
Given a 900cc 2-cylinder FIAT 500 already produces 90 g CO2/km I suspect the T.50 does not comply with this modern day regulation, and GMA is using the low volume loophole for manufacturers making less than 10,000 vehicles per annum...
Likewise WLTP requires vehicles to meet driveby noise limits in their loudest modes -- so no more obnoxious factory sports exhausts after 2018. Yet again however, I believe manufacturers under 10,000 units per annum are exempt and are allowed to fit old-fashioned obnoxiously loud factory sports exhausts!
By definition, this makes the T.50 outdated, doesn't it, as it does NOT comply with the basic regulations of the present day? GMA is just using the exemption for niche manufacturers on emissions and noise?
Manufacturers like Honda and BMW that do need to comply with the average fleet emissions, choose to make their supercars like NSX and i8 as hybrids, there must be a reason for that? It is certainly a more socially acceptable 'look' than the vehicles being non-hybrid -- the NSX and i8 are socially responsible by having that electric-only quiet mode for pootling around town without disturbing alfresco diners, none of that obnoxious supercars of Monaco business . Then beyond that there are manufacturers like NIO who choose to make their supercars as electric, which makes them easily compliant with the emissions regulations.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar ... -ep9_0.jpg
The high emissions output, given the modern day regulatory drive to continually reduce vehicle emissions, surely has to be a criticism of the T.50 and GMA's (lack of) range of vehicles, compared to similar but zero emission supercar vehicles from manufacturers like NIO?
Both the thread and my post are about F1 and the Chaparral 2J never was a F1 car, this is not about who lead vehicle evolution or whoยดs the pinnacle of motorsports, this is about GMA T50 and F1 so your post should probably be in a different thread if we donยดt want to derail it into another "is F1 the pinnacle of motorsports or not". Plenty of threads discussing that, this is differentHoffman900 wrote: โ15 Aug 2020, 19:01The Chaparral 2J in 1970 beat the Brabham fan car to the punch by 8 years.Andres125sx wrote: โ15 Aug 2020, 12:54So now FIA rules dictates what is up to date or not? I know FIA allowed the use of the fan car for the rest of the season but Brabham, for whatever reason, decided to not race it again, but if it would have been declared legal it would be the norm nowadays
Fan cars were the biggest discover in F1 history. No other idea improved cars perfomance a quarter of what fans did. They did qualify with full tanks and even so started from first row. What other new idea could get remotedly close to this? None. Not even active cars/suspensions.
It would have erradicated dirty air problem too
GM t50 fan is very different btw, as Murray explains in the video it makes very different functions, itยดs the XXI century version of a fan car. How can that be outdated?
As much as F1 thinks itโs the pinnacle of vehicle evolution, the prototype sports car stuff has almost always lead the charge... Can Am, IMSA GTP, etc.