2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

[bhall]

To be a second slower than the best GP2 time, but also capable of running much longer on much less fuel.

At £1.295/L (current average cost in the UK), Caterham would need to save 48,803,088L of fuel to break even.

That doesn't look too promising.

EDIT: I recognize that none of these figures really mean anything at all. But, I do think it's helpful sometimes to at least try to visualize the more practical aspects of things. It seems those involved with F1 don't do it too often.

[johnsonwax]

Thermal efficiency of a good modern auto engine has climbed to about 30% from closer to 25% a decade or two ago. The F1 engines are north of 40%, or about ⅓ more efficient. The US alone uses 140 billion gallons of gasoline annually. Cut that by ⅓ and you cut about 2B barrels of oil needed annually, or about what we import from Iraq+Saudi Arabia+Russia.

That looks awfully promising to me.

[strad]

but also capable of running much longer on much less fuel.

Couldn't care less. Don't try to say F1 is green..it just don't fly.
F1 ain't about mileage...hell racin ain't about mileage.

[alemos24]

In 2015 as we know it will be possible to change 95% of power units parts. So , do you think that the teams could gain more horsepower?

[bhall]

[...]

That looks awfully promising to me.

And if even one of the components that allows for F1's newfound efficiency was born from F1 innovation instead of other commercial development, I'd be one of the most vocal proponents of this new formula.

[GitanesBlondes]

What makes you think that a particular control mechanism is associated with driving ability?

Because it is Bob.

Talk to any of the guys who drove before the advent of the semi-automatic gearbox in F1, and they will tell you being able to do it well was a driving skill. Try heel-toe-downshifting, rev matching, and so on when driving on the limit. It's an extremely difficult thing to get right...it was an often an underappreciated skill set that was never remarked on enough. Drive any of the grand prix cars that say Fangio won grands prix with, and you'll see that it separated the men from the boys quite easily.

The fact that the drivers are not performing those skills does not mean that the drivers are not performing any skills at all. By contrast, the heal and toe/double de-clutching/manual shifting drivers were not adjusting all kinds of power unit/braking/... parameters continuously. Again - we're not talking about "more skill" we're simply talking about different controls.

The driver has limited time and ability, and the team will always get them doing the maximum amount they can to make the car faster with that time. If you make something easier, the team will always find an extra thing that they can be doing with the time they now have spare.

I never said they were not performing any skills at all as you are trying to imply.

I think what you're trying to get at is how engaged the drivers are in the car. Sure they are engaged in the car, but it's an altogether different sort of engagement they partake in...some of which is partially dictated by the pitwall.

My point simply was, that operating a full manual gearbox was a driver skill for decades in grand prix racing, and if F1 is supposed to be the supreme driver test, they should still be running them.

[beelsebob]

I never said they were not performing any skills at all as you are trying to imply.

I think what you're trying to get at is how engaged the drivers are in the car. Sure they are engaged in the car, but it's an altogether different sort of engagement they partake in...some of which is partially dictated by the pitwall.

My point simply was, that operating a full manual gearbox was a driver skill for decades in grand prix racing, and if F1 is supposed to be the supreme driver test, they should still be running them.

Riding a unicycle is also a skill test, does that mean F1 should involve the drivers having to get to their cars on unicycles?

Perhaps they should have to cook a meal once they're done - that too is a skill.

The point is, "xyz requires skill" is not a reason for xyz to be part of the sport. Sure, manual gearboxes require skill to operate - doesn't mean they have to be part of F1. Similarly, massively complex power units with huge numbers of settings require skill to operate, and that doesn't mean they have to be part of F1 either, but they are just now, and that's where some of the driver skill test comes from.

The idea that something is not a test of the driver's skill simply because it doesn't involve a manual gearbox is ridiculous.

[GitanesBlondes]

The point is, "xyz requires skill" is not a reason for xyz to be part of the sport.

You said this before...

I disagree that it needs to be fastest. The cars this year require far far more skill to drive than the 2010 cars exactly because they're not as fast. Removing downforce means the drivers have to earn their living again.

Anyway.

Similarly, massively complex power units with huge numbers of settings require skill to operate, and that doesn't mean they have to be part of F1 either, but they are just now, and that's where some of the driver skill test comes from.

You're making a rather large mistake with that statement. You are confusing skill with knowledge. It requires knowledge to change any setting with the power unit. The only skill involved, is the act of physically rotating a dial. There's not much else in the way of skill there Bob.

[beelsebob]

You're making a rather large mistake with that statement. You are confusing skill with knowledge. It requires knowledge to change any setting with the power unit. The only skill involved, is the act of physically rotating a dial. There's not much else in the way of skill there Bob.

You can say the exact same thing about moving a lever in an H shaped slot, but it would be equally false. Both require you to time things exactly right, and to get exactly the right settings to make the car work in the optimal way.

[GitanesBlondes]

You're making a rather large mistake with that statement. You are confusing skill with knowledge. It requires knowledge to change any setting with the power unit. The only skill involved, is the act of physically rotating a dial. There's not much else in the way of skill there Bob.

You can say the exact same thing about moving a lever in an H shaped slot, but it would be equally false. Both require you to time things exactly right, and to get exactly the right settings to make the car work in the optimal way.

Wrong Bob.

There are other aspects on the physical side of shifting an H-pattern gearbox beyond just moving the lever. I know you love to try and play contrarian about a great many things here, but stop.

[johnsonwax]

The great benefit of the manual gearbox is that it allowed passing to happen. There was enough variation from driver to driver that even the best drivers were going to miss a shift here and there and a strong following car could jump on that. Now we need KERS and DRS and things like that to substitute.

The downside to the manual gearbox was that you were going to have a lot more retirements and cars in the wall. Yes, there was more skill, but there was also a lot more random chance and danger.

Maybe we should revisit the idea of installing sprinklers at each circuit. It's stupid, but who doesn't like wet races?

[beelsebob]

You're making a rather large mistake with that statement. You are confusing skill with knowledge. It requires knowledge to change any setting with the power unit. The only skill involved, is the act of physically rotating a dial. There's not much else in the way of skill there Bob.

You can say the exact same thing about moving a lever in an H shaped slot, but it would be equally false. Both require you to time things exactly right, and to get exactly the right settings to make the car work in the optimal way.

Wrong Bob.

There are other aspects on the physical side of shifting an H-pattern gearbox beyond just moving the lever. I know you love to try and play contrarian about a great many things here, but stop.

Okay, fair enough, because I disagree with you, I'm wrong.

[GitanesBlondes]

You disagree with me, because you are wrong when it comes to understanding the subtleties that distinguish knowledge and skill from one another. The mistake you're making here Bob, is that you think this is a subjective debate. It's not, and will not ever be no matter how much you wish it to be.

[beelsebob]

You disagree with me, because you are wrong when it comes to understanding the subtleties that distinguish knowledge and skill from one another. The mistake you're making here Bob, is that you think this is a subjective debate. It's not, and will not ever be no matter how much you wish it to be.

You're right - it's an objective debate - which is why you should be providing more argument than "you're wrong".

[Cam]

You're making a rather large mistake with that statement. You are confusing skill with knowledge. It requires knowledge to change any setting with the power unit. The only skill involved, is the act of physically rotating a dial. There's not much else in the way of skill there Bob.

You can say the exact same thing about moving a lever in an H shaped slot, but it would be equally false. Both require you to time things exactly right, and to get exactly the right settings to make the car work in the optimal way.

You can "know" how to change a gear and turn a knob, but having the "skill" to do it spot on, on demand, when you consider it best, time after time, is a specific asset that can set drivers apart. Also, being able to accurately change a dial while under stress is a huge skill. Just ask any playstation hero to find the right button in the middle of a hectic scene - pros can effortlessly, beginners fail much more at the same task.

In your theory, astronaughts have no skill, they just push buttons.