rec.autos.simulators

by **John Wallac** » Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:57:02

> So? That was just one example, and there's nothing that says
> Ferrari has to be the one to bring it to market. Technology
> transfers between companies happen all the time, by licensing,
> by buyout, by patents expiring, and so forth.

The point is, the things which drive road-car research and the things
which drive F1 research are, for the most part, diametrically opposed.

Precisely. The FIA are trying to make it less "lucky chance" by prodding
F1 more or less gently in useful directions.

I don't, at least not where it can be avoided.

Point is the money goes on the tunnel - not on more operators.

No, they need to invest in beryllium engines, or pay a Toyota to supply
them a competitive engine, otherwise they get no advertisers and fall
out of the business. That's the way the world works.

by **alex martin** » Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:57:46

>> > And that's cool. I don't mind limited racing, but there should be at
>> > least one unlimited class.

>> Well then, define unlimited!

>> No safety measures? Any dimensions? Jet/rocket engines? Trillion dollar
>> budget per team? Etc, etc, etc............

> Assuming auto racing you've got to define what you mean by 'auto' and
> 'racing'. Presumably four wheels, fits within a standard lane, and
> follows a defined course for a specified number of laps. Beyond that,
> why should you limit it to, say, internal combustion when the next
> great engine might turn out to be a jet? Running jet engines in
> ground-based vehicles is an interesting problem. Turbines are
> efficient, but not well-suited to the varied loads of auto racing.
> I'd like to see someone come up with a turbine powered car that could
> stand up to the rigors of racing. Maybe enough other people would be
> interested in watching it to make it worth a trillion dollars to
> advertisers. Which might fund the research to make it practical in
> ordinary cars.

> But we'll never know.

> jason

> --
> "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
> make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm
> concerned,
> they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking
> things,
> smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

Actually formula one refers to the 'formula' for the types of racing cars
allowed and which expires 2007 - it is why the manufacturers are pressing
for their own series. It will, of course, be a disaster because without
ferrari there is no F1 - or any other series worth noting. Also, marlboro
pay Schumacher's salary, not Ferrari. And having said all this, the racing
has always - with the narrow exception of the 70s - meant domination and it
is NOT about money - FErrari do NOT have the biggest budget in F1, if it was
merely a question of throwing money at the problem, Ferrari would not have
taken 21 years between championships - while there is no chance for a minnow
team winning, there is, also, no guarantee of a team like toyota burying
around 400 million dollars a year chasing a win - and failing.

Formula 1 has always been about technical excellence - if you are not
impressed at normally combustable engines producing close to 1000bhp - at
something approaching 20,000 rpm - for over 1000kms - without braking - then
F1 is not for you. If you're not impressed at watching the greatest drivers
on the planet driving a car that can accelerate to 100 and then brake to 0
in less than four seconds, then F1 is not for you. If you have never seen on
these things in real life, then ... well, it really is a experience. But not
for all - on the other hand, the crisis of F1 has seen its numbers fuel to
300million viewers per race. A crisis I'd like to be in for sure!

by **Jason Steine** » Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:12:58

> > So? That was just one example, and there's nothing that says
> > Ferrari has to be the one to bring it to market. Technology
> > transfers between companies happen all the time, by licensing,
> > by buyout, by patents expiring, and so forth.

> The point is, the things which drive road-car research and the things
> which drive F1 research are, for the most part, diametrically opposed.

In the short term, maybe. In the long term, not necessarily.

Is it working?

So? Wind tunnels are assets. Once you've got the initial investment
to build one, you have a resource that can be used by everyone,
including road car makers.

Designed and built by engineers. You don't pay the engine, you
pay the people who make it.

And its engineers.

Yup. The engineers will get paid. It's a good thing. Money spent
on R&D is rarely without benefits.

jason

--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

by **elrik** » Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:57:42

<snip>

That must be one hell of a long straight. ;o)

Elrikk

by **alex martin** » Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:14:19

> <snip>

>> Formula 1 has always been about technical excellence - if you are not
>> impressed at normally combustable engines producing close to 1000bhp - at
>> something approaching 20,000 rpm - for over 1000kms - without braking -
> then
>> F1 is not for you.

> <snip>

> That must be one hell of a long straight. ;o)

> Elrikk

Thanks mate, I needed that laugh!

- Show quoted text -

by **John Wallac** » Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:02:45

>>And this same thing applies to all in F1 that are paid based on how
>>good they are. Simple solution - pay them all nothing.

> And lose your audience, and lose your investors, and kill the sport.

How so? They'd still do it, therefore there would still be sport, and
therefore still investors.

by **David G Fishe** » Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:44:54

Agree 100%.

>But not

I said the same thing a couple of years ago, and some here attempted to
roast me for it.

--
David G Fisher

by **Byron Forbe** » Fri, 22 Apr 2005 04:07:01

>>>And this same thing applies to all in F1 that are paid based on how good
>>>they are. Simple solution - pay them all nothing.

>> And lose your audience, and lose your investors, and kill the sport.

> How so? They'd still do it, therefore there would still be sport, and
> therefore still investors.

Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc. If you introduce
something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have penalties that include
being thrown out for the season and even multiple seasons for repeat
offenders, then himan resources are preserved and the sport (and the key
word here is indeed SPORT) is better as well.

by **David G Fishe** » Fri, 22 Apr 2005 04:35:53

> >>>And this same thing applies to all in F1 that are paid based on how
good
> >>>they are. Simple solution - pay them all nothing.

> >> And lose your audience, and lose your investors, and kill the sport.

> > How so? They'd still do it, therefore there would still be sport, and
> > therefore still investors.

> Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc. If you introduce
> something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have penalties that include
> being thrown out for the season and even multiple seasons for repeat
> offenders, then himan resources are preserved and the sport (and the key
> word here is indeed SPORT) is better as well.

As I said to Jason the other day, there are some of you guys who really just
want to bring everything back to what it was when you were younger.

--
David G Fisher

by **Byron Forbe** » Fri, 22 Apr 2005 04:49:04

>> Well, we can talk about all the alleged fantastic applications for
>> humanity in general, but are you saying that no matter how many
>> people are employed, and no matter how much money spent, that the
>> returns will always validate the outlays? That's absurd!

> Apparently the investors think that the money is well spent. That
> might not be true, but it's their money, and in their opinion, the
> opportunity cost of advertising with F1 teams is not outweighed
> by other opportunities.

Those in Russia that were exterminated, marking the beginning of
communism thought it was "their" money too.

No arguement there. Let's not forget F1 borrows much from the aircraft
and motor industry as well. The returns from F1 back to these industries
probably amounts to very little, especially these days were innovation is
basically stamped out by the rules which virtually dictates the design of
every car.

So there are no charismatic people unless they get paid a lot of
money? - rubbish. My fondest memories of rugby league here in Australia go
back to it's amateur days and those players were much more rich in character
since they weren't suffocated by the demands and conservativisms of all the
sponsors. Professional sportsmen are a bunch of prototypical drones who are
pathetically conservative in what they say - very boring.

It would be possible to have an F1 series with voluteering engineers and
drivers with all funds put into the materials and machinery etc.

But just a budget cap put on the entire team is most practical.

This idea that charisma is dependent upon money is amusing.

This notion that winning is not related to budget is absurd.

Ferrari's fortunes are due to poaching all the talented engineers
developed in a host of other teams with *** amounts of money - end of
story.

I think you said this b4 somewhere - wtf does it mean?

by **John Wallac** » Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:16:24

>>The point is, the things which drive road-car research and the things
>>which drive F1 research are, for the most part, diametrically opposed.

> In the short term, maybe. In the long term, not necessarily.

Not necessarily, but they are at present and have been in the short and
medium term past. Without outside direction (i.e. rule manipulation)
they are highly likely to remain so.

Hmmmmm.....

Trouble is, road car research tries to automate as much as possible to
stop us idiots driving into each other (ABS, CVT, TSC, ESP, TLA etc),
whereas these are the work of the devil as far as racing is concerned.
Racing is "money no object", road cars are fundamentally TS16949 "value
chain efficieny" driven.

In theory, sure, but in practice every F1 team runs their wind tunnel
365/24/7 in search of every molecule of advantage.

In the case of beryllium, that will be miners. You don't "make it", you
dig it up and pay a fortune for it.

No, that's HALF the amount of engineers from your original point. The
purchase team don't need to design an engine because they buy one. If
ten team design engines you have ten lots of engineers - if all buy from
one team, that's one tenth the number of engineers.

Counting the same thing twice is something only our government get away
with :-)

by **John Wallac** » Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:21:23

>> Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc. If you introduce
>>something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have penalties that include
>>being thrown out for the season and even multiple seasons for repeat
>>offenders, then himan resources are preserved and the sport (and the key
>>word here is indeed SPORT) is better as well.

> As I said to Jason the other day, there are some of you guys who really just
> want to bring everything back to what it was when you were younger.

The NFL now differs to what it was like when people were younger - point
is it's better also.

I suppose your statement is intentionally provocative, since as a
rebuttal it's a non-event. There is no correlation that older=worse /
newer=better, or vice-versa. I can't see any evidence of people choosing
on that basis either.

On the other hand some people are saying "situation A (of which I have
experience) was good, and situation B (of which I also have experience)
is not. If someone has experience of only one of those, they can surely
recognise they have less knowledge from which to draw a conclusion.

That's not to say either is right or wrong, but it's a point of which to
be aware.

by **elrik** » Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:27:21

I can't speak for any of the others but I, for one, would be content if
merely I were to become what I was when I was younger.

Everything else could then stay just as it is. ;o)

Elrikk

by **Jason Steine** » Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:27:46

> > > Precisely. The FIA are trying to make it less "lucky chance" by
> > > prodding F1 more or less gently in useful directions.

> > Is it working?

> Hmmmmm.....

> Trouble is, road car research tries to automate as much as possible
> to stop us idiots driving into each other (ABS, CVT, TSC, ESP, TLA
> etc), whereas these are the work of the devil as far as racing is
> concerned.

Then there's no need to make them against the rules. If they're
really detrimental to performance, teams will avoid them or lose.
If they aren't, then we've learned something.

Yet race technology still comes to road cars.

Even if they do, they're increasing the overall demand for wind
tunnels, which leads to economies of scale, and lower costs for road
car companies.

Cool. Miners and metallurgists need to eat too. And once we have that
demand for beryllium and knowledge of how to work it, there's no
telling what'll be made out of that next. Titanium used to just be
for aerospace. Now I've got titanium holding my right arm together,
and a titanium watch on my left wrist.

Or the same number of engineers doing that much more R&D.

Or maybe 1/10th the number of engineers, but the price of each
engine is dropped, allowing teams to spend more money on engineers
to refine other parts of their cars that will provide a greater
return on investment.

Either way, efficiency is good.

jason

--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

by **Jason Steine** » Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:04:23

> Yes, Jason's obviously never heard of the NFL, etc.

> If you introduce something like a $100Mil budget to teams and have
> penalties that include being thrown out for the season and even
> multiple seasons for repeat offenders, then himan resources are
> preserved and the sport (and the key word here is indeed SPORT) is
> better as well.

If by "sport" you mean "pointless diversion".

If I want to see artificially created drama, I'll go watch an opera.

jason

--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story

rec.autos.simulators

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005

OT: Formula One 2005