rec.autos.simulators

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

Matthew Knutse

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by Matthew Knutse » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00


> On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:55:13 +0100, Matthew Knutsen

> >ABS was not something "discovered" in F1. Neither was traction
> >control.Tell me exactly what family sedan aerodynamics have to do
> with
> >F1 aerodynamics?

> Aerodynamics are still very much an unknown science, and being
> furthered by the motorsports and aviation industries - particularly
> F1. As for those inventions, they may not have been invented in F1 but

> they were certainly developed - especially traction control. Then
> there is electronic engine management (a legacy of the thirsty turbo
> days), Honda's VTEC engine, active ride, semi-automatic 'boxes, paddle

> shift, to say nothing of advances in safety and tyre technology.

Engine managemet has been helped by F1 - yes. Active ride was used by
Citroen ages ago, and, oh dear,by a certain Sir Alec Issigonis!!:))
Porsche had the PDK gearbox system out many years before sequential
gearshift was used in F1
(in the 962 Group C car), "paddle shift", well, I believe the studebaker
had a push-button system<g>.
Safety, well, naah. Carbonfibre is still to expensive for the family
saloons. And it doesn't rust....
Since Goodyear has had a  monopoly the last few years (until now,
Brstone gets it..), I would say
it's , more a case of motor racing in general. A formula 1 tire has
nothing to do with standard tyres.
Radial tyres was a nice idea, but Michelin, Firestone, Bridgestone,
Nokia and other brands have
participated in other forms of motorsport of more relevance.

Actually, there's more thruth to it than the sound of it....modern day
F1s are no match for other racecars in bumpy, slow, twitchy sections
because they
have virtually no suspension movement, and rely pretty much on their
aerodynamics.
Just look at how poorly they react to bumps and hairpins..
I have a poster in the workshop where a magazine arranged a Duel between
, i think, the 1993 Williams and
a Rallycross Metro with a twin-turbo 6R4 engine. Naturally, the metro
was blown away above 100 MPH,
but did'nt do too bad before that!
If they let a proper set-up rally car out at Monaco, I think we would be
surprised.
After all, Super Tourers aren't that far away from Formula 3 times....

Matt
--

Matthew Birger Knutsen
Cheek Racing Cars (http://www.racesimcentral.net/~kareknut)

"Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw"
       -Cale Yarborough

John Walla

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by John Walla » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00


>It has to be said that The Group B rally cars of the time had more
>horsepower than the backmarkers in F1 running customer Ford V8 engines,
>I think the Delta S4 produced some 650-700 HP at sprint events, maybe
>even more.

Power is only one small aspect of an F1 car's performance, and the
mechanical and aerodynamic grip combined with the very low cg have a
far greater effect. Perhaps in a straight line such a rally car could
acquit itself well (although with the difference in weight and
aerodynamics I doubt it), but around the twists and high speed turns
of Silverstone? I very much doubt it. The ground effect / active ride
/ venturis / <whatever> would more than offset any perceived power
difference.

IMHO of course! :-)

Cheers!
John

John Walla

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by John Walla » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:30:49 +0100, Matthew Knutsen


>Active ride was used by
>Citroen ages ago, and, oh dear,by a certain Sir Alec Issigonis!!:))

I think Lotus' and Williams' systems were slightly more advanced....!!

It is only now that it has been brought to road cars in the form of
the Ferrari F355-F1, BMW M3 etc, although Porsche's tiptronic has been
around for a while - again F1 has an effect though.

I meant in terms of crash testing and understanding the collision
dynamics and kinetics involved, carbon fibre is many years off I
guess.

I know for a fact that this is not true. Racing in general is the
focus which pushes forward the technology of companies like
Bridgestone and Goodyear, and advertising is only one part of the
reason why they are there - the technical feedback and development is
hugely enhanced.

It states "around Silverstone" - not very twitchy or bumpy! If an F1
car was required to run on a track more bumpy you raise the ride
height, soften the car up etc etc - the power to weight ratio alone
would see off any rally car, never mind the huge difference in grip.

I seriously doubt it. The cg of a rally car is way too high for the
precise twists required at Monaco. Perhaps on a "point and squirt"
track like Argentina a rally car could do some good, but still waaaaay
short of F1 or Indy levels.

Cheers!
John

Goy Larse

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by Goy Larse » Thu, 19 Mar 1998 04:00:00


> Power is only one small aspect of an F1 car's performance, and the
> mechanical and aerodynamic grip combined with the very low cg have a
> far greater effect. Perhaps in a straight line such a rally car could
> acquit itself well (although with the difference in weight and
> aerodynamics I doubt it), but around the twists and high speed turns
> of Silverstone? I very much doubt it. The ground effect / active ride
> / venturis / <whatever> would more than offset any perceived power
> difference.

> IMHO of course! :-)

Well John, I wasn't really going to get into the tech details of the
GroupB rally cars, that's why I only mentioned the power.

The cars also had kevlar (?) bodies, high tech computer controlled
differentials (all 3 of them) , fairly advanced suspension, aerodynamics
(not F1 standards, but still :-) and no limitations when it came to
tires, all this made for a pretty quick tarmac car when properly set up.

The backmarkers in F1 at the time did not have active ride, and due to
F1`s obsession with aerodynamics, they do not have the mechanical grip
they could have had (interview with Patrick Head in CAR magazine some
time back, and I guess it was no better back then), meaning that in slow
corners they don`t have "that" much grip.

No, I`m not saying that the Delta S4 would outrun a McLaren of the era
with Senna or Prost behind the wheel, THAT would have been stupid :-),
only that it (supposedly) had lapped some F1 circuit (Silverstone ? I
don`t remember, but I always thought it was Estoril) fast enough to
qualify in the back, and I don`t think it is that unbelievable, and yes
I remeber the McLaren vs Porsche911 vs Peugot306 test that was done at
Silverstone a few years back, pretty impressive if you ask me

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
Unclegoy on TEN

Michael E. Carve

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by Michael E. Carve » Thu, 19 Mar 1998 04:00:00



% >Your memory is correct, Mansell didn't fit the original MP4/10 monocoque
% >so was replaced for the first two races by Mark Blundell

% Actually his memory isn't all that correct :-) Mansell returned for
% two (three?) races with Williams after his Indycar career finished
% (Suzuka, Adelaide and perhaps Estoril?). He moved to McLaren only
% after he couldn't get a Williams drive.

% >Bottom line is Mansell has a somewhat overinflated opinion of himself.
% >His failure to recognise that he was gifted the F1 WC by Williams thanks
% >to team orders only underlines that.

% Yeah, his 22 GP wins prior to that were obviously just flukes....?
% Mansell does have an overinflated opinion of himself, but he is a lot
% more talented than you appear to be giving him credit for. Where were
% Williams in 1990 when he joined them? Occasional race winners, but
% nothing more than that. In the very next season Mansell pulled them
% together and almost won the championship - the season after that he
% did (only to have his second championship gifted to a certain French
% magpie...). Of modern times I'd place Mansell behind only Senna,
% Schumacher and Prost in terms of ability, and F1 is much poorer for
% the absence of real characters like him. Like him or loathe him, there
% was always something controversial happening to him!

In actuality, I think the numerous concussions he received in CART
accidents may have affected his mental capabilities and led him to
believe that golf was more competitive than F1.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Steve Mose

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by Steve Mose » Thu, 19 Mar 1998 04:00:00


> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:30:49 +0100, Matthew Knutsen

> >Active ride was used by
> >Citroen ages ago, and, oh dear,by a certain Sir Alec Issigonis!!:))

> I think Lotus' and Williams' systems were slightly more advanced....!!

Actually neither of these systems was by any defenition Active, they
were innovative & very clever but purely reactive, Citroen only started
using active ride on Desert raid cars after Lotus had used it in GPs,
and only on road cars a couple of years ago.
Oh and please tell what Sir Alec Issigonis did that was active.

The original PDK system used torque converters, a smaller version of the
system that's been used on busses and lorries for even longer. And some
Mercedes trucks have had a proper sequential system for 5 or 6 years
now.

Absolutely, road tyres have benefitted from ALL forms of motorsport.
Tyre companies would have to be stupid not  to capitalise on
developments made in motorsport.

Hmm MAYBE, but F1 cars are not designed for Monaco, and given a choice I
think most F1 teams would prefer not to race there, so this is
irrelavent.

When it comes down to it, all major F1 teams sell technology to road car
manufacturers, as I expect do teams in other formulae. Road car ability
and safety has benefitted from ALL motorsport in ways most car owners
probably don't even know about.

Steve

Matthew Knutse

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by Matthew Knutse » Fri, 20 Mar 1998 04:00:00


> Oh and please tell what Sir Alec Issigonis did that was active.

There were two smileys at the end of that line.....I think some people
took my post a bit too seriously...I was referring to the hydrolastic
system!:) Oh, and wasn't it a system...BTW, there were'nt too many
monocoques around at that time, and not too many road cars with a
transversely mounted engine and gearbox up front. And the Mini was
designed for Mom to go shopping with. Alec did not want it to be raced.
And look what that car did for modern day road cars!

Yeah, I know. First time I saw, or heard, the PDK ws at the Norisring,
Germany, in1988 I think, on a 956/962. Boy, was that weird at the time,
a racecar sounding like it was an automatic!

Like I said, motorracing in general....

Silly discussion anyway....

I always agreed to this...The point which I probably made a bit unclear,
is that I think the more recent developmentsin F1 are not spilling over
to road cars like they used to. I would hardly call a Ferrari F50 a road
car!
And, if we look at our everyday Fords, Opels, Audis etc the trend is a
front-mounted engine, with front wheel drive.

Matt

--

Matthew Birger Knutsen
Cheek Racing Cars (http://home.sn.no/~kareknut)

"Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw"
       -Cale Yarborough

Piers C. Structure

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by Piers C. Structure » Fri, 20 Mar 1998 04:00:00






> > > We need no more evidence of this than Damon Hill's adventures.  A
> > > champion in Williams, a backmarker in Arrows, and a midpacker in a
> > > Jordan.

> > Oh come on. Hill very nearly won at Hungary last year, the fact that he
> > bought the car home 2nd, let alone led for much of the race is a
> > testemant to his driving skill. As for Jordan, shouldn't we wait and
> > see?

> But we can't forget that he was out-qualified on several occasions by
> his team-mate, Pedro Diniz, who was thought of as a lowly pay-driver who
> only got the ride due to close ties with sponsors=money. Damon is quick,
> but his motivation is questionable sometimes.

To be fair, I think you hit the nail on the head wrt motivation.

--
Suck The Goat

Piers C. Structure

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by Piers C. Structure » Fri, 20 Mar 1998 04:00:00


> In actuality, I think the numerous concussions he received in CART
> accidents may have affected his mental capabilities and led him to
> believe that golf was more competitive than F1.

<s***>

--
Suck The Goat

Antoine Renau

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by Antoine Renau » Fri, 20 Mar 1998 04:00:00

Amen brother!

A. Renault


>     Surprisingly enough, I think F1 and NASCAR have more
>in common than you might think.
>      Mostly, I think they are both races of "subtlety".
>     The die-hard fan of each of these leagues enjoys them
>because they have spent enough time watching them to see that
>there is more there than a casual observation would indicate.
>     There's plenty of exitement, stategy, skill and plain old
>racin' goin' on in both.    You just have learn what the subtleties
>are.

>     Now, saying that one has more skill or is more difficult
>than the other is completely inane.   Apples and oranges, man.

>Gritz (long time reader, first time poster)

>     "If stupidity got us into this mess,
>      why can't it get us out"?
>                                             Roy Rogers

Nathan Wo

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by Nathan Wo » Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:00:00

On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:21:49 +0100, Matthew Knutsen


>I always agreed to this...The point which I probably made a bit unclear,
>is that I think the more recent developmentsin F1 are not spilling over
>to road cars like they used to. I would hardly call a Ferrari F50 a road
>car!
>And, if we look at our everyday Fords, Opels, Audis etc the trend is a
>front-mounted engine, with front wheel drive.

Not if you live in America or Australia where the front engine REAR
wheel drive is pre*** (in Australia), and going to be re-launched
in new Caddilacs etc (America)

A Ferrari F355 F1 has a transmission directly related to the one in
the Ferrari F1 cars btw, and its much more obtainale than an F50.

F1 developments dont come straight away. Semi-auto gearboxes...carbon
fibre panels/casings etc all took a long time to reach the road. Maybe
in 10 years we will see the benefits of current GP racing.
Especially with the switch back to aluminium brake calipers!

--
Nathan Wong          http://www.racesimcentral.net/~alfacors
                       - Super Touring - Alfa Romeo -

                            - V8Supercars - CART -

Matthew Knutse

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by Matthew Knutse » Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:00:00


> On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:21:49 +0100, Matthew Knutsen

> >I always agreed to this...The point which I probably made a bit
> unclear,
> >is that I think the more recent developmentsin F1 are not spilling
> over
> >to road cars like they used to. I would hardly call a Ferrari F50 a
> road
> >car!
> >And, if we look at our everyday Fords, Opels, Audis etc the trend is
> a
> >front-mounted engine, with front wheel drive.

> Not if you live in America or Australia where the front engine REAR
> wheel drive is pre*** (in Australia), and going to be re-launched

> in new Caddilacs etc (America)

Well..you are following suit I'd say (Not Neccessarily A Good Thing,
Though) with road cars. Rear wh. drive is becoming obsolete. Look at the
Chrysler Stratus, Neon, the smaller Chevrolets;  Most Opels (Holdens)
are becoming front wh drive as well, Astra, Vectra etc....not to mention
all the Asian cars. Even all Volvos are Front wheel drive now!

Well, obtainable...hmmm. I wish it was..

Aluminium what? Remember, aluminium and road cars are not always a happy
marriage. Alu brake calippers would last half a season up here in
scandinavia:))

> --
> Nathan Wong          http://www.racesimcentral.net/~alfacors
>                        - Super Touring - Alfa Romeo -

>                             - V8Supercars - CART -

Looks like you've got your racing priorities right! We've got NARSCAR
here in Norway, the closest we get to your V8s:))

Best,
Matt
--

Matthew Birger Knutsen
Cheek Racing Cars (http://www.racesimcentral.net/~kareknut)

"Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw"
       -Cale Yarborough

John Walla

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by John Walla » Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:00:00


>Though the Ferrari's gearbox differs greatly from Porsche's Tiptronic,
>Chrysler's Autostick, BMW's, etc.  Ferrari has an automatically shifted manual
>box, whereas the others are automatics that can be shifted manually.  As far
>as I know, the F355-F1 is the first road car with an F1-style box.

Are you sure? I was under the impression that the M3's version was a
semi-auto shifted manual 'box as well, although I'm not 100% sure. I
haven't had the chance to try it yet, but people who have tell me it's
a bit lazy on the upshift, fine for someone who wants more control of
an auto 'box but not really for those who want a more convenient
manual 'box.

Cheers!
John

Nathan Wo

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

by Nathan Wo » Mon, 23 Mar 1998 04:00:00

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:21:53 +0100, Matthew Knutsen


>Well..you are following suit I'd say (Not Neccessarily A Good Thing,
>Though) with road cars. Rear wh. drive is becoming obsolete. Look at the
>Chrysler Stratus, Neon, the smaller Chevrolets;  Most Opels (Holdens)
>are becoming front wh drive as well, Astra, Vectra etc....not to mention
>all the Asian cars. Even all Volvos are Front wheel drive now!

For America and Australia, and some parts of the MIddle East, RWD is
booming. GM wants to introduce more RWD cars into its range (Through
Buick and Cadillac I think) based upon the AUSTRALIAN Commodore
platform. The Commodore is alreayd being produce in LHD for the Middle
Eastern markets.
Try Telling BMW and Mercedes Benz that people want a front wheel drive
750 or 600SEL!

--
Nathan Wong          http://www.nectar.com.au/~alfacors
                       - Super Touring - Alfa Romeo -

                            - V8Supercars - CART -


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.