Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 197 posts

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#11

Post by fredwilkins »

maigret wrote: post #3
deletes wrote: post #2

But do they have to limit fuel. Does the advantage of the turbo outweigh more pitstops? I'm afraid races might get boring when drivers will have to conserve their fuel or just lose the race.

It's already the case. You cannot refuel (I think for safety reasons, but not sure), so to get a weight advantage you have to take as little fuel as possible at the beginning of the race. So I don't expect changes. And yes, it happened to some, like Hamilton, to have to drive slower to save fuel. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/21917717

In race refueling has been banned since 2010. Their concern was with the increasing number of fuel related pit row accidents. But on the flip side, many argue that operating with the increased fuel loads is even more dangerous.

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#12

Post by exDM69 »

deletes wrote: post #2

But do they have to limit fuel. Does the advantage of the turbo outweigh more pitstops? I'm afraid races might get boring when drivers will have to conserve their fuel or just lose the race.

> But do they have to limit fuel. Does the advantage of the turbo outweigh more pitstops?

Refueling is not allowed in Formula 1, it has only been allowed during two brief stints in the early 1980s and late 1990s. It was/is silly dangerous and there were a few quite nasty pitstop fire incidents.

One goal of the new regulations with the turbo, the regenerative braking and the fuel limit is to put emphasis on the efficiency of the engines. The engine manufacturer with the best efficiency is at an advantage.

There's a risk that this will introduce boring fuel saving periods to races. But on the other hand the fuel limit is the same for everyone. If you look at this from a different perspective, there will periods where you can crank up the boost and mixture to allow for more power at the cost of more than average fuel consumption.

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#13

Post by codfrantic »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #10

How do they handle network latency back to simulation / data processing environments when travelling?

There was a story on Ars[potato] about a small team a couple of weeks ago, they bring their servers with them (for this team only a couple in a half size rack) So I'm guessing they're doing the calculations they need during the race locally...

[potato] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/galler...

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#14

Post by masklinn »

maigret wrote: post #3
deletes wrote: post #2

But do they have to limit fuel. Does the advantage of the turbo outweigh more pitstops? I'm afraid races might get boring when drivers will have to conserve their fuel or just lose the race.

It's already the case. You cannot refuel (I think for safety reasons, but not sure), so to get a weight advantage you have to take as little fuel as possible at the beginning of the race. So I don't expect changes. And yes, it happened to some, like Hamilton, to have to drive slower to save fuel. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/21917717

> You cannot refuel (I think for safety reasons, but not sure)

Definitely not safety reasons. Refueling on pit stops was allowed from 1994 to 2009 (inclusive). The official reason for refueling ban was lowering team expenses: refueling stops required significant machinery, equipment and crew (much more so than calibration and tyres changes), which had to be carried around the world.

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#15

Post by masklinn »

exDM69 wrote: post #12
deletes wrote: post #2

But do they have to limit fuel. Does the advantage of the turbo outweigh more pitstops? I'm afraid races might get boring when drivers will have to conserve their fuel or just lose the race.

> But do they have to limit fuel. Does the advantage of the turbo outweigh more pitstops? Refueling is not allowed in Formula 1, it has only been allowed during two brief stints in the early 1980s and late 1990s. It was/is silly dangerous and there were a few quite nasty pitstop fire incidents. One goal of the new regulations with the turbo, the regenerative braking and the fuel limit is to put emphasis on the effici…

> Refueling is not allowed in Formula 1, it has only been allowed during two brief stints in the early 1980s and late 1990s.

Brief? It was allowed from 1994 to 2009, and the official reason for removing it in 2010 was team expenses (they had to move expensive speed-refueling machinery around the world, and highly trained pit staff to match)

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#16

Post by InclinedPlane »

sanoli wrote: post #5

There are so many rules dictating the design of an F1 chassis/engine that I wonder how much faster a "anything goes" car would go.

Not much. The top speed for controllable driving in a wheeled vehicle is in the 300mph range. The power and aerodynamics requirements to step up to 400mph are severe. Specifically, the wheel-driven land-speed record is a bit over 400mph (although just last year it climbed up to 440mph) and the vehicles capable of going that fast are nearly incapable of taking turns of any significance at those speeds.

Jet powered vehicles are capable of going faster, even mach 1, but they have the same controllability problems.

If we were to hypothesize a future extreme sport of ultra fast racing in the 300mph or 400mph speed range then a few problems become immediately apparent. First, you'd need a specially designed course with very gradual turns. Also the roadway would have to be kept immaculately clean of debris. Second, the races would not last very long due to high rates of fuel consumption. For example, the Bluebird CN7 consumes fuel at top speed at about 260 gallons per hour (and has a 25 gallon tank), while the ThrustSSC consumes fuel at a rate of 24 gallons/mile. Third, passing would be extremely dangerous because even disrupting another vehicle's aerodynamics in any way, let alone physical contact, could cause it to become uncontrollable resulting in a very damaging and life threatening crash.

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#17

Post by k__ »

nikcub wrote: post #9
sanoli wrote: post #5

There are so many rules dictating the design of an F1 chassis/engine that I wonder how much faster a "anything goes" car would go.

Adrian Newey (most successful F1 designer in the history of the sport) designed the Red Bull X2010 for the game Gran Turismo based on the concept of building the fastest car possible in an 'anything goes' scenario: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_X2010 The limit becomes G-forces that a driver can bear, especially over a race distance. They limited it to 6G. For an engine they interestingly picked a 3L V6, where…

Would it get any faster if they didn't need a driver?

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#18

Post by martindale »

nikcub wrote: post #9
sanoli wrote: post #5

There are so many rules dictating the design of an F1 chassis/engine that I wonder how much faster a "anything goes" car would go.

Adrian Newey (most successful F1 designer in the history of the sport) designed the Red Bull X2010 for the game Gran Turismo based on the concept of building the fastest car possible in an 'anything goes' scenario: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_X2010 The limit becomes G-forces that a driver can bear, especially over a race distance. They limited it to 6G. For an engine they interestingly picked a 3L V6, where…

Let's just have robots drive them, then.

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#19

Post by exDM69 »

sanoli wrote: post #5

There are so many rules dictating the design of an F1 chassis/engine that I wonder how much faster a "anything goes" car would go.

> There are so many rules dictating the design of an F1 chassis/engine that I wonder how much faster a "anything goes" car would go.

The cars could be made so fast that humans could not drive the cars any more. In addition, safety of the audience would be compromised and the costs would be prohibitively expensive to maintain competition.

While there has been a set of rules and regulations always in Formula 1 (that's what the name "formula" refers to), there have been periods when the cars have been ridiculously quick, despite all the limiting regulations.

In the late 1970's ground effect cars were able to produce a huge amount of downforce with very little drag, and the cars would corner at high speeds and had a rock hard suspension, the drivers hated the cars because of the rough ride.

In the 1980's, there were turbo engines that developed more than 1300 horsepower in qualifying trim. They could spin the wheels on top gear when the boost kicks in. This was expensive, stupid and dangerous but the audience loved it.

In the early 2000's, aerodynamic advances and improvements in computational fluid dynamics made it possible to get immense amounts of downforce. Cars regularly reached top speeds of 340-360 km/h, and ran at more than 400km/h outside of regular racing/testing in special top speed configuration. The costs were ridiculous and only a few top teams were competitive. The teams used up to 8 engines per weekend (that's roughly as much as they use in the whole season).

"Anything goes" is just not a good idea when it comes to motorsport. There are things that have been banned in the past that could be incorporated in a fast and safe racing formula, though.

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#20

Post by po »

exDM69 wrote: post #12
deletes wrote: post #2

But do they have to limit fuel. Does the advantage of the turbo outweigh more pitstops? I'm afraid races might get boring when drivers will have to conserve their fuel or just lose the race.

> But do they have to limit fuel. Does the advantage of the turbo outweigh more pitstops? Refueling is not allowed in Formula 1, it has only been allowed during two brief stints in the early 1980s and late 1990s. It was/is silly dangerous and there were a few quite nasty pitstop fire incidents. One goal of the new regulations with the turbo, the regenerative braking and the fuel limit is to put emphasis on the effici…

One search youtube for 'f1 fuel fire' for some examples of how it can be dangerous but this is a good example of what you're talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdyuN_cUqjA

I don't think F1 had this problem but with some races the fuel is made with methanol and the flames can be impossible to see:

http://boingboing.net/2010/11/03/its-hard-to-fight-a.html

Post reply on HN