[Closed] F1 rule changes for 2014

I was about to comment what a well written and intelligent article that was, then realised it wasnt a journalist for a change, but someone who actually knew what they were talking about 😉

Gary Anderson, the former technical director of the Jordan, Stewart and Jaguar teams, was talking to BBC Sport's Andrew Benson

Is DRS being retained for next year? I'm hoping not, yes it aided overtaking, but only in a boring, predictable way. KERS was a bit more interesting as at least the other driver could fight back or try and be tactical about when it was used - doesn;t look like that'll be an option with 'ERS' next year (it also sounds a lot less exciting than KERS!).

People think Ferrari have been testing their F1 V6 in a LaFerrari chassis.

Doesn't sound as bad as I feared but still not great (he only really opens it up towards the end)

[url= http://www.espn.co.uk/mclaren/motorsport/story/138211.html ]Button thinks it's going to be quite different driving them to the V8s[/url] - sounds like the torque issues will be particularly challenging on wet tracks.

DRS stays for next year - though the zones will be tweaked yet again. AIUI the aim is to give an opportunity for cars to pass without it being too simple, which hasn't quite worked in some places. I'd still question its usefulness on some of the Tilkedromes with 1km straights though as the aero tow should be enough to have a go there.

As for ERS not being as tactical as KERS - yes, there won't be the corner by corner opportunity to use it or not (though in reality KERS was only really useful in a handful of places per lap). I think the fuel limits will certainly need some clever use of [s]engine[/s] drive train modes to get a bit of extra pace when necessary without harming overall race prospects, so it'll be more like the old turbo days where drivers could turn up the boost for a lap or two.

I'd also expect that even with 100kg fuel limit the teams will still seek to run minimum fuel for the race which could lead to some fraught last laps for some drivers. Better monitoring systems probably means we won't go back to people running with their instruments showing negative fuel or running out and trying to push their car over the line like our Nige did back in the day.

That Button article really grates - they've always had torque, just not in the same quantities as for 2014!

I don't think any of us are used to having torque. I've raced for 14 years in F1 and I've never had torque

you have torque and we've never had that before

@njee20 - AIUI the 2.4V8s were "only" putting out around 300Nm of torque whereas I've seen estimates that the 1.6V6s will be producing about double that before you add in the ERS. That's quite some difference, which is why Pirelli are going to be in for an interesting time next year too.

That Button article really grates - they've always had torque, just not in the same quantities as for 2014

He's not an engineer is he!

If the 2013 F1 engines were producing a maximum of 780bhp @ 18,000rpm then they must have been producing 227 ft/lbs of torque at that engine speed (in reality they probably produced more like 250ft/lbs further down the rev range) So its still a decent amount of torque.

In 2014 if total power is the same or slightly more (lets say 800bhp) and its being produced at 15,000rpm then the total torque is 280 ft/lbs so possibly around 320 ft/lbs further down the rev range.

These figures still seem quite low but the difference next year will be a lot of this torque will be available from lower down the rev range.

It seems odd having the pinnacle of motorsport being about tyre management and fuel efficiency. Plus artificial over taking aids, I really hate DRS, think it takes something away from the racing. I am quite worried that it'll be even duller than this year.

I'll probably still watch it. Partly out of a sense of duty and partly because you just never know, it might just be a corker...

At a minimum you're going to have drama because engines, sorry, powertrains will fail or parts of them will - when RB's KERS fails (again) in 2014, it's not going to be just a minor annoyance...

So my predictions that will no doubt make me look silly in a few month 🙂

- One engine will be better than the others (and not Ferrari so the FIA will probably have to bring in mid-season [s]fixing[/s] rule changes for safety to level things. At least one bit of drama about rule breaking/bending.

- Plenty of engines will blow early in the season or parts will fail or cars will run out of fuel (or at least have to slow a fair bit) meaning that the last few laps might (artificially) be pretty dramatic

- RB won't have the best car out of the box and will struggle with cooling due to the usual tight packaging but will catch up dramatically through the season as Newey et al take the better ideas on other cars and develop them better than the other teams while sorting out reliability (thus making themselves hard to beat in 2015). Vettel for Championship 5 while the other teams have fluctuating results through the season. Daniel to be good but Webber sort of level rather than Vettel but happier with being a 'number 2 driver'.

- Alonso to leave Ferrari at the end of the season as they fail to deliver a winning car again. Kimi to either do brilliantly if the car's good or rubbish if not and he's not motivated. Initial chumminess between Alonso and Kimi with a simmering cold war in the background, stoked by the Italian press. Dominicali to be replaced at some point during or at the end of the season.

- McL to produce a decent car but not a consistently winning one (per the last 10+ years). JB to win a race or two but in changeable conditions. Magnussen to be the next Hamilton but hopefully with better consistency.

- Grosgean to win a race. Maldonado to crash but maybe do well in a race or two if the stars align.

- Hamilton to still not like his brakes but to start getting a slight but consistent edge on Nico. Hamilton to tell everyone he's sorted his head out at least twice through the season. Nicole Shirtswinger not to return.

- Massa to get grumpy when the Williams isn't as fast as he'd like and Bottas beats him.

- The usual suspects complaining that it was better in the old days

Yep. I'm definitely going to look silly, aren't it...

- Massa to get grumpy when [s]the Williams isn't as fast as he'd [/s][s]like and[/s] Bottas beats him.

My money is on this Bottas is going to get quicker and quicker 😉

Maybe, maybe not. With Magnussen coming into F1, I'm always reminded of his Dad who should have been great but wasn't.

(Jan Magnussen story for anyone who's not familiar with it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson/2010/03/mclaren_and_magnussen_come_ful.html )

My bold predictions are Mclaren and Mercedes will be the teams to beat with Mercedes probably edging it in the early season.

I don't think Red Bull will be too far behind, it will be interesting to see if Vettel can make up the difference in what might not be the quickest car

Massa to get grumpy when the Williams isn't as fast as he'd like and Bottas beats him.

Can see this happening too, Williams need his money though so they will probably put up with it.

The relationship between Lotus and Maldonado might be interesting though. He is easily the biggest shit on the grid and a pretty mediocre driver - but again they need his money so they might have to put up with his antics

It seems odd having the pinnacle of motorsport being about tyre management and fuel efficiency.

The pinacle of motorsport, by definition, needs to be the pinacle of automtotive engineering. But to avoid this pinacle being achived by the people with the most money (see the America's cup) there needs to be some constaints applied. Once you apply those constraints you then are trying to maximise how fast you can go within them.

And two of the biggest variables are how much "go" you can extract from the minimum ammount of fuel and how well you can apply that "go" to the track.

So F1 (and any form of motorsport) has always been about fuel and tyres. It's just now this is much more visible to the teams so they can manage it better and more visible to us due to radio feeds and much more techy coverage.

We could take away all of the sensors and monitoring but a) it would no longer be the pinacle of motorsport and b) the winner would still be the person who managed their fuel and tyres the best, we just wouldn't know about it.

NASCAR is the antithesis of F1 with simple cheap cars but it is still about the driver who can best use his tyres and manage his fuel (with the added randomness of not being involved in someone else's accident)

The relationship between Lotus and Maldonado might be interesting though. He is easily the biggest shit on the grid and a pretty mediocre driver - but again they need his money so they might have to put up with his antics

On a good day he can be pretty good, although these are few and far between and has a habit of just losing the plot and driving into people

So F1 (and any form of motorsport) has always been about fuel and tyres

Amen and Hallelujah! I'm fed up with people talking about this like it's some facet of the new regulations when it's been part of racing for ever.

The same with the 'The best car always wins' - how would (most) people be able to tell the difference between an average car being outdriven and a fantastic car being wasted?

Amen and Hallelujah! I'm fed up with people talking about this like it's some facet of the new regulations when it's been part of racing for ever

Yay - Someone agrees with me.

A good example of peoples rose tinted hindsight is the issue of cars running out of fuel.

When the new fuel limits were proposed people were up in arms that races would be decided because people would run out of fuel. But then people realised the F1 teams were too clever to run out, they would just ask their drivers to drive slower based on their very sophisticated fuel useage models that they have developed to avoid this issue of running out of fuel. The reaction to this was again uproar, "F1 races will be decided by robotic drivers hitting lap time targets rather than racing" they whinged, "why can racing be like the 70 and 80s when it was exciting". That is the 70s and 80s when avarage winning margins were higher* than they are now due to a greater variance in car speed (the car therefore having a greater influence on the result than now) and when races were often decided by cars running out of fuel.

I'm not saying the current era of F1 is by any means perfect but it certainly isnt unique.

*Good stats here on winning margins http://www.motorsportsetc.com/info/f1_mrgns.htm

The winning margins thing is an interesting one.

I remember "back in the day" you had some real no hope outfits like Lola, Pacific and Simtek that regularly finished four or five laps down on the field. The crap teams really were crap.

107% rule was introduced to stop these kinds of mobile chicanes.

Even though one team and driver in particular dominated this season racing is generally a lot closer than it used to be.

The second half of 2013 is more of an anomaly than a trend

AIUI the 2.4V8s were "only" putting out around 300Nm of torque whereas I've seen estimates that the 1.6V6s will be producing about double that before you add in the ERS. That's quite some difference, which is why Pirelli are going to be in for an interesting time next year too.

Yes, I know. But Button says in 3 places that they've "never" had torque in an F1 car. Which is wholly inaccurate, they just have a lot more for 2014.

Presumably though that's relative just like when we say Maldonado is a bit rubbish (most of the time) - he's not really, just relative to the best drivers (other than Smurf Mat who makes everyone look rubbish).

F1 engines haven't been torquey for a while, it's been all about revs. But that's obviously in comparison to other series' race cars. Compare an F1 car to a normal car and it clearly has a good bit of torque.

And they've always had torque, or they wouldn't have gone anywhere.

It's like saying that new tyres are better, we now have friction, we've never had friction before.

The wings are good too, we now have gravity.

@njee20 - You're being a bit literal there old chap! Do you get upset when the drivers complain of having 'no grip', 'no traction', 'no brakes' and 'no power' while still lapping 2 seconds off the lap record? 😉

Presumably though that's relative just like when we say Maldonado is a bit rubbish (most of the time) - he's not really, just relative to the best drivers

(other than Smurf Mat who makes everyone look rubbish).

Good articles and good find on the la ferrari mule. Does sound like a new power train as it is doing a lot of venting while braking and surging when coming out the corner so might be on the money of an assisted turbo. Sounds like they are still working on getting it on boost.

There will be some funny noises in 2014 to replace the current exhaust blowing crackles in the bends. Dyson might clean up...

Thanks for posting - interesting.

My take on the whole "fuel efficiency thing" is its a really smart move to make F1 look relevant and cough "environmental", its great for the manufacturers teams like Mercedes who can spin yarns about trickle down technology into they range.

With all the big changes I think it's like the larger wealthier teams pull further ahead. I say Red Bull will once again be the team to beat.

You're being a bit literal there old chap!

Oh yes, I don't deny that, woefully pedantic fellow that I am! Just said that Button's article grated because of his repeating of that.

njee - you've never, ever, ever said that X tyres are crap and have no grip, etc? 🙂

He won a race in 2012.

That's why I said 'Most of the time'. I know he's occassionally capable of a good result but he's not great the rest of the time.

I can sort of see where Button's coming from in his remarks about lack of torques. Considering these are 2.4 V8's, producing 700-odd bhp at 18,000rpm, 250Nm isn't a huge amount, considering this:

The (VAG) 1.4-litre TSI petrol engine gives you a big thump of torque in the mid-range, serving up its 184lb ft maximum between 1,500 and 3,500rpm but it’s smooth and keeps right on pulling as the revs rise. The 140hp peak power is on call all the way from 4,000 to 6,000rpm and that means fantastic flexibility and response - all from measly a 1.4.

Good summary of Maldonado actually
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111663

He is very inconsistent, he has been involved in more than his fair share of clashes with other cars and made himself very unpopular at Williams with his attitude, but the pace is undeniable, if erratic

I'm not sure I can recall many drivers as erratic as he is.

njee - you've never, ever, ever said that X tyres are crap and have no grip, etc?

I wouldn't say in a press interview "I've never had grip, this season will be interesting because we have grip. We've never had grip". Which is basically what he does. Just said it annoyed me, it's unnecessary hyperbole, I've never noticed it so markedly in an interview before.

It's the context as much as anything.

184lb ft = 250NM btw...

Presumably though that's relative just like when we say Maldonado is a bit rubbish (most of the time) - he's not really, just relative to the best drivers (other than Smurf Mat who makes everyone look rubbish).

Well obviously its relative. But how else would you measure him. When people have a go at a premier league footballer for being a bit crap I'm sure they realise they would still be quite handy in a game of fives down the park!

But I still say Maldonado is at best mediocre and he has demonstrated a very shitty temperament and shown real disdain for his team. He is only in F1 because he is being bankrolled by the Venezuelan government. At best he might make a competent journeyman if he calms down a bit.

I really would have preferred to see Hulkenberg in the Lotus next season

A 1.4 four-pot, only producing 140bhp, manages to deliver over half the amount of torque from around a fifth of the horsepower.
Which shows how well developed modern small turbo petrol engines really are.

What it actually shows is the relationship between engine speed and horsepower.

A normal petrol road engine with a redline of 6500 rpm would need to produce about 600 ft/lbs of torque to match the 750hp of the current F1 engines

With almost 3 times the revs an F1 engine can make 750 bhp with "just" around 200 ft/lbs

power in hp = torque in ft/lbs @ 5252rpm

Going back to the DRS thing, whilst I agree that at times it is too artificial, what it does do is to allow the faster cars get past the mid-range and slower cars and get on with racing their real rivals.

Before DRS, the aero packages meant cars got to 1-2 seconds behind the car in front and then couldn't overtake due to lack of sufficient downforce to bridge that gap.

DRS allows the cars to bridge that gap and therefore stand better chances of overtaking even in the non-DRS zones.

At a minimum you're going to have drama because engines, sorry, powertrains will fail or parts of them will - when RB's KERS fails (again) in 2014, it's not going to be just a minor annoyance...

I can see where your going: when the "ERS" systems fail on a 2014 car, all of a sudden the driver is left with 640 BHP (Vs everyonbe elses "840 BHP") in a car 50kg heavier than his 2013 car, and a limit to how heavy his Right foot can be if he wants to even try and salvage a finish and/or some points, in effect an ERS failure is potentially pretty catastrophic, yes you keep going, but Waaaay off the pace...

RB's KERS issues seemed to affect Webber more often than Vettel, I wonder if "ERS" reliability will unaccountably favour certain drivers over other...

I think it will generally make for interesting racing, heavier cars with a bit less downforce and apparently more torque, or more torque earlier on, in theory that means more passes, as corner entry speed and judging application of throttle on exit become more critical, rather than just straight line DRS drag race passes...

The the Fanboi in me thinks this might all actually suit Button's Style of driving, nursing more laps out of the tyres or simply being smoother with the throttle, his apparently getting on better with slightly understeery cars, but then there's Raikkonen, I can really see him being competitive too as he generally adjusts to changes quite well... All speculative of course

If the teams and the drivers are going to have to learn and adjust I think we could actually see some really interesting earlier rounds, and hopefully some closer racing over the whole season, assuming half the field don't lose 20% of their power on the first lap...

Torque shouldn't be a huge issue with a turbocharged car, as you have far more control over how the boost builds up. I fitted an electronic boost controller to my old Porsche 944 turbo and you could programme specific boost profiles, so you could gave a wet weather profile that built up boost more gradually. It was open loop and faily crude, but effective. I suppose it would be a simple job to add a feedback loop in to get some form of crude traction control by varying boost. I'm sure such a system has been outlawed though.

I really think they'll have good reliability out of the box, they've had plenty of notice to develop engines and turbo technology is pretty mature now. The racing will still be ruined by too much reliance on aerodynamics (despite the rules reducing aerodynamic surface size - they'll catch up to close to current levels of downforce) and carbon brakes.

I would just like to point out that I'm already bored of all the torque chat. If this is how dull the hype is, I can only imagine how dull the actual racing will be next year

Engine torque is irrelevant anyway. What matters to tyres is tractive effort, otherwise called "power".........

The 2014 cars will knacker their tyres not due to any more power (although the hybrid powertains could make a bit more power than before potentially), but due to the extra mass and lower downforce!

Richmtb, I'm fascinated to learn more of how you get the correlation of and between power and torque. Are you working on the dyno benches? The specific nature of your numbers and how a power curve and torque curve are directly proportional suggests to me that you are clearly in the know! Please let me in on your intriguing insights 🙂

Engine torque is irrelevant anyway. What matters to tyres is tractive effort, otherwise called "power".........

Excuse me, but that is utter tosh.

Torque is quite widely misunderstood but really there is a very simple linear relationship between engine speed and torque. 1hp = 1 ft/lb @ 5252 rpm so if you know the power and engine speed you know the torque.

Indeed you work out power by doing this the other way round. An engine dyno works out the torque being produced by the engine. Power is then a simple calculation.

BTW Maxtorque's word on this stuff is gospel so I defer to his good judgements 8)

Thanks for that and I retract my 'tosh', apologies MaxT 🙂

I am confused though. I was messing about with custom mapping & EMS, making throttle bodies, building engines, cam profiles nearly 20years ago whilst I was hill climbing and sprinting in fwd mod prod's. I can't remember the exact values now, but I remember wanting acceleration (torque- and lots of it) at low rev's, couldn't give a rats doo-dah about power. The Quaife LSD and slicks converted that torque into traction, which, along with final drive ratio, produced quicker times. The one time I built an engine with it's focus to produce power rather than torque, I was much slower and the LSD struggled with the higher revs.

So Despite me retracting my earlier 'tosh', torque isn't irrelevant, or is it?

Why would an LSD struggle with revs? It operates at circa road speed after the gearbox?

Torque steer. Not from torque, but the power.

I don't follow the logic of the above statement but also don't doubt your experience. Maybe it was to do with the rate of power gain/shape of the curve and not just big hp compared to big torque between your engines. Think this comes back to the amount of tractive effort at the wheels after the gearbox multiplier and shape of the power/torque curves as well as magnitude.

Going to be some mega computations going on for next years cars with all the different power options available.

thepurist - Member

@njee20 - AIUI the 2.4V8s were "only" putting out around 300Nm of torque

Less than my mondeo 😆 we've got a bright future in F1, also we can fit more bikes in the back than the other teams.

thepurist - Member
@njee20 - AIUI the 2.4V8s were "only" putting out around 300Nm of torque

Less than my mondeo we've got a bright future in F1, also we can fit more bikes in the back than the other teams.

Me on a humble bicycle can probably manage the same amount of torque.

Shame about the revs 🙂

BTW, here's [url= http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/ ]@ScarbsF1's[/url] illustration/preview of a likely 2014 car. And we thought the stepped noses were fugly...

[img] [/img]

Shame about the revs

What for me or NW's diesel Mondeo 😀

The year of the Ant Eater... 😕

slackalice

I am confused though. I was messing about with custom mapping & EMS, making throttle bodies, building engines, cam profiles nearly 20years ago whilst I was hill climbing and sprinting in fwd mod prod's. I can't remember the exact values now, but I remember wanting acceleration (torque- and lots of it) at low rev's, couldn't give a rats doo-dah about power. The Quaife LSD and slicks converted that torque into traction, which, along with final drive ratio, produced quicker times. The one time I built an engine with it's focus to produce power rather than torque, I was much slower and the LSD struggled with the higher revs.

So Despite me retracting my earlier 'tosh', torque isn't irrelevant, or is it?

There is an awful lot of cobblers spouted on t'net by people about power and torque and such stuff, but the physics is very simple.

Power is simply torque multiplied by speed, in effect going from a "force" to an amount of "work done".

By making a higher torque at lower rpm in the example above, you also made more power at that lower speed!

The amount of torque an engine makes across a certain speed range is only important if one doesn't have a transmission system to leverage that torque across a wide enough road speed range.

Where we are talking about motorsport, or performance, then the simple fact of the matter is that developing an engine to make good torque at 3000rpm will result in a slower car than doing an engine which makes good torque at 6000rpm. In fact, simply put, if your engine is only doing 3000rpm, when it could be doing 6000rpm, you're in the WRONG gear!

F1 cars, efspecially, are always in the right gear. We don't spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year to give the cars around the wrong gear!

Of course, the old wives tale "power sells cars but torque wins races" is bolleux! Only if you don't have the correct gearing would an engine with a wider torque spread be faster than one with higher power. And if you haven't got the right gearing, why are you wasting money on making more torque?

Maxtorque - member
F1 cars, efspecially, are always in the right gear. We don't spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year to give the cars around the wrong gear!

Apart from when they hit the limiter with the DRS open? Which happens quite a lot given the hundreds of millions of pounds spent every year!

Apart from when they hit the limiter with the DRS open? Which happens quite a lot given the hundreds of millions of pounds spent every year!

Pedantic hat on, they're not in the wrong gear (7th), they've set the ratio of the gear wrong.
Typically occurs if a car qualifies out of position and they end up using DRS (and therefore higher top speed) more than they expected

thekingisdead - Member
Pedantic hat on, they're not in the wrong gear (7th), they've set the ratio of the gear wrong.
Typically occurs if a car qualifies out of position and they end up using DRS (and therefore higher top speed) more than they expected

Pedantic hat on....so it's still the wrong gear.....just that it's not the driver selecting the wrong gear, but the team setting the gearbox up incorrectly.
Certain teams seem to do it more than often. Surely any time they use DRS they will run out of revs, not just when the use it more than expected due to qualifying position....?!

Gearing is another change for next year - 8 ratios that are fixed for the season, with only 1 change to final drive permitted. Get those wrong at your peril!

This torque thing's interesting - so is the relationship between the two directly linear? Say, for a given power at a given speed, the torque can be calculated? I always thought that the two were seperate and distinct characteristics (and I suspect this is the kind of cobblers aluded to above! 🙂 ) depending on the engine, and on first thought it seems like there must be an obvious comparison that shoots it down - but I've been thinking for awhile and I can't think of one! The obvious one is, say, 2 litre petrol versus 2 litre turbo diesel, where the maximum power outputs aren't that far off, but the TD produces boatloads more torque - but then it'll be producing maximum power at much lower revs, which ties in with the above....

Every day's a school day! 🙂

Gearing is another change for next year - 8 ratios that are fixed for the season, with only 1 change to final drive permitted. Get those wrong at your peril!

so is the relationship between the two directly linear? Say, for a given power at a given speed, the torque can be calculated?

Yes!

Wow, that's an odd one - wonder what the thinking there is?

Cost saving. One set of gears, get them right and deal with it at the races where it's not ideal. Also, from what I've heard, the first gear is only going to be used at the start so in effect, they'll still be racing with a 7 speed gearbox.

Electric motors are quite torquey and produce full torque from standstill, so are we factoring their effect too?

I thought that brushless motors (which I'd expect F1 cars to be using given that they're more efficient) had different torque characteristics to brushed motors (which always have max torque at zero revs), allowing for less torque drop off through the rev range.

I was asking as opposed to stating 😉 having read the post back.

With the motors being more powerful they'd have to be factored in to any discussion on torque etc wouldn't they?

so is the relationship between the two directly linear? Say, for a given power at a given speed, the torque can be calculated?

power = torque x 2pi x rotational speed

or in simple terms power = (torque x RPM) / 5252

so when poeople put their cars on a rollers to get the power output, if the power and torque curves don't cross at 5252 RPM, then you know it's a fake curve.

Although I have had a colleague with 2 Masters degrees try to persuade me that cos his car has a turbo, the way the 2 curves interact is different, and that normal maths doesn't apply.

Well, yes but isn't the low down torque from the electric motor a big part of why they're going to have (just for njee) torque this year where they haven't before?

this is why i love stw, i have learned something new today re:the correlation between power and torque.
incidentally, when button says 'we have torque now' i took it for granted that he meant 'we have more than previously'

But to avoid this pinacle being achived by the people with the most money (see the America's cup)

You're saying you wouldn't tune in on a Sunday to watch 72ft long flying cars driven by a team of 10 drivers? Best idea for a rule change ever!

Although I have had a colleague with 2 Masters degrees try to persuade me that cos his car has a turbo, the way the 2 curves interact is different, and that normal maths doesn't apply.

Is he saying that turbo lag means you could produce any shaped curve you like depending on the rate you allow it to accelerate? He's still wrong, but it is more complicated than a normaly aspirated car.

BTW, here's @ScarbsF1's illustration/preview of a likely 2014 car. And we thought the stepped noses were fugly...

Look like a return to the mid 90s actually, anyone:

[img] [/img]

a big part of why they're going to have (just for njee) torque this year where they haven't before?

**head explodes** 😉

But it'll be mid 90s cars uglified - the aero now relies on air getting to the diffuser and that means as little stuff at the front as possible, hence the silly ant eater appendages. The frustrating thing is that they could have made the cars look just like the 90s (which I personally liked - before the raised noses started appearing) by defining the rules better.

If the all ended up looking a bit like the FW14B, I'd be happy.

[img] [/img]

Maxtorque & Andytherocketeer - thank you for explaining in a way I could understand! That's cleared that up then 🙂

I'll have to rummage through my old stuff to see if I can find the dyno/rr graphs from when I spent hours and hours mapping! I'll be very interested to see if there is that crossover at 5252.

Every cyclist instinctively understands how torque and power are related even if the don't know it. It crops up from time to time in every cadence debate. Torque is how hard you push onto the pedals, power is the combination of that and how fast you pedal. You know that the faster you pedal you cannot push on the pedals as hard, but you can still go faster even if you're in a lower gear vs. pushing a high gear at low RPM with all your might. Everyone has a threshold - some prefer grinding away at low cadence in a high gear (the diesel's), whereas some prefer spinning in a lower gear (the Honda VTech'ers).

Now that's a great analogy for me. Thanks wobbliscott 🙂

power = torque x 2pi x rotational speed

or in simple terms power = (torque x RPM) / 5252

so when poeople put their cars on a rollers to get the power output, if the power and torque curves don't cross at 5252 RPM, then you know it's a fake curve.

This. Cant remember the book i've read this in though. Vizzard?

This is completely ****ing stupid. Abu Shitty Dhabi worth Spa + Silverstone?

The FIA has announced drivers and teams will score double points at the final race of the season from next year.

The change has been made “in order to maximise focus on the championship until the end of the campaign” and was agreed after meetings of the F1 Strategy Group and Formula One Commission today.

It would make it more likely that the championship would go down to the last race, which has got to be good for spectacle

piedi di formaggio - Member

It would make it more likely that the championship would go down to the last race, which has got to be good for spectacle

If they gave one iota of a crap about the spectacle, they'd scrap India, Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Bahrain, then give them decent sized tyres, and half the size of the wings so they could actually race.

Bigger tyres don't give (proportionally) more grip, they just don't melt i.e. the surface area of the rear tyres is just there to dissipate the heat generated by putting 800hp through them. Or so said my A-level physics teacher.

thisisnotaspoon - Member

Bigger tyres don't give (proportionally) more grip, they just don't melt i.e. the surface area of the rear tyres is just there to dissipate the heat generated by putting 800hp through them. Or so said my A-level physics teacher.

Not to increase grip, but to increase the tow effect and make close racing possible. Over reliance on aero ruins racing, look what's happened to DTM.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25310466 ]What a ridiculous idea...[/url]

This is stupid - why not just wait to the last race of the season, then draw lots to find out who the winner is?

But it wouldn't have changed the result this year would it, Vettel had won it a few races before hadn't he?

There's a thing on the BBC website where it says it would've affected the 3 championships from the [b]last 20 years[/b]... great idea..

On the other hand to spice things up bernie is going to randomly turn the lights off on night races.

The best thing they could do would be to randomly have sprinklers on some parts of the circuits