| |
BGonline.org Forums
auto racing analogy
Posted By: Henrik Bukkjaer In Response To: auto racing analogy (Chuck Bower)
Date: Saturday, 25 June 2011, at 9:16 p.m.
>> This is kind of humorous (not in a derisive way) because of the relativeness of the statement. Compared to Formula I, I suspect any form of racing might be considered "low tech", at least if "tech" is proportional to cost. Except for amateur racing and the very lowest US series, the equipment used is considerably better (i.e. higher performance/tech) than stock.
I know, I just couldn't help myself :-)
There's just so huge a gap from F1 to other series. Europeans often laugh at NASCAR and CART and other oval track racing series, simply because they have no clue about what it is. That's changing a bit now, with drivers like Montoya and now Kimi Raikkonen (and Hamilton in the recent Seat Swap with Tony Stewart). We are getting our eyes opened for the pure low down dirty racing going on, and especially for the number of overtakes (a single NASCAR race has more overtakes than the complete F1 season!).
A lot of the rule changes in F1, has been towards making the driver count more in the total equation, and the equipment and tech less.
Live data telemetry from car to pit is not allowed in the US series. In F1 you have more than 200 sensors pushing data to the pit crew at all times during practice and race. It's banned to have the car adjust the suspension actively now and it's banned for the pit to send data to the car - they have to communicate to the driver, and have him change settings on the steering wheel.
Take the brakes. In NASCAR it must be steel disc brakes. In CART the most advanced discs were at 3 kg each. In F1 they are very special carbon discs, production take 5-6 months and the weight is 1 kg each. During a race each disc take heat to 1100 degree Celsius approx 1000 times. There are rules prohibiting development to go too far because the incredible breaking produced is what's making overtaking so difficult. Rules limit materials (but not production method), size and cooling. Still today a F1 car can brake from 300 to 200 km/h at just over 1 sec. and it can brake from 100 km/t to stand still in just 17 meters! It pulls 5.4 G braking.
To give you an example of the technical creativity to find loopholes in the rules, teams have found a way to create extra downforce in the initial brake phase this year: The exhaust is moved up forward and blown onto the diffuser and under the floor - and then the engine mapping is coded made so that when the driver goes off throttle to break, it take in even 20% more fuel and keeps the engine throttle on, creating a fat mix that yields even more exhaust gas, thus boosting downforce in that critical moment.
I have mixed feelings towards this subject - being a techno buff it's fascinating to see how they can keep development up to go faster and faster even though the rules keeps getting tighter. Some of the stuff they come up with is really genius stuff. On the other hand, the result is that at it's peak, the cost of running a F1 top team was on the wrong side of $400m and on track overtakes almost impossible.
Go watch the Speed coverage of the Tony Stewart / Hamilton Seat Swap at Watkins Glen last week to see some of the comparisons, and Tony's reaction to F1. It's a shame they got a wet track that day, limiting the driving a lot, but it was fun to watch anyway.
And Chuck, if you're a little bit into technical racing stuff and want to catch up on F1, try this site: http://www.f1technical.net/
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.