I gave up on Formula 1 decades ago when it became apparent that these cars were not the ultimate race cars at all.
Tommy
I do agree with you to an extent save for that. These cars are insane, they are the ultimate, but they are throttled a bit by the regs
I see 2 misconceptions here:
First, that the regs are (or more correctly,
were) intended to stifle the development of "unfair advantages".
Let me reiterate F1's mission was always to stimulate development of technology that could be translated to street cars, and it's done that quite well over the years.
The "Formula"/tech regs are changed periodically with just that goal in mind.
The "Formula" is the engine displacement/cylinder count/induction method(s) definitions constituting the envelope within which engine designers ( the "manufacturers" Tommy mentions) are challenged to wrest the highest and most reliable output obtainable.
The reason the formula changes is to encourage development of different categories of power generation oin response to real world needs.
There was an era of "turbos" when fuel crisis were mandating high output from small displacement.
There was even an era when makers could choose between big displacement/no turbo or small displacement with turbo.
Entirely analogous to what was going on in the real world in the late '70's during the "oil crisis"
Cylinder counts have changed along with maximum allowable displacements.
Maximum rev limits have come and gone.
All of that translates to development of reliability and efficiency in arrange of street applications: 4,6,8,10 and 12-cylinders have all been Formulae over the years.
All of 'em are still used in regular manufacturing today, with 6 being the current Formula spec and most common real world "performance" count, as well.
NEVER has there been a limit on how much power can be produced.
I guess you have to have rules to level the playing field, but I always felt that Formula 1 should have been a showcase for whatever now technology the car manufacturers could come up with.
The second misconception I think Tommy has is that Formula One
isn't a showcase for "whatever new technology the car manufacturers could come up with."
It is
precisely that, it's just that they have to develop it within the confines of the current formula, just as they have to consider the practicality of possible creations vs real world usefulness.
Also let's be clear that most F1 vehicles are the product of a chassis maker who buys an engine from an engine manufacturer.
The only maker who makes the entire vehicle all by themselves is Ferrari.
This means the
chassis makers are the ones responsible for aero and suspension (including braking) developments.
Again within the confines of the current Formula.
Ok, it's true there at attempts to level the playing field when outrageous new technology is introduced.
There is after all a commercial element to entice makers to participate, because it's absolutely a net loss business and the returns are seen in the prestige for engine makers resulting in sales of street models.
And when any one maker thoroughly dominates, audiences yawn and go home.
It's true that in the last 10 years the regs keep getting tighter and tighter in an attempt to keep costs down and racing closer, and yet every year the cars get faster.
And the benefits of reliable increased efficiency, and suspension and braking refinements show up in the incredibly reliable modern street car.
I've gone back to grassroots drag racing; simple, no rules, run what you brung.
Tommy
I humbly submit a dragster (even in Street Outlaws spec) is in no way comparable to an F1 car in either handling (real world application) or durability (again, areal world application) or simply
braking.
And by that definition I say they're nothing more than highly-specialized one-trick ponies.
Entertaining? Sure.
"Real race cars"?
Not in my book.
BUT if your definition of the ultimate race car
IS a machine dedicated to one purpose only, getting from point A to measured distance point B in the shortest time possible, then we can agree to simply have different opinions .
I just realized you may be talking about the folks who like to take their street-legal cars to the drag strip, just to see what they can do with basically stock machines with maybe mild engine/tire/ transmission enhancements.
OK, I actually like that form of drag racing too, even though I still don't think it's the highest form of racing.
But at least those car aren't one trick ponies.
Getting back to "regs", let's take a couple of extremely outside-of-the-box developments that were
technically legal when introduced:
From here:
http://www.snaplap.net/tyrrell-p34/
"
By exploiting the loopholes in regulations, Gardner started developing the new six-wheel concept in 1973. The whole idea behind a radical six-wheel layout was that six tires instead of four would have a bigger rubber ‘finger print’ than the regular cars, more grip and no understeer. The four wheels with smaller diameter tires in the front would manage better steering and would also have a lower profile for better aerodynamics"
As it turned out they were somewhat of a handful to drive and only won one GP in any case, but the real question was: "Is there really any potential for a real world application of this technology?".
Highly doubtful and so although they were allowed that year, ultimately:
In 1983, the FIA prohibited cars with four driven wheels from competing.
Later, the Formula 1 regulations required four as the maximum number of wheels allowed.
Read between those lines. It also rules out "tricycle" arrangements, known to be highly unstable, for example.
Here's another:
Brabham's notorious "vacuum car":
http://en.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/70504.html
"Niki Lauda secured his first win for Brabham, his new team, at the Swedish Grand Prix but it was a victory surrounded by controversy as it came in one of Formula One's most innovative and short-lived creations - the fan car.
Lotus boss Colin Chapman had revolutionized the sport by running skirts on his Lotus 79s which stuck the cars to the ground, i response, Brabham designer Gordon Murray wheeled out a car with a fan on the back to use the air to help the car grip the road better....Within 48 hours the car had been banned for the next three races while tests were carried out, but it never reappeared in a grand prix, making it an expensive £200,000 gamble. Lauda admitted the car was "unpleasant to drive … it understeered massively, all the more so when you took your foot off".
Read more at
http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/70504.html#iwfGJm8tK37osw3c.99
desktop-lg
Once again I say, was there
really any potential for a real world application or even a need, there?
So we haven't seen anything that exotic for quite a while.
Most of the controversial stuff is all about aerodynamics these days.
And whether or not Ferrari's is actually spiking its fuel with grapefruit juice.
I don't care, as long as they win in Shanghai,
legally.
:biggrin-new:
There is a better version of this video out there. There are some pretty fast GT cars in this video
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C0838B5C0B03B1265EDAC0838B5C0B03B&FORM=VDQVAP
Have to admit there've been periods when I've preferred closed wheel/closed cockpit road racing to F1, it actually
is closer to real world driving, after all.
It's definitely my second favorite form of racing and might even tie with F1, still.