BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Professional Motorsport Racing Discussion (ALMS, DTM, Formula 1, Grand-AM, Le Mans, IRL, WRC, etc..)
 
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-28-2010, 11:44 AM   #23
E90SLAM
Supreme Allied Commander
E90SLAM's Avatar
Hong Kong
876
Rep
61,168
Posts

 
Drives: A BBS WHORE
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: .

iTrader: (6)

Garage List
2006 330i  [4.67]
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelthepsycho View Post
LOL. I read that too! Mechanical engineering FTW!

I think V8's are the minimum. Anything below that has negative torque between power strokes... Why not just turbo the current V8? Keeping it the same power while reducing the rev limiter? Surely that could save some fuel and reduce emissions...
And...how about making the Turbo available for two "extra boost" each lap (like the GT3 RS (?) or the 335is) for overtake purpose. instead of implement the expensive, heavy, unreliable, and complicated KERS.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-28-2010, 12:58 PM   #24
josephr25
Major
United_States
18
Rep
1,458
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 E92 335i
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Irvine, CA

iTrader: (2)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelthepsycho View Post
LOL. I read that too! Mechanical engineering FTW!

I think V8's are the minimum. Anything below that has negative torque between power strokes... Why not just turbo the current V8? Keeping it the same power while reducing the rev limiter? Surely that could save some fuel and reduce emissions...
Your suggestion is unfortunately too brilliant for F1 to grasp.

It's like Steve Matchett's suggestion that instead of switching to V8s, F1 should have just put in air restrictors for their V10s
Appreciate 0
      04-28-2010, 03:06 PM   #25
Echo M3
Major
No_Country
35
Rep
1,431
Posts

 
Drives: E90 M3
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NY

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kampfer View Post
Your suggestion is unfortunately too brilliant for F1 to grasp.

It's like Steve Matchett's suggestion that instead of switching to V8s, F1 should have just put in air restrictors for their V10s
Or put in serious rev limits (not 18,000 rpm, that is ridiculous). Or they could have put in mandatory mileage requirements (i.e. 20 mpg).

I agree with some of the people here, downgrading again is silly and reduces F1 from its stature as the pinnacle of motorsport. Yes, we want road-relevant technology, but F1 is also about the 'crazy engineering' that differentiates it from GT racing or club car racing.
Appreciate 0
      04-28-2010, 04:35 PM   #26
josephr25
Major
United_States
18
Rep
1,458
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 E92 335i
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Irvine, CA

iTrader: (2)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by pman10 View Post
Or put in serious rev limits (not 18,000 rpm, that is ridiculous). Or they could have put in mandatory mileage requirements (i.e. 20 mpg).

I agree with some of the people here, downgrading again is silly and reduces F1 from its stature as the pinnacle of motorsport. Yes, we want road-relevant technology, but F1 is also about the 'crazy engineering' that differentiates it from GT racing or club car racing.
I'm not against the four cylinders or displacement - we had 1.5 V6's about 30 years ago. I just think that, power-reduction wise, F1 has totally screwed up.

I also stopped believing the hype about F1 (even though I'm going to a race next month), as very little of it has anything to do what we drive. That and, maybe until a couple of years ago, it's the same parade every two weeks. With road racing, people can actually picture themselves driving a Corvette or a Ferrari. Look at some interviews with many motorsport engineers. John Bernard, who was the father of paddle shifting, is not amazed at extracting so much power from an engine, but rather getting more miles per gallon of gasoline; etc... in addition to some engineers who think aerodynamics are the most useless thing to transfer to cars. This last point is exacerbated by the fact that 70-80% of a racecar's performance these days is all about aero.

F1 should be pioneering NEW, RELEVANT technologies that lower classes can adapt. For example, Audi was the first manufactuer to introduce diesels into racing (even though Taurus Sport in 2004 [before Audi] tried to get VW to help them with the same thing).

Maybe I'm just getting old...
Appreciate 0
      04-28-2010, 05:55 PM   #27
MontegoblueE92
Captain
MontegoblueE92's Avatar
20
Rep
958
Posts

 
Drives: It Like He Stole It
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: M-Town

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kampfer View Post
This last point is exacerbated by the fact that 70-80% of a racecar's performance these days is all about aero.

F1 should be pioneering NEW, RELEVANT technologies that lower classes can adapt. For example, Audi was the first manufactuer to introduce diesels into racing (even though Taurus Sport in 2004 [before Audi] tried to get VW to help them with the same thing).

Maybe I'm just getting old...
I'm on the complete opposite side on this one. I think F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport. It should have ridiculous engineering and aerodynamics and be miles ahead of every other form of motorsport. Let the GT class cars be relevent to themselves and lower forms of racing. F1 needs to be head and shoulders above the rest. It is a single seater open wheel race car, there's not much that is relevant to other vehicles from that.

And the aero % has gone down in the passed two years. They have higher mechanical grip now due to slicks and reduced downforce.
Appreciate 0
      04-28-2010, 06:05 PM   #28
gts135
German car nut
Canada
1
Rep
96
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 135iM - Cashmere silver
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Alberta

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kampfer View Post
in addition to some engineers who think aerodynamics are the most useless thing to transfer to cars. This last point is exacerbated by the fact that 70-80% of a racecar's performance these days is all about aero.

F1 should be pioneering NEW, RELEVANT technologies that lower classes can adapt. For example, Audi was the first manufactuer to introduce diesels into racing (even though Taurus Sport in 2004 [before Audi] tried to get VW to help them with the same thing).

Maybe I'm just getting old...
On the surface, I would agree with your comments, but if you look at the technologies employed in the tools utilized to design F1 cars, I believe there is a lot of knowledge transfer within a manufacturer.

Aero - do road cars benefit from advances in F1? Sure, an F1 car aero is all about balancing downforce vs drag - the principles/software/theories/hardware used to better determine this in F1 trickle down to production cars - but with the balance more towards less drag and less towards downforce. Lots of cars now have cD's of less than 0.3 - almost unheard of a generation ago.

Tires - same thing plus the learnings taken from the chemistry in the tire compounds

Engines - ditto. Now we start adding the leading edge practical application of combustion dynamics, material advancements, FEA modelling basis reliability/weight, etc. that are developed in the lab, fine tuned in F1, and then transformed into use in the design of production cars.

Organization - want to motivate your engineers and put them on almost vertical learning curves? Assign them to the F1 team. Learn more in one season than ten on the assembly line.

Return on Investment - want to develop a new car line? Well, would you rather take a $1B and spread that out over 6 years or 4 before generating a return. I'll take 4, and to do that I need leading edge management of change processes, rapid prototyping, computer design, etc. All things that the F1 pressure cooker teaches and pushes.

Probably many more examples than that if I could type quicker.
Appreciate 0
      04-28-2010, 06:46 PM   #29
josephr25
Major
United_States
18
Rep
1,458
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 E92 335i
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Irvine, CA

iTrader: (2)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by gts135 View Post
On the surface, I would agree with your comments, but if you look at the technologies employed in the tools utilized to design F1 cars, I believe there is a lot of knowledge transfer within a manufacturer.

Aero - do road cars benefit from advances in F1? Sure, an F1 car aero is all about balancing downforce vs drag - the principles/software/theories/hardware used to better determine this in F1 trickle down to production cars - but with the balance more towards less drag and less towards downforce. Lots of cars now have cD's of less than 0.3 - almost unheard of a generation ago.

Tires - same thing plus the learnings taken from the chemistry in the tire compounds

Engines - ditto. Now we start adding the leading edge practical application of combustion dynamics, material advancements, FEA modelling basis reliability/weight, etc. that are developed in the lab, fine tuned in F1, and then transformed into use in the design of production cars.

Organization - want to motivate your engineers and put them on almost vertical learning curves? Assign them to the F1 team. Learn more in one season than ten on the assembly line.

Return on Investment - want to develop a new car line? Well, would you rather take a $1B and spread that out over 6 years or 4 before generating a return. I'll take 4, and to do that I need leading edge management of change processes, rapid prototyping, computer design, etc. All things that the F1 pressure cooker teaches and pushes.

Probably many more examples than that if I could type quicker.
A few years ago McLaren "bragged" about spending $7 million for just a few tenths of a second. I don't see how this translates or benefits a road car. Road cars NEVER need/see this kind of lift and they never really needed F1 principles to teach companies on how to build a low-drag car. Road cars don't need wings and diffusers and vortex generators to keep themselves from flyng off the road.

And like I said earlier, I have read enough motorsport engineer interviews that stated aero is the most worthless thing you can transfer from a race car to road car.

LIke you, I have some other stuff to say, but I can't spend too much time while at work...

Edit: read towards the end of the interview. It was done 14 years ago:

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00222.html

Last edited by josephr25; 04-28-2010 at 07:21 PM.
Appreciate 0
      04-28-2010, 10:13 PM   #30
gts135
German car nut
Canada
1
Rep
96
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 135iM - Cashmere silver
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Alberta

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kampfer View Post
A few years ago McLaren "bragged" about spending $7 million for just a few tenths of a second. I don't see how this translates or benefits a road car. Road cars NEVER need/see this kind of lift and they never really needed F1 principles to teach companies on how to build a low-drag car. Road cars don't need wings and diffusers and vortex generators to keep themselves from flyng off the road.

And like I said earlier, I have read enough motorsport engineer interviews that stated aero is the most worthless thing you can transfer from a race car to road car.

LIke you, I have some other stuff to say, but I can't spend too much time while at work...

Edit: read towards the end of the interview. It was done 14 years ago:

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00222.html
One may not need the exact principles or design intent that an F1 car needs for aero, but the computer dynamics are the same. Agree you don't need all the F1 gear to keep a street car on the road either - I wasn't implying that. But it's a training ground and great R&D center for those applications. And with ever tightening CAFE standards to meet, aero and mechanical efficiency will grow ever more important.

I think we all know that F1 feeds on itself to a great degree, and not everything is a purely business or practical decision, but there is more than meets the eye at first glance, that's what I'm saying.
Appreciate 0
      04-28-2010, 11:18 PM   #31
Zoli007
Second Lieutenant
Zoli007's Avatar
United_States
8
Rep
218
Posts

 
Drives: 2003 M5
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Davie Florida

iTrader: (0)

I cant stand when its said that F1 needs to be road relevant. I agree with some members here that it doesnt.

It should be the absolute highest form of motorsport. I think the best way to do it is this:

There needs to be a policeable budget cap. Now before you scream, keep reading. It should be 150-200 million euro. You and I should not be able to gather a ton of money and race, it should be left to the highest level of people in the world.

Now, given the budget cap. Rules would be reduced to basic safety rules. You want to run a V12? go ahead, Turbo V8, sure. Make a formula for the engine that somewhat equates power, meaning if you run a V12 you're limited to x amount of liters, or of you do turbo then you can only have y liters of displacement, etc...

Then, give them nice big slick tyres so they have good mechanical grip.

The idea with this would be teams and manufactures can go nuts developing whatever they want WITHIN the budget cap. They can compete on the idea that finding the ideal balance between motor, chassis and aero development for the most competitive combo.

Though I love the racing in F1 now, its kind of boring. And I say boring not because the races are boring. Try watching older races when there were only two teams that could compete and the rest were way off their pace.

The fact that there are 4-6 teams that could potentially challenge for a win each weekend is unprecedented. BUT its kind of artificial. There have been so many things standardized that its almost a super high level spec series.

Thats why now everyone copies each other. The cars look VERY similar, as soon as someone has an F duct everyone copies it.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-29-2010, 12:14 AM   #32
gts135
German car nut
Canada
1
Rep
96
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 135iM - Cashmere silver
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Alberta

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoli007 View Post
I cant stand when its said that F1 needs to be road relevant. I agree with some members here that it doesnt.

It should be the absolute highest form of motorsport. I think the best way to do it is this:

There needs to be a policeable budget cap. Now before you scream, keep reading. It should be 150-200 million euro. You and I should not be able to gather a ton of money and race, it should be left to the highest level of people in the world.

Now, given the budget cap. Rules would be reduced to basic safety rules. You want to run a V12? go ahead, Turbo V8, sure. Make a formula for the engine that somewhat equates power, meaning if you run a V12 you're limited to x amount of liters, or of you do turbo then you can only have y liters of displacement, etc...

Then, give them nice big slick tyres so they have good mechanical grip.

The idea with this would be teams and manufactures can go nuts developing whatever they want WITHIN the budget cap. They can compete on the idea that finding the ideal balance between motor, chassis and aero development for the most competitive combo.

Though I love the racing in F1 now, its kind of boring. And I say boring not because the races are boring. Try watching older races when there were only two teams that could compete and the rest were way off their pace.

The fact that there are 4-6 teams that could potentially challenge for a win each weekend is unprecedented. BUT its kind of artificial. There have been so many things standardized that its almost a super high level spec series.

Thats why now everyone copies each other. The cars look VERY similar, as soon as someone has an F duct everyone copies it.
Wouldn't it be neat to see the likes of the Tyrell P34 show up. Don't think it will happen. Or the vacuum car - that was a Brabham? Chapparal had one but not F1 of course.
Appreciate 0
      04-29-2010, 12:21 AM   #33
JAJ
Captain
17
Rep
933
Posts

 
Drives: 2014 Shelby GT500
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kampfer View Post
This has proven to be a rumor. From Racecar Engineering, Aug. 2009:

"Ulrich Baretzky of Audi Motorsport worked on BMW's Formula 1 engines in the early 1980s and rolls his eyes at the suggestion: 'We kept being asked this,' he recalls, 'and it wasn't true. But Paul Rosche became curious, so we tried it.' They built up an engine around an old road car block and tested it on the dyno to see what would happen. 'it didn't even get warm before it blew up,' recalls Baretzky." So, the M12/3 did start with a BMW production block, however; just not a used one.
Thanks for correcting me!
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:05 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST