[Closed] F1 rule changes for 2014

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

As I once read in a Viz Top Tip, before the start of every race, each driver must eat a square of laxative chocolate for each championship point he has.

Double points in the final race is a stupid idea

Should they change football to make goals in the last five minutes of the game count double so there are less draws. No that would be mental.

If the want to liven up F1 with stupid ideas then how about red and green shells that the driver collect by driving over special squares on the race track?

Yay, one step closer to (the previously mentioned) "Competition Yellows"!

Should they change football to make goals in the last five minutes of the game count double so there are less draws. No that would be mental

Double points in the last race has been done in sailing for quite a while now - usually with just the top 10 boats doing the last race.
It's an 'interesting' concept and keeps the event more open but e I'm not really a fan. I'm not sure how it would work with the F1 points system also as sailing is generally 1st = 1 point, 2nd = 2 points, etc. with the low points winning.

Are any of the F1 appologists going to suport this rubbish, they have tried to defend the artificial overtaking device I want to hear them defend double points because its the last race of the year. Utter utter bobbins

pigface - when the world champion says it's a stupid idea I think you've got to go along with him. I suspect Bernie wanted to push this through like his medals idea, which IIRC curiously also appeared at a time when f1 wasn't in the news much before getting overturned later because the rest of the world hated it.

Remember the Budweiser advert?
"EXTRA TIME MULTI-BALL!"

Nike?

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

That was one of Bernie's ideas only a few years ago 🙄

thisisnotaspoon
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.

Which is probably why he is a school teacher and not a principal F1 engineer............ 😉