Slashdot Mirror

Next year the Reb Bull F1 team will drive with Renault engines rebadged as TAG Heuer ( https://www.formula1.com/conte... ). Perhaps they are already ramping up production to meet demand.

It must be very frustrating for the Tesla engineers to have a 60kW "free" energy source and limit it because the batteries can't take the charge rate

Is there no love for KERS at Tesla?

6g cornering? I know that's not right...

http://www.formula1.com/inside...
"A modern Formula One car is capable of developing 3.5 g lateral cornering force (three and a half times its own weight) thanks to aerodynamic downforce."

The new F1 regs are about a lot more than "slowing things down". They have gone from a 750 hp engine to a 600 hp one PLUS "Energy Recovery System". This is exactly the kind of innovation that makes sense.

The latest high-end sports cars use exactly this sort of hybrid setup, so it is completely logical that the traditional racetrack-consumer synergy be continued with this change.

In this sense, F1 is adapting and remaining meaningful (to high end cars), where the electric plywood-on-wheels cars are increasingly meaningless.

hmmm... formula 1 engine rules change quite a bit overtime. I know, I know, you wrote "used to use":

http://www.formula1.com/inside...

http://www.formula1.com/inside...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

hmmm... formula 1 engine rules change quite a bit overtime. I know, I know, you wrote "used to use":

http://www.formula1.com/inside...

http://www.formula1.com/inside...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

One issue is that AQHA runs large commercial races that are open only to its members. They're excercising market control by excluding certain animals based on arbitrary criteria...

And I don't really see what's wrong with that. It's their race, shouldn't they be allowed to set the rules?

To cite another example, it is well known that cars that race in F1 championships have to comply with technical regulations such as their size and dimensions etc. Can an upstart car company demand to be allowed to race with a car that doesn't meet those rules?

There are several things involved:

Firstly, they need to get user's timezone. There are javascript methods to do this, but are not always reliable, especially if they don't want to depend on the client having javascript support. Of course, they could always just ask the user to pick the timezone, so that issue could be solved. E.g. Formula 1 solved it nicely, though I am not sure which method exactly they use (their javascripts are not obfuscated, but I can't be bothered).

Bigger issue, in my opinion, is showing exact time. Assuming their servers all keep exact time and that everybody is happy with their definition of the exact time (which is a big assumption to begin with), BBC would also need to take into account latency between server and client. E.g. it takes about 1/3 or 1/4 of a second for me to load a single random page with a GET request from BBC.

For an example of pain it takes to give users correct time, visit The official U.S. Time page. It's a java applet, presumably because anything client-side can't be trusted to actually count a second as a second. Granted, that page is ancient, but you can still see that it's not really trivial.

I believe F1 steering wheels have all the functions on them, in the form of buttons: http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_the_sport/5287.html
I'm sure they know the position of those buttons off by heart though, but that's their job! I'm also sure that the buttons are placed in the best place for them to use them whilst retaining a grip on the wheel, through the gloves, whilst keeping their eyes on the road. Maybe I'm nitpicking myself now!

However there is a good argument to be made for dials. Dials are very intuitive, and easy to find with your hand without looking. Buttons less so unless they're already under your hand (e.g., a remote control is usable because you have it in your hand and know where the individual buttons are, helped along by button shape).

I think that buttons on a steering wheel, in an accessible place to use without moving your hand from the recommended position, are a solution worth considering. And as many steering wheels already have media controls on them it's not far to extrapolate more generalised controls from them controlling a UI that's directly in front of the driver's eyes.

One of the main points of the discussion is about removing driver functions from the centre console, especially since touchscreens have started appearing there, and as the article and other posters have said - they're a really bad idea. In addition because a lot of the centre console functionality is no longer required, why not get rid of it entirely (or have a stack of cup holders :p) and save money, with all the separate interfaces replaced by one on the display UI on the dash?

I'm sure the car manufacturers have been working on this stuff for a very long time already though, so one of them is going to get it right eventually.

Jet fighters are made of carbon fibre, so swapping one form of carbon for another isn't going to increase any risks. Swapping for a stronger carbon may allow for a lighter frame, though. The drawback is that graphene is a semiconductor and fighters travel at a high enough altitude that there are potential risks of some interesting side-effects.

Now, Formula 1 cars are also made of plastic-reinforced carbon fibre. It is always a great challenge to the teams to build cars that are as light as possible and yet capable of meeting safety requirements that are unimaginably stringent. (I doubt there's a single road car that could handle 250 tonne impacts.) Depending on exactly what directions graphene paper can absorb stresses, it's possible that you could devise much lighter cars that also offer superior protection against those unwanted 240mph collisions. Lacking high levels of cosmic radiation or fly-by-wire controls, F1 cars are also much less likely to suffer any ill-effects from unwanted graphene properties.

One variant of KERS in Formula 1 racing used it.

For those readers left of the pond, F1 is like IndyCar but the cars can turn both right and left.

I'm surprised to learn that occasionally, even during grand prix weekends, they continue to use a test driver in the simulator and feed information back to the team trackside.

I'm not. Not at all.

The high reliance on simulators is not necessarily because it is in any way better than physical testing. The FIA now severely limit the amount of physical testing that can be done.

It's now regular for a team to receive updated parts mid week straight from the factory and the first real-world testing is the Friday practice session, the day before qualifying. This Friday is effectively the only testing day, since the car you complete your time in during qualifying is literally put in a bag and only opened shortly before the race. This is also why drivers who for whatever reason have no chance of gaining anything from finishing a race do so anyway; they use it as free testing time.

You should see McLaren's new little scoop thing on this years cars[1]. It allows almost exactly what you are describing, effect wise anyways, as of right now it is worth about 5MPH down a straight way. This isn't so much about changing the cars surfaces, but changing the way air flows over them and making them not produce as much downforce but a lot less drag.

[1] http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2010/824/727.html

Beginning this year they have re-introduced limited adjustability of the front wing in F1.
http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2009/0/617.html

On what planet is Honda competitive in F1? Just tell me where they show up in the . Your bad analogy is bad. Try again.

(Although your point that some Apple fans are elitists is well founded. Worst thing about getting my MBP was going into the Apple store and sharing air with those miserably stuckup cocksuckers who own Macs.)

Pieces of paper tend to continue working even many disaster scenarios. I'm not sure if most hospital generators would power _everything_ required to keep the computerized crap up.

Yep skip the 100% digital bullshit. Use paper where it still works better. The computerized stuff is useful too but in most IT stuff you can't quickly read and scribble something on the record and rush off to the next patient. You can do that in paper (ok the minus is the scribble could be unreadable...).

Spending the millions on more staff, better training and protocols[1], MRI, dialysis machines and other things that would really help directly.

[1] For example the handover protocols could probably be improved in many hospitals. That could save a fair number of lives.

See:
http://www.nesta.org.uk/how-can-formula-1-be-useful-for-healthcare/
http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2008/7/8015.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118498011/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.oiloja.com.br/ - Brazilian cellphone carrier I use. They had a transparent Flash that covered everything - now it WORKS!

http://www.formula1.com/ seems to be OK too.

Anyone has other sites with that problem so we can test more?

So engineers having nothing to do with advancements in cars? Interesting theory :) Sorry, I disagree very strongly. "And to boot, car engineering is hardly rocket science" Dont tell the Formual 1 teams that, I think they would disagree :) http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/

finally constructing a mechanical device that didn't break down immediately

• Ferrari wins both driver's and constructor's 2007 Formula 1 championship
• Ducati wins both driver's constructor's 2007 championship

Interestingly enough, Formula 1's Official Website (http://www.formula1.com/) still "disables" right clicking on images.

Road going Ferraris indeed use regular fuel. A racing Ferrari, like the F1 cars, is an other thing. They use fuel which is tuned for the specific race they have to run. See http://www.formula1.com/insight/technicalinfo/11/6 46.html for some more detail. The whole analogy between fuel and memory cards doesn't make sense. Fuel is consumed but cards are used over and over again.

47 for a mousepad? That's chump change. THIS is a mousepad

http://f1store.formula1.com/catalog/index.php?cPat h=29_35 has the 400$ mouse pad to go with it

Nobody every takes the time to make a high tech mouse pad, to compliment the hard core mouse...Till now...See http://f1store.formula1.com/catalog/index.php?cPat h=29_35

I heard that an F1 racing car has enough downdraft to drive upside down at speed. True or false?

AFAIK, that is completely true. Or at least I saw it on some HD show and they said so. It seems completely possible. I just found here http://www.formula1.com/insight/technicalinfo/11/4 68.html:

A modern Formula One car is capable of developing 3.5 g lateral cornering force (three and a half times its own weight) thanks to aerodynamic downforce. That means that, theoretically, at high speeds they could drive upside down.

That is pretty intense, but I don't see how 3.5 g of lateral force translates necessarily to downward force. Lets click on the second google hit. http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s282081.h tm

A Formula 1 car uses aerodynamics to generate, at full speed, a downforce of 2-and-a-half times its own weight, so that it'll stick to the road really well. At 160 km per hour, they're generating their own weight in downforce - so they could theoretically drive upside down on the roof of a tunnel.

OK, 2.5 downward gs is enough.

I need a more fun job. By those specs, these things are basically a better handling fighter jet that can't go quite as fast, but pretty damn fast.

The answer is "true" according to the official F1 site.

http://www.formula1.com/insight/technicalinfo/11/4 68.html

NASCAR, Indy, and F1 are all technologically advance machines driven for extended amounts of time at high speeds along exciting circuits capabale of seating hundreds of thousands of fans during all kinds of weather and track conditions. All teams command a multitude of sponsors from various industries and include a manufacturer of core equipment, like Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Honda, Toyota, McLaren, Ferrari, etc. The core manufacturer uses technology derived from their respective racing teams and eventually use it in products they sell to customers.

Which is where the problem comes in...
Commercially, this is not viable because:

1. Airframe, Powerplant, and other suppliers are not going to sell this technolgoy at some point to consumers, at least within the next 50 years.
2. Where are people going to watch this from? Auto racing packs in the crowds because people can get close to the racing, even though they might not see much of the track.
3. Seriously, 3-4 laps of glide time and 4 min of available thrust between 5-10 minute pit stops?? BOOOOORING!!! Especially versus 30-50 laps between less than 15 second pit stops...and not to mention 300-500+ mile races!
4. Most people cannot relate to a "rocket racer" because they don't own a rocket plane. Its very easy to relate to a race car driver because you own a car.
5. $$$$....To own a basic pro-circuit auto racing team, its millions of dollars in costs. A rocket racing team would have extremely high upfront costs, high maintenance costs, and probably low payout. Poor ROI.

I'm not trying to bash the Rocket Racing League idea, as I think its a neat concept, especially concerning space technology development. I just strongly believe it not to be commercially viable and will not be very popular. Good Luck anyways.
Amigori

Now all I need is for someone to loan me a Formula 1 race car for the test.

Well BAR Honda have a couple they won't be needing for a few weeks... Perhaps you should ask them. ;-)

I don't agree too much with your.. "but Barrichello isn't doing as good."

http://www.formula1.com/archive/driver/2004.html

He is the second pilot in the ranking and he has 21 points more than the third...

So, even if Schumacher wasn't the great champion he is, we would have anyway a Ferrari driver in the first place.

Obviously, the pilot contributes also to the development and fine tuning of the car.

Ferrari makes Schumacher unbeatable, but Schumacher makes Ferrari unbeatable...

Here's a good link for people who don't know what Formula One racing is.

In F1 the buttons all mean something. There's the gear shift adjuster, the pit lane speed limiter, the clutch, the radio transmit button... While it may be true that buttons and knobs are for show in passanger cars, they definitely aren't for F1. I'd recomend you go to the F1 site for more info.

Additionally Formula 1 pushes the envelope in Saftey, which is something CART does not.

The F1 site has some nice general information regarding the engineering etc here.

I think last spring F1 became the biggest sport in the world according to TV viewing numbers (excepting the Wolrd Cup finals).

Americans are retards when it comes to racing. Which is a shame because F1 was thriving in America in the 60s and 70s and we actually had some Americans drivers.

If I was a billionaire I'd upgrade Watkins Glen, kickout the proffitable but contemptable Wiston Cup jerks, and try to get F1 back on the best road coarse in the country.

I think last spring F1 became the biggest sport in the world according to TV viewing numbers (excepting the Wolrd Cup finals).

Americans are retards when it comes to racing. Which is a shame because F1 was thriving in America in the 60s and 70s and we actually had some Americans drivers.

If I was a billionaire I'd upgrade Watkins Glen, kickout the proffitable but contemptable Wiston Cup jerks, and try to get F1 back on the best road coarse in the country.

You mean like the US Grand Prix ? (I know you were joking)

I have been to the Indy 500, and the US Grand Prix. I can tell you that to me, F1 is much more impressive than Indy cars. Thankfully, I have never been to a NAASCOOORRR race, but there were plenty of ignorant rednecks at the Indy 500 for my tastes. What is most impressive to me about F1 is their handling. Holy Crap! When I went, it was raining part of the time, and they were still going insanely fast through the corners. When it dried out, they were even faster. Unbelievable. The downforce on those cars, and the suspension/tires is amazing. Not to mention the braking ability. The sheer speed is nothing sto sneeze at either. Hell, their *average* speeds are impressive.

I have heard NAASCOOOORRR fans say that F1 is too much technology and not enough driving, but F1 has the best of the best when it comes to sheer driving ability. Then there are those absolute FREAKS who do rally. Those guys are nuts.

But I don't think anyone has ever dominated a sport as much as Schumacher has in the past few years

He's not exaggerating..

Current 2004 results

It is here:
Indianapolis in two days

Think about the advantages: You get a Royal Family of your very own and no more George Dubblyah Bush.

...there is so much to buying a car that you can't get from a game, no matter how sophiscated

Exactly right. I would never buy a car without driving it, no matter how well it performed in a game. I am a performance enthusiast, so I'm probably exactly the type of person they target. But as any person who really drives (and enjoys driving at the limit) will tell you, the most important aspects of a performance car is the feedback the car provides to the driver, and no game can simulate that. A car with better feedback allows the driver to be better.
This reminds me of something Michael Schumacher once said (If you have to ask who he is, you're probably reading the wrong thread, but here). When asked about driving in wet conditions, he said that normally, the car tells you when you're about to exceed the limit, but in the wet, it whispers. When I can feel everything in the car accurately "whisper" to me in a game, I'll consider buying a car based on the game, but I'll let you know when that happens (don't wait up).

Yeah - F1, the one we both agree is dull today ...Ironically, all these restrictions were brought in to help the smaller teams who had no budget. They are much further off the pace today than they were at the technological heyday.

Um, no, sorry. All of formula 1 has been using 'semi-automatic' transmissions (those wheel mounted shifters) for quite a while. Now they are moving to fully automatic transmissions, with some teams (like ferrari) already using them.

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines01/03/s4830. html