|
Post by struns on Jun 6, 2018 21:03:30 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gturner38 on Jun 7, 2018 3:50:55 GMT -8
I'm sure it's safer, but they are just about making it so that a driver cannot wear glasses and compete in F1.
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Jun 7, 2018 7:55:11 GMT -8
I'm sure it's safer, but they are just about making it so that a driver cannot wear glasses and compete in F1. While it is great for F1 (who can afford it). but these kinds of changes have a trickle down to the levels of club racing. We are already paying $500 to $1K for helments, suspect these requirements will add several thousand more to the price.
|
|
|
Post by loudpedal on Jun 7, 2018 10:54:55 GMT -8
$500 to $1000? Is that what a normal motorcycle or amateur racing helmet costs these days? I haven't bought one for a long time, though way back you could buy an open-face Buco for about $30 or a Bell Star for around $100 or a little less. The most I remember paying is maybe $150-$175 for a nice Shoei. That thing literally saved my life. I thought I read somewhere several years ago that F1 helmets go for $20k or more. Kind of a vague memory, so who knows?
BTW, does anybody else remember that old Bell advertisement "If your head is worth $30, buy a helmet. If your head is worth more, buy a Bell"?
|
|
|
Post by Zytes on Jun 7, 2018 11:10:26 GMT -8
BTW, does anybody else remember that old Bell advertisement "If your head is worth $30, buy a helmet. If your head is worth more, buy a Bell"? From bellracing.com...
|
|
|
Post by gturner38 on Jun 7, 2018 11:49:14 GMT -8
$500 to $1000? Is that what a normal motorcycle or amateur racing helmet costs these days? I haven't bought one for a long time, though way back you could buy an open-face Buco for about $30 or a Bell Star for around $100 or a little less. The most I remember paying is maybe $150-$175 for a nice Shoei. That thing literally saved my life. I thought I read somewhere several years ago that F1 helmets go for $20k or more. Kind of a vague memory, so who knows?
BTW, does anybody else remember that old Bell advertisement "If your head is worth $30, buy a helmet. If your head is worth more, buy a Bell"? My current motorcycle cost around $200 two years ago, but is only legal for bikes, indoor karting, and autocross.
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Jun 7, 2018 11:57:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Jun 7, 2018 12:10:02 GMT -8
The lighter the helmet - the more expensive it is. The longer you drive on track - the heavier the helmet begins to feel.
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Jun 7, 2018 12:58:11 GMT -8
The lighter the helmet - the more expensive it is. The longer you drive on track - the heavier the helmet begins to feel. I have no doubt. I've never needed to wear a helmet (crews in IMSA weren't required to back in the GTP days).
|
|
|
Post by Carlo_Carrera on Jun 7, 2018 15:24:28 GMT -8
$500 to $1000? Is that what a normal motorcycle or amateur racing helmet costs these days? I haven't bought one for a long time, though way back you could buy an open-face Buco for about $30 or a Bell Star for around $100 or a little less. The most I remember paying is maybe $150-$175 for a nice Shoei. That thing literally saved my life. I thought I read somewhere several years ago that F1 helmets go for $20k or more. Kind of a vague memory, so who knows? BTW, does anybody else remember that old Bell advertisement "If your head is worth $30, buy a helmet. If your head is worth more, buy a Bell"? My current motorcycle ccost around $200 two years ago, but is only legal for bikes, indoor karting, and autocross. I bought my current Motorsports helmet two years ago. It is FIA and SCCA highest level approved, it is also very light weight. It cost me $185.
|
|
|
Post by loudpedal on Jun 7, 2018 16:00:28 GMT -8
BTW, does anybody else remember that old Bell advertisement "If your head is worth $30, buy a helmet. If your head is worth more, buy a Bell"? From bellracing.com... There you go. I knew it was something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Carlo_Carrera on Jun 8, 2018 13:36:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Jun 8, 2018 13:59:22 GMT -8
The essence of racing is making the driver the controlling factor in getting the most power effectively to the track to produce the shortest lap times. Current F1 cars with all their aero are not exceeding the capacity of the tires in generating their lap times - they have too much tire. Yes today's F1 cars go faster than any we have seen in our lifetimes. But does just going fast create racing that is pleasurable to watch. Present them with a real challenge in being able to put the power to the track; and they are 15 inch tires to boot.
|
|
|
Post by Carlo_Carrera on Jun 8, 2018 16:29:38 GMT -8
The essence of racing is making the driver the controlling factor in getting the most power effectively to the track to produce the shortest lap times. Current F1 cars with all their aero are not exceeding the capacity of the tires in generating their lap times - they have too much tire. Yes today's F1 cars go faster than any we have seen in our lifetimes. But does just going fast create racing that is pleasurable to watch. Present them with a real challenge in being able to put the power to the track; and they are 15 inch tires to boot. Current, and most F1 cars of the past two decades, do not have too much tire, aka mechanical grip. They have too much aero grip. Aero grip is terrible for wheel to wheel and driver skill determinant racing. The aero on the current cars allows many corners to be taken flat out. There is zero driver skill involved in that.
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Jun 8, 2018 17:55:51 GMT -8
The essence of racing is making the driver the controlling factor in getting the most power effectively to the track to produce the shortest lap times. Current F1 cars with all their aero are not exceeding the capacity of the tires in generating their lap times - they have too much tire. Yes today's F1 cars go faster than any we have seen in our lifetimes. But does just going fast create racing that is pleasurable to watch. Present them with a real challenge in being able to put the power to the track; and they are 15 inch tires to boot. Current, and most F1 cars of the past two decades, do not have too much tire, aka mechanical grip. They have too much aero grip. Aero grip is terrible for wheel to wheel and driver skill determinant racing. The aero on the current cars allows many corners to be taken flat out. There is zero driver skill involved in that. The tires they currently have support the aero. Diminish the footprint of the tire and aero loads it beyond its grip level sooner than a tire with more footprint.
|
|
|
Post by gturner38 on Jun 8, 2018 21:23:44 GMT -8
Would slower cars make for better racing? We already answered that in 2009 and got better racing for several years, even when tire deg meant it was hard to follow another car. Then everyone in F1 forgot about that and insisted the cars had to be faster and harder to drive.
As for aero grip vs mechanical grip, the key is that they have too much grip as a whole and too much tire durability. They could keep the aero if they went back to tires that lost a ton of pace after 10 laps
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Jun 9, 2018 1:53:48 GMT -8
Would slower cars make for better racing? We already answered that in 2009 and got better racing for several years, even when tire deg meant it was hard to follow another car. Then everyone in F1 forgot about that and insisted the cars had to be faster and harder to drive. As for aero grip vs mechanical grip, the key is that they have too much grip as a whole and too much tire durability. They could keep the aero if they went back to tires that lost a ton of pace after 10 laps I think slower cars could certainly make for better racing. Some of the best racing I've ever seen have been, for instance, Formula Fords. Butt slow, a great showcase for the DRIVER to make all the difference. Change F1 with gumball tires that go away after 15 laps, wings with a main plane and a single flap front and rear and high revving, screaming normally aspirated V8s, 10s and 12s (number of cylinders open, just a size restriction) with no fuel flow and usage limits would be a good start.
|
|
|
Post by Carlo_Carrera on Jun 9, 2018 8:39:50 GMT -8
Current, and most F1 cars of the past two decades, do not have too much tire, aka mechanical grip. They have too much aero grip. Aero grip is terrible for wheel to wheel and driver skill determinant racing. The aero on the current cars allows many corners to be taken flat out. There is zero driver skill involved in that. The tires they currently have support the aero. Diminish the footprint of the tire and aero loads it beyond its grip level sooner than a tire with more footprint. With the skinny tires you are proposing the cars would struggle to pull a couple a of Gs through the corners. They would be nailed nailed to the road at those speeds with aero. That is amateur stuff. With less, or no aero, and wide tires the cars would rely more on mechanical grip which would disappear quickly as cornering G forces increased, making the cars harder to drive and race better.
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Jun 9, 2018 12:14:17 GMT -8
There is no such thing as "aero loads it beyond its grip level ". Aero may load a tire beyond its load bearing capabilities but it cannot affect grip level in a negative manner.
|
|
|
Post by loudpedal on Jun 9, 2018 20:10:42 GMT -8
There is no such thing as "aero loads it beyond its grip level ". Aero may load a tire beyond its load bearing capabilities but it cannot affect grip level in a negative manner. For a long time I have wondered what would happen if they could make the aero load unsprung.
You know, push down on the tires but not the whole car, so the suspension could work at doing what it is meant to do instead of handling all that induced load.
|
|