Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyzars
Printable View
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyzars
Huh? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Your sentence makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyzars
Whyzars, you have it the wrong way round. You seem to believe mechanical control is more reliable than electronic but the reverse is true. The lack of moving parts makes them inherently more reliable whether in domestic or racing use. Hardly anything in f1 is not electronically controlled these days as you know yet reliability at the moment is exceptional and most retirements are due to mechanical component failure.
Attacking drs because it is electronically controlled and failure could have severe consequences makes no sense. The same is true of engines, gearboxes, diffs, the lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
This has never been about electronic versus mechanical as both are very reliable and both are prone to failure and both are prone to drivers making mistakes when using them. For me this has always been about pure risk. Why do something one way when another way might have less risk attached.
If the cars are setup with the wing open then an inadvertant closing of the wing, whether via a failure or driver error, will cause a braked understeering condition as opposed to the current situation where inadvertant opening will cause an accelerated oversteering condition.
If they ban the use of the DRS at Monaco then I will be very interested to hear of what scenario the powers that be were trying to avoid. I don't think the technology has a problem but I do think that the rules surrounding the DRS might have a problem.
The race in China was exceptional. We could argue that it was, in no small part, because of the DRS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Typing faster than my brain could process...
You might want to check into the latest developments in the F1 world. Several teams are using engines that are for all practical purposes throttleless systems. This is to keep the air flowing through the engine to aid in producing downforce, and the primary reason for the forward mounted exhausts popping up.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveA
I've read some stuff about variable valve lift, is this what they use?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Seems a lot more mechanically complicated than a conventional throttle, so potentially less reliable.
This will help you catch up
http://www.f1racing.us/blog/blown-diffusers/
http://www.team-sport.co.uk/formula-...ually-do-then/
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/0...aren-diffuser/
Quote:
One of Red Bull’s secrets is a setting on the Renault engine for use on the final crucial lap in qualifying, whereby the ignition is retarded on the over-run, which maintains exhaust gas pressure even when the driver lifts off the throttle. This maintains the performance of the blown diffuser and keeps the downforce up when it’s most needed. It thus avoids the main problem of an exhaust blown diffuser whereby when a driver lifts off the throttle for a corner, the downforce goes missing when you most need it and the rear stability changes.
It’s not something you can do for more than a lap or two as the temperatures go sky high, which damages the engine, but it gives that vital fraction of a second which keeps Red Bull ahead of the rest in qualifying.
No they don't - think about it... the "throttle" moderates airflow - it all goes back to carburettor engines when the throttle literally "throttled" the engine by closing off the air/fuel mixtures going into the cylinders.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveA
With the advent of fuel injection the "throttle" is actually a control on the fuel side........
WT