Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1.moderato
Titolo: [ENG] FIA focuses on technology

Source: Motorsport.com F1 News
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=193619&amp;FS=F1
The following note has been distributed today to the Teams and
otherstakeholders in the FIA Formula One World Championship.
THE FIA PROPOSALS FOR 2008 FORMULA ONE TECHNICAL REGULATIONSFOLLOW-UP
NOTE ON TECHNOLOGY IN FORMULA ONE
The FIA proposals for 2008 which were sent to you on 4 July
includesignificant restrictions on technology with a view to reducing
costs.However, the recent FIA/AMD survey has demonstrated that the
publicregard technology as an important element of Formula One, although
theydo not like its use for driver aids. The responses to our
proposalsfrom major manufacturers involved in Formula One also favour
retainingsophisticated technology.
During the consultation period which is now underway, we should like
allstakeholders to consider carefully the technology/cost issue and let
ushave their views. Which technologies to allow and even encourage is
adecision of fundamental importance, as is the question of cost.
The FIA's preliminary view is that technology which helps the driverto
control the car (eg traction control, ESP-type systems, launchcontrol,
etc, etc) have no place in Formula One, which should remain asupreme test
of driver skill. This view is supported by the public inthe FIA/AMD
survey. On the other hand, technologies which improve carperformance by,
for example, saving energy or reducing mechanical lossesshould be
encouraged. These do not devalue a racing driver's skills andtheir
development can benefit the ordinary motorist.
The example of an energy recovery, storage and release, or
"hybrid",system is a good one. Using known technology it would be
possible torecover and store about 300 kilojoules of energy when braking
for acorner and release it to give about 60 bhp for 5 seconds on the
nextstraight, all from a system weighing no more than 50 kg. If we were
toregulate (limit) such systems by weight, the research would aim for
themaximum energy (power) for the minimum weight. We would soon see
morepower for longer from lighter systems.
Such systems will eventually be on all road cars - it is just a
questionof how many kilojoules per kilo of weight plus system cost
compared tofuel cost. Deployment in Formula One would greatly accelerate
the rateof development of such devices as well as promoting public
acceptanceand consumer demand.
In the Research and Development departments of the major
manufacturersthere are certainly many other new and interesting
technologies underdevelopment which could usefully be deployed in Formula
One. It is alsopossible that major manufacturers not currently in Formula
One mightwish to come into the World Championship with their new
technologieswithout necessarily becoming engine suppliers. This would
benefit theindependent teams.
We believe there is a strong case for putting the emphasis on
usefultechnology as a means of gaining performance in Formula One.
Atpresent, much of the technology is sterile. For example seeking thebest
lift/drag ratio within the confines of very restrictive
bodyworkregulations whose only purpose is to limit cornering speeds is
arguablynot the best use of talented aerodynamicists working in very
expensiveand sophisticated facilities.
On the subject of aerodynamics, we believe there may be a case forplacing
a limit on the amount of downforce a car can generate (ie amaximum of x
newtons) rather than constantly regulating to restrictthe aerodynamics in
the hope of containing performance. Research wouldthen be directed to
reducing drag, possibly useful to the car industry.Techniques for
generating massive amounts of downforce from the bodyworkof a
single-seater racing car have limited practical application.
Also, if we have a fixed but relatively low maximum permitted
downforce,why would we need to continue to ban moveable aerodynamic
devices?Could we not allow them at least under braking? Or perhaps
forward ofthe front wheel centre line to help aerodynamic balance when
followinganother car closely? We would have to have an accurate and
reliablemeans of measurement, but I am told this will be much easier with
asingle tyre supplier. Moveable devices might also be useful for safety.
If there is some support for such ideas, we should like to
discusspossible action for 2008 as a matter of urgency. In the longer
term wewould propose setting up a small committee from the major
manufacturersand perhaps some academics to advise the FIA on possible car
andaerospace technologies for use in Formula One. We could then startto
think about regulations five or even ten years ahead of
theirintroduction.
Finally, we must never lose sight of the need to keep at least
20,preferably 24, cars on the grid. This means that permitted
technologiesmust either be relatively inexpensive to develop or of a kind
whichbring paying technology partners into Formula One. We should be
gladto discuss these and related questions with any of the teams and
otherstakeholders, either individually or collectively.
-fia-
Copyright 1994-2005 Motorsport.com, Inc.
-- 
Automatically gathered from the web
Subscribe/unsubscribe/info at
http://www.grandprixpassion.com/mailman/listinfo/webnews

 20,preferably 24, cars on the grid. 
Concordo ma senza un ritorno dei 'garagisti' la vedo abbastanza dura.
marco
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 Non mi piace....
Mi fa piacere vedere che non sono l'unico a non gradire il "tasto
turbo"... anche a me l'impressione di un gadget da videogiochi... A questo
punto ci mancano i bonus sparsi per la pista e le gomme colorate per
indicare il degrado (chi si ricorda Pitstop 1 e 2 ?)
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 (o_        Vinci                     registered Linux User #276630
 //\         " Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent "
 V_/_                     Salvor Hardin, Foundation