XPost: rec.autos.sport.indy

Faster than an F1 car: Porsche is breaking records with the 919 Hybrid
It no longer races, but Porsche's tribute tour for the race car is
serious business.
JONATHAN M. GITLIN - 4/9/2018, 10:51 AM

For a few glorious years, the "P1" prototype class in the World
Endurance Championship (WEC) was the coolest thing in racing. Audi,
Toyota, and Porsche built all-wheel drive hybrid racecars, each with
more than 1,000 horsepower, each capable of running flat-out for 24
hours or longer over distances it would take an F1 car an entire season
of races to rack up. But Audi and then Porsche both withdrew from the
sport, their highly successful—but very expensive—racing programs casualties of Dieselgate. Porsche pulled out at the end of 2017 after
winning almost everything there was to win with its 919 Hybrid. But
before the company puts the cars into the museum, it has some unfinished business, proving just how insanely fast the 919 Hybrid really is.


Porsche is taking the 919 Hybrid on tour, but the plan is to do more
than just show it off to the fans—it's going for records. The first of
these has already fallen. On Sunday, April 9, Neel Jani set a new track
record at Spa-Francorchamps in Belgium, home to that country's annual F1
race. Jani lapped the 4.4-mile (7km) track in 1 minute 41.770 seconds,
12 seconds faster than the 919 Hybrid's previous best time at the track.

Let's put that in more context. In last year's Belgian Grand Prix, Lewis Hamilton set a new lap record at Spa during qualifying with a lap time
of 1:42.553—0.783 seconds slower. To make this new feat even more
impressive, Porsche set that time in weather barely warm enough for the
tires to switch on—the ambient temperature was just 12 degrees Celsius
(53.6 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to 17 degrees Celsius (62.6 degrees Fahrenheit) for the F1 event that took place in August.

ARS TRENDING VIDEO
Talking Prospect with Filmmakers Zeek Earl and Chris Caldwell

The powertrain of the car—now called the 919 Evo—was mechanically the
same as raced in 2017. It's a 2.0L turbocharged gasoline V4 engine
driving the rear wheels, coupled to a motor-generator unit (MGU) at the
front axle and a second energy recovery unit that harvested electricity
from the exhaust. Both energy recovery systems charged a lithium-ion
battery, and that energy was used by the MGU to drive the front wheels.

But the technical regulations of the WEC imposed some limits on the cars
in order to keep performance within a range the organizers considered acceptable. Among other things, this included a fuel flow
restriction—1.784kg of fuel (2.464L or 0.6 US gallons) a lap. What's
more, the hybrid systems were limited in the amount of energy they could
deploy each lap. In 2017, this was just 6.37MJ.

This is how fast it really goes
Now that the 919 Evo isn't racing, Porsche doesn't have to abide by any
of those restrictions. It's still running the same race fuel, but new
engine management software has bumped power on the internal combustion
engine from 500hp (373kW) to 720hp (537kW). And with 8.48MJ now coming
out of the battery, the hybrid system is 10-percent stronger at 440hp
(328kW).

Porsche's aerodynamicists have also been given a free hand. There's a
new front diffuser and a much bigger rear wing. And both are active,
which means they can change profile to minimize drag on the straights
and maximize downforce in the turns (two tweaks that are good for lap
time). Porsche says the 919 Evo has 53-percent more downforce and is
66-percent more aerodynamically efficient compared to the bodywork it
used in the Six Hours of Spa-Francorchamps in 2017.

Other changes to the 919 Evo included stronger suspension wishbones and
new power steering to cope with the higher cornering loads, a new
brake-by-wire system that added some more yaw control, 86lbs (39kg) of
weight reduction (total overall weight: 1,871lbs or 849kg), and new tire compounds courtesy of Michelin that maximized grip.

According to Stephen Mitas, chief race engineer for the 919 Hybrid,
letting the car off the leash was a dream come true:

Having developed, improved and raced the car for four years, the guys
had a very close relationship to it. We all knew, no matter how
successful the 919 Hybrid was, it could never show its full abilities.
Actually even the Evo version doesn’t fully exploit the technical
potential. This time we were not limited by regulations but resources.
It is a very satisfying feeling that what we’ve done to the car was
enough to crack the Formula One record.

If you want one last chance to see the 919 drive in anger, Porsche will
be bringing it to the Nürburgring (including a demo lap on the fearsome Nordschleife) on May 12, then the Goodwood Festival of Speed (July 12 to
15) and the Festival of Porsche at Brands Hatch (September 2), both in
the UK. The final outing will be at the Porsche Rennsport Reunion at
Laguna Seca in California (September 27 to 30).

So long, and thanks for all the laps.
Enlarge / So long, and thanks for all the laps.
Porsche
Toyota also took the cuffs off
There are still quite a few opportunities to see the last of the P1
hybrids race, however. Audi and Porsche might have pulled out, but
Toyota Gazoo Racing is still taking part in the WEC's "Super Season,"
which gets underway next month at Spa and continues all the way through
until the 2019 24 Hours of Le Mans. The US round will be a 1,000-mile or eight-hour race on March 15 at Sebring in Florida, the day before IMSA's 12-hour race takes place.

This past weekend, the teams of the WEC took part in their annual
preseason test at Paul Ricard in France. And there, too, we got a
glimpse of the raw speed of an unleashed factory hybrid racer. On the
first day of the test, the Toyota TS050s were blisteringly quick, with
Mike Conway setting an overall fastest lap of 1:32.662. That was five
seconds faster than the non-hybrid, privateer P1 cars that make up the
rest of the class for the Super Season and four seconds faster than the
last time hybrid P1 cars tested at Paul Ricard.

For a day or so there was much consternation over the speed
differential, until Toyota explained the real reason: on Friday the cars weren't bound by fuel flow or energy limits, and the team turned
everything to 11 to stress-test a new cooling system. Unlike the 919
Evo, Toyota was running with homologated bodywork and on its regular
tire compounds.

Listing image by Porsche


JONATHAN M. GITLIN
Jonathan is the automotive editor at Ars Technica, covering all things car-related. Jonathan lives and works in Washington, D.C.
EMAIL jonathan.gitlin@arstechnica.com // TWITTER @drgitlin

READER COMMENTS
63

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/faster-than-an-f1-car-porsche-is-breaking-records-with-the-919-hybrid/

comments include:
For a daily driver, please.
up +10 (+14 / -4) down
1090 posts | registered 1/26/2017
WilburGoat Smack-Fu Master, in training
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:02 AM
SPLIT OPINION
I LOVE that they are going to blow away F1 records. But a little sad
that it's not with bodywork or the engine how the cars raced. It shows
the technical potential with non-standard aero, but the claim that the
car crushed the F1 record kind of has an asterisk.
up +5 (+26 / -21) down
19 posts | registered 5/9/2013
Moodyz Ars Centurion
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:05 AM
That's truly a bonkers lap time, even if the car's not exactly WEC
legal. Nordschleife and Laguna Seca runs should be interesting. But no Bathurst? C'mon Porsche!!
up +13 (+14 / -1) down
252 posts | registered 5/30/2016
BulkyZ Ars Praetorian
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:08 AM
"If you want one last chance to the 919 drive in anger."

To see it drive in anger? Yes please! If only my time off wasn't already
going to be used for other trips this year.
up -1 (+1 / -2) down
2363 posts | registered 4/27/2015
Elore Ars Scholae Palatinae
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:12 AM
POPULAR
WilburGoat wrote:
It shows the technical potential with non-standard aero, but the claim
that the car crushed the F1 record kind of has an asterisk.

It's technically correct, but by the same token, if F1 cars weren't
bound by their own restrictions, they could be a lot faster, as well.
It's not the most meaningful comparison, agreed.
up +72 (+73 / -1) down
773 posts | registered 4/5/2012
icwhatudidthere Ars Scholae Palatinae et Subscriptor
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:13 AM
All the same, this year's F1 cars are faster than last year's so I
wouldn't be surprised to see that record drop once again. All while
living within the actual race regulations.
up +23 (+24 / -1) down
680 posts | registered 10/24/2012
itfa Ars Praetorian
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:17 AM
WilburGoat wrote:
I LOVE that they are going to blow away F1 records. But a little sad
that it's not with bodywork or the engine how the cars raced. It shows
the technical potential with non-standard aero, but the claim that the
car crushed the F1 record kind of has an asterisk.


Given the restrictions on F1 cars, it isn't terribly surprising that
it's faster than an F1. I mean, F1 cars from decades ago are faster than
the ones today and there's only so much you can do with 2.4 liters.
up +20 (+27 / -7) down
1340 posts | registered 3/21/2016
effgee Ars Tribunus Militum et Subscriptor
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:20 AM
I have nothing to add, I merely stopped by to thank Jonathan for this
lovely article.

Dankeschön!
up +11 (+12 / -1) down
1956 posts | registered 4/8/2006
Stochastic Ars Centurion
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:25 AM
itfa wrote:
WilburGoat wrote:
I LOVE that they are going to blow away F1 records. But a little sad
that it's not with bodywork or the engine how the cars raced. It shows
the technical potential with non-standard aero, but the claim that the
car crushed the F1 record kind of has an asterisk.


Given the restrictions on F1 cars, it isn't terribly surprising that
it's faster than an F1. I mean, F1 cars from decades ago are faster than
the ones today and there's only so much you can do with 2.4 liters.


Today's F1 cars are the fastest of all time on most tracks, at least in qualifying (they aren't that fast in the race because of the onerous reliability and fuel use requirements that force teams to clamp down on
engine power). Their top speed isn't the highest ever because of how
draggy they are, but the sheer amount of downforce makes up for that.

That said, I'm really hoping the next-gen engines in 2021 will be a
couple hundred HP more powerful. I think racing is at its best when the
power to downforce ratio is maximized.
Last edited by Stochastic on Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:30 pm

up +22 (+24 / -2) down
372 posts | registered 6/14/2012
cwbecker Ars Praefectus
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:28 AM
POPULAR
Quote:
On Sunday, April 9, Neel Jani set a new track record at
Spa-Francorchamps in Belgian,


Wow, if he was that fast in Belgian, I wonder how fast he would have
been in his native language.
up +65 (+66 / -1) down
5577 posts | registered 12/26/2008
YodaMcFly Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:31 AM
Quote:
... including a demo lap on the fearsome Nordschleife ...

Is this going to be a grandma-like cruise through the woods as when
Heidfeld did it in the BMW-Sauber F1.06, or something closer to 7/10?

I can understand not wanting to go all-out, and risk balling the car up,
but, come on ...
up -1 (+1 / -2) down
209 posts | registered 6/22/2017
Stochastic Ars Centurion
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:32 AM
YodaMcFly wrote:
Quote:
... including a demo lap on the fearsome Nordschleife ...

Is this going to be a grandma-like cruise through the woods as when
Heidfeld did it in the BMW-Sauber F1.06, or something closer to 7/10?

I can understand not wanting to go all-out, and risk balling the car up,
but, come on ...


I hope I live long enough to see a sub-6 minute Nordschleife lap. That
will be glorious to behold.
Last edited by Stochastic on Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:34 pm

up +3 (+4 / -1) down
372 posts | registered 6/14/2012
YodaMcFly Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:33 AM
Stochastic wrote:
show nested quotes


Today's F1 cars are the fastest of all time on most tracks, at least in qualifying (they aren't that fast in the race because of the onerous reliability and fuel use requirements that force teams to clamp down on
engine power). Their top speed isn't the highest ever because of how
draggy they are, but the sheer amount of downforce makes up for that.

That said, I'm really hoping the next-gen engines in 2021 will be a
couple hundred HP more powerful. I think racing is at its best when the
power to downforce ratio is maximized.

On the one hand, the car should be difficult to drive. It used to take
cast iron ... attachments ... to take Eau Rouge/Radillon flat.

On the other hand, when the cars are so aero-dependent that they can't
follow closely, the racing suffers.

But, we all knew that.
up +1 (+3 / -2) down
209 posts | registered 6/22/2017
kcarlile Ars Scholae Palatinae
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:35 AM
This is brilliant. I only wish that the R18 had been given the same
sendoff, but I know Dieselgate made that utterly impossible. I miss
those Audis...
up +10 (+11 / -1) down
1085 posts | registered 9/22/2004
hanser Ars Legatus Legionis et Subscriptor
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:40 AM
Quote:
Porsche says the 919 Evo has 53-percent more downforce and is 66-percent
more aerodynamically efficient compared to the bodywork it used in the
Six Hours of Spa-Francorchamps in 2017.

Wow.
up +1 (+3 / -2) down
35744 posts | registered 1/6/2000
dizdizzie Ars Scholae Palatinae
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:43 AM
That's just PR stunt. Without any rules it's pointless. They should have
stayed in Le Mans

edit: I mean car that isn't bound to any rules is quicker than car that
is bound to many strict regualtioms. Shocker. /s
Last edited by dizdizzie on Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:00 pm

up +1 (+18 / -17) down
911 posts | registered 11/4/2011
Ryanrule Ars Praetorian
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:48 AM
Remove the chicanes.
up +5 (+6 / -1) down
593 posts | registered 8/21/2007
tsk2k Smack-Fu Master, in training
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 11:54 AM
Proof that FIA killed LMP.
up -5 (+2 / -7) down
89 posts | registered 4/9/2015
jbauer5 Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 12:02 PM
For a second I was wondering why there were a bunch of Gran Turismo
screenshots in this article, then I realized they were real.

Those video game screenshots have come a long way.
up +10 (+12 / -2) down
188 posts | registered 6/19/2009
caspergsht42 Smack-Fu Master, in training
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 12:16 PM
NEW POSTER
Prototypes are fantastic, the old Silk Cut Jaguars used to do +400km/h
on the Mulsanne Straight - that was before the chicanes. Still today
they run almost as fast as a F1 sprint car, just for 6, 12, or 24 hours
... brilliant.
up +3 (+5 / -2) down
4 posts | registered 1/8/2017
Me, Myself And I Ars Praetorian
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 12:20 PM
The fact that the LMP1 Porsche was heavily modified to a point that it
was no longer an LMP1 car should be mentioned earlier in the article.

Also, the record was set outside of the race - Hamilton’s 2017 car would
be even faster - much faster if it was run outside of a Grand Prix race weekend. Mind, F1 temas were limited to 3 power units last season so
they couldn’t run on full power - they need to last.

Essentially, we’re comparing a rule-compliant car time setting a lap
time under race conditions against a one-off attempt by a car designed
to break record.

And still.... the time difference is fractional.
up +9 (+19 / -10) down
506 posts | registered 10/10/2012
takk825 Smack-Fu Master, in training
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 12:25 PM
Let's give a year old Mercedes F1 car the same treatment and pit it
against the 919 in a proper race. Hell, let's get a whole field of amped
up F1s and LMP1s together for a 50 lap exhibition race.
up +13 (+15 / -2) down
93 posts | registered 8/2/2012
xWidget Ars Scholae Palatinae
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 12:32 PM
Pardon my ignorance as a non-racing person.

But if the point of F1 racing isn't to design prototypes that go as fast
as completely possible (within some safety and maybe size or toxic fumes constraints) then what is the point of it?

Having very-but-not-particularly-the-most-fast cars that require
millions of dollars to make doesn't sound very rewarding to anyone
involved to me.
up 0 (+9 / -9) down
934 posts | registered 12/4/2009
Demmrir Ars Scholae Palatinae
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 12:40 PM
xWidget wrote:
Pardon my ignorance as a non-racing person.

But if the point of F1 racing isn't to design prototypes that go as fast
as completely possible (within some safety and maybe size or toxic fumes constraints) then what is the point of it?

Having very-but-not-particularly-the-most-fast cars that require
millions of dollars to make doesn't sound very rewarding to anyone
involved to me.


It is, ostensibly. But then the richest manufacturers just wreck
everyone else, and it gets too dangerous, so they do things to limit
speeds and manufacture regulations to limit cost and force competitors
to be more similar so the races are closer and more interesting to watch.

It’s like, NASCAR was technically supposed to be about racing stock
cars—as in, normal street cars. But after so many rules and changes to
make them uniform for more interesting visual spectacle, they are less
like street cars than this LMP1 prototype is.
Last edited by Demmrir on Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:41 pm

up +17 (+18 / -1) down
609 posts | registered 10/29/2010
dizdizzie Ars Scholae Palatinae
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 12:41 PM
xWidget wrote:
Pardon my ignorance as a non-racing person.

But if the point of F1 racing isn't to design prototypes that go as fast
as completely possible (within some safety and maybe size or toxic fumes constraints) then what is the point of it?

Having very-but-not-particularly-the-most-fast cars that require
millions of dollars to make doesn't sound very rewarding to anyone
involved to me.

F1 is the quickest FIA sanctioned series. If you try to build car that
isn't bound to any restrictions, sure you can go faster. For such a
respected company like Porsche I would have been surprised if their cars weren't the quickest.
up +4 (+5 / -1) down
911 posts | registered 11/4/2011
Matthew J. Ars Scholae Palatinae et Subscriptor
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 12:42 PM
I never understood the insistence of race organizers to neuter their
cars with absolutely pointless rules, like how many micrograms of fuel
the car can consume per lap or what shape the front hood has to be.

Races would be a hell of a lot more exciting if you did away with all
that nonsense.

Except for safety rules of course. You shouldn't be able to do away with
the seatbelts to save weight.
up -4 (+7 / -11) down
1011 posts | registered 6/8/2006
dizdizzie Ars Scholae Palatinae
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 12:49 PM
Matthew J. wrote:
I never understood the insistence of race organizers to neuter their
cars with absolutely pointless rules, like how many micrograms of fuel
the car can consume per lap or what shape the front hood has to be.

Races would be a hell of a lot more exciting if you did away with all
that nonsense.

Except for safety rules of course. You shouldn't be able to do away with
the seatbelts to save weight.

Real world is a bit more complicated. You don't want cars to go so quick
that drivers aren't able to control them. You also don't want to end up
with boring races when you know the obvious that cars that are quickest
in qualifying are quickest in race, because that's boring. You want to
make it possible to overtake You also want to have series that is
affordable. Then add politics within F1 to the mix and you end up with
heavily compromised rules.
up +10 (+13 / -3) down
911 posts | registered 11/4/2011
jhodge Wise, Aged Ars Veteran et Subscriptor
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 1:03 PM
dizdizzie wrote:
...You don't want cars to go so quick that drivers aren't able to
control them...


I've never really understood that particular argument. I'd think that
one of the skills expected of a professional driver would be to know
just how far they can push their machine in given conditions. I can see
that safety might be compromised if a lesser driver or a driver in a
lesser car were to think that they could eke out a win by taking more
chances, but is limiting the cars really the best answer?
up -3 (+7 / -10) down
116 posts | registered 5/13/2011
Matthew J. Ars Scholae Palatinae et Subscriptor
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 1:15 PM
dizdizzie wrote:
You also don't want to end up with boring races when you know the
obvious that cars that are quickest in qualifying are quickest in race,
because that's boring...

To me, watching hobbled cars that have been regulated into complete
sameness is pretty boring too.
up +3 (+7 / -4) down
1011 posts | registered 6/8/2006
tayhimself Ars Praefectus
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 1:18 PM
jhodge wrote:
dizdizzie wrote:
...You don't want cars to go so quick that drivers aren't able to
control them...


I've never really understood that particular argument. I'd think that
one of the skills expected of a professional driver would be to know
just how far they can push their machine in given conditions. I can see
that safety might be compromised if a lesser driver or a driver in a
lesser car were to think that they could eke out a win by taking more
chances, but is limiting the cars really the best answer?


I don't think you can really design a course where a mistake would risk
death. Formula 1 is too good for that and safety has to come above all
else. There's always a risk, but I'd prefer if the risk were a
spectacular crash rather than one of death. I still remember the TV
images watching early in the morning when Senna had his fatal crash.
Don't want to relive that or Suzuka 2015.
up +11 (+12 / -1) down
4280 posts | registered 2/22/2012
alterSchwede Ars Centurion
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 1:18 PM
jhodge wrote:

I've never really understood that particular argument. I'd think that
one of the skills expected of a professional driver would be to know
just how far they can push their machine in given conditions. I can see
that safety might be compromised if a lesser driver or a driver in a
lesser car were to think that they could eke out a win by taking more
chances, but is limiting the cars really the best answer?


If you have cars so fast and powerful that only the best three or so
race car drivers on the planet can control them you won't have much of a
race.

Also, you will not be able to rein in race engineers or drivers with
some nice words.
If car and driver made it last race week the engineers will push a
little further this week. After all, it worked last time so how is a
tiny little improvement going to hurt this time? Same goes for the drivers.
You need hard rules or you're going to have a bunch of dead drivers on
your hand.
(see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_B)
Last edited by alterSchwede on Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:25 pm

up +11 (+12 / -1) down
315 posts | registered 11/8/2010
Penforhire Ars Praefectus
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 1:20 PM
What F1 needs, more than anything else IMO, is a set of aerodynamic
rules that allow longer close following and more overtaking when pulling
out from a draft. Their tires still get wrecked from low down force
understeer when following closely for any period of time.

The DRS flap and zones were an attempt to increase passing but it does
not tie directly to drafting and is not helpful enough on all tracks.
up +7 (+8 / -1) down
4376 posts | registered 1/3/2007
maksymko Smack-Fu Master, in training
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 1:21 PM
My first reaction is: they have probably done it with some sort of a
cheating device.
up -14 (+1 / -15) down
69 posts | registered 10/19/2015
qchronod Ars Tribunus Militum et Subscriptor
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 1:54 PM
Penforhire wrote:
What F1 needs, more than anything else IMO, is a set of aerodynamic
rules that allow longer close following and more overtaking when pulling
out from a draft. Their tires still get wrecked from low down force
understeer when following closely for any period of time.

The DRS flap and zones were an attempt to increase passing but it does
not tie directly to drafting and is not helpful enough on all tracks.

They would have to reduce the front wing, allow ground effects, and let
them re-add the diffuser.

That should reduce the front grip making the cars corner slower (most
passing happens in the breaking zone) and reduce the loss of downforce
from turbulent air going over the wings (since the car can generate more downforce from the ground effects). Beyond that you'd have to look at
changing the rear wing design so that it leaves a larger hole in the air
giving the following car a bigger draft.
up +2 (+3 / -1) down
2813 posts | registered 6/15/2005
tayhimself Ars Praefectus
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 2:11 PM
qchronod wrote:
show nested quotes

They would have to reduce the front wing, allow ground effects, and let
them re-add the diffuser.

That should reduce the front grip making the cars corner slower (most
passing happens in the breaking zone) and reduce the loss of downforce
from turbulent air going over the wings (since the car can generate more downforce from the ground effects). Beyond that you'd have to look at
changing the rear wing design so that it leaves a larger hole in the air
giving the following car a bigger draft.


Do you know how downforce vs dirty air compares with F1 cars and the WEC
cars? Is there a lot more passing in WEC? I don't watch F1 anymore but
it used to be that you couldn't drive more than a few laps close enough
to pass, waiting for a mistake, because the dirty air would cause your
car to slide around and wreck your tires.
up +1 (+2 / -1) down
4280 posts | registered 2/22/2012
bvz_1 Ars Scholae Palatinae
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 2:24 PM
xWidget wrote:
Pardon my ignorance as a non-racing person.

But if the point of F1 racing isn't to design prototypes that go as fast
as completely possible (within some safety and maybe size or toxic fumes constraints) then what is the point of it?

Having very-but-not-particularly-the-most-fast cars that require
millions of dollars to make doesn't sound very rewarding to anyone
involved to me.


I am also a non-racing person. But one thing that I find interesting is
that these artificial limits could really push the creativity envelope
for the teams involved. You can't just toss the biggest engine in there,
but rather have to have a more efficient one. Or more reliable one. Or
do something creative with the aerodynamics that don't violate the rules
but still give you an edge.

I like the idea of that being a potential outcome. But as I mentioned, I
don't follow motorsports at all so I don't know if this really comes to
pass or not, but if so it would be an amazing plus side to all of the restrictions.
up +1 (+2 / -1) down
1162 posts | registered 3/5/2009
Belzebuth Ars Scholae Palatinae et Subscriptor
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 2:34 PM
I want you guys to come clean and admit the last two photos are just screenshots from Gran Turismo photo mode.

Spoiler: show
Last edited by Belzebuth on Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:36 pm

up +1 (+2 / -1) down
1168 posts | registered 5/28/1999
RobDickinson Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 2:36 PM
You know, F1 cars could be faster without the f1 restrictions also..
up +7 (+8 / -1) down
6008 posts | registered 8/16/2000
robert.larsen Smack-Fu Master, in training
REPLY
APR 9, 2018 2:42 PM
NEW POSTER
xWidget wrote:
Pardon my ignorance as a non-racing person.

But if the point of F1 racing isn't to design prototypes that go as fast
as completely possible (within some safety and maybe size or toxic fumes constraints) then what is the point of it?

Having very-but-not-particularly-the-most-fast cars that require
millions of dollars to make doesn't sound very rewarding to anyone
involved to me.

As Fangio said quite a while ago (paraphrased): the point of F1 is to
win races in the slowest possible time.
up +6 (+7 / -1) down
1 post | registered 4/12/2015

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)