Le Man v F1 technology

Another good example of F! being strangled and stagnated by it's own regulations. KERS should be allowed to recover as much energy as possible and deploy as much or as little where ever the driver thinks it will get him the most advantage. We keep on being told that so many kilos equals so many seconds round the circuit. With a derestricted KERS system you could reduce the fuel load and make the cars faster. 

The technology certainly sounds more applicable, and it's very impressive. That said, the article does mention it's 'recently explored' so perhaps F1 will monitor how successful it is before implementing a version of its own. I know F1 is supposed to be at the forefront of this stuff but because of it's profile and exposure, perhaps they're reluctant to implement some of these changes in case it has a negative impact.

A slight tangent but I was really interested in the cost saving ideas Gary Anderson proposed on the BBC website...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18464273

It's very much down to rules and regulations which determines what technology is allowed in motorsport. But I for one am glad that such technology is permitted in Sportscar racing at the moment because apart from promoting this class of motorsport after a period of stagnation through the 1990s and 2000s, it goes to show that F1 is not the pinnacle of motorsport technology as so many people incorrectly think, with sports-prototypes matching them. And if the strangling power restrictions were loosened on LMP1s, we'd see them as quick as F1 cars too which hasn't been the case since the 3.5 litre formula! 

1) I don't really see the point of the "Delta Wing". Less drag maybe, but compromised handling. Might work at Le Mans, but nowhere else.

2) Not convinced by the Audi E-Tron, with sudden torque thru front wheels above 75 mph for a short while. I think torque for front and rear wheels should come from a central diff, or else stick to 2WD. I think the Toyota hybrids, with more race miles and less accidents, might prove to be better cars.

Too many people make the assumption that the F1 car is the pinnacle of technology, it's not. What it is, is a state of the art answer to a set of very restrictive regulations. In many ways it is and has been low tech in comparison to road cars.

Disc brakes for instance, from aeroplanes, to road cars and then F1.  I had radial tyres on my road car long before F1 adopted them. ABS, Traction Control, Stability control, I can have them all on a Transit Van, but not in a 2012 F1 car. KERS... how long have we had access to the Toyota Prius?

Active aero packages, air brakes, adaptive suspension, all fitted to cars we can buy today (depending on your bank balance), but Jenson Button can only experience them on his drive home after the race.

The paddle shift gearbox is probably F1's biggest contribution to road car technology.

Jeez, if all F1 can offer to road cars after all these years is the paddle shi(f)t maybe they should just park themselves quietly out of sight - Bernie is probably just planning for when he cannot work more than 1 pedal!

The more I see/hear the more it looks like Playstation "inter-facing", mind you that could reduce CO2 consumption enormously compared with flying around the world.

But when F1 cars are permited to have features found on road cars, including hypercars, the technological and engineering solutions to these features are far more advanced than anything you'll find on a road car, making F1 cars state of the art, especially when the regulations are so restrictive. F1 cars don't cost approaching £2m for no reason.

Using sports-prototypes as an example (which equals F1 technology), many LMP1 class cars produce barely any more power than a Ferrari 458, yet their design, engineering and technology allows then to destroy a Veyron which has twice the power. If such cars are low tech then I'm sure Audi would use a R8 to try and win Le Mans outright. And remember that many features we see on cars today were on racing cars of yesteryear.

The Raleigh Grifter I had as a lad had seqential gears but I wouldn't say that it had equal or higher tech to a sequential shift on a racing car.

I did say that F1 cars were `state of the art' as an answer to the regulations, but they are also outdated in that many of the technologies common to everyday road vehicles are banned by thoses same rules.

Yes, LMP-1 cars are Veyron beaters on 458 power, but they should be, the're very light, fitted with racing slicks, and designed without compromise for the track. I suspect they'd be pretty rubbish on the M25 at rush hour or trying to park in the local NCP.

I'm not too sure that is correct. Yes sequential gearboxes and composite tecnology may have trickled down, but in general most technologies have migrated from road cars to F1, KERS for instance, disc brakes, radial tyres.

Is this not just apples vs pears? Le Mans has just as bonkers sets of regulations and efforts to set equivalencies and of course there are various classes on track  at the same time too.

With this you have to start with the understanding that you just cannot have an unlimited Formula One.  The cars would be impossible to drive and unsafe for any circuit in the world, not to mention the cost.  Not grasping that point shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the physics involved.  An F1 team could build a GT5 style X2010 tomorrow if the rules allowed.

As for F1 Vs Lemans and somehow one sport being inferio to the other there really isnt an argument to be had.  They are both building to a set formula.  Audi have the personel to enter F1 and the Leman team operates at the level of an F1 team in terms of engineering and organisation.  

The argument to be had is what Formula do fans want, overwhelming feedback from F1 fans says we don't want too many driver aids, so TC, ABS and active suspension are banned from F1.  Sports cars are looking to lead the way with hybrid technology so this is a direction the formula writers, the FIA, have encouraged.  All the formula have to be tightly control or speeds would just become unsafe very quickly or costs would go up.  Anything unrestricted, such as KERS, would see F1 become a cash race again with only 2 or 3 teams able to win.  Therefore all new technology introduced to any form of motorsport now has to be so tightly controlled to avoid it becoming a one (prancing) horse race.

As for the what does F1 contribute on a larger scale, McLaren Appplied Technologies are worth checking out... http://www.mclarenappliedtechnologies.com/