+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Hyundai to enter F1 in 2010 (/showthread.php?tid=4970)
Hyundai to enter F1 in 2010 - Mike - 10-23-2006
And international rally in 2008...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.eurosport.com/formula1/sport_sto991165.shtml">http://www.eurosport.com/formula1/sport_sto991165.shtml</a><!-- m -->
- G.Irish - 10-23-2006
My first instinct was to laugh, but Hyundai has come a long way and maybe competing in F1 could be good for them. I used to laugh at Samsung products but now they lead the LCD market by a wide margin and make more profit than Sony.
2010 is pretty far away though, who knows what F1 will look like by then with all the asinine rule changes.
- Mike - 10-23-2006
Yep, I'm in the same boat. Hyundai's latest stuff certainly isn't original, but it is attractive and solid. Innovation is where they're lacking compared to Toyota/Honda... F1 certainly breeds innovation.
- Evan - 10-23-2006
we have had this talk before, but F1 breeds innovation...in F1 (along with money).
There is very little to be gained in your streetcar from F1. Especially on a per $ invested basis. Their WRC program was a much better engineering investment than any winged carbon fiber tubbed 20krpm motored race program could ever be.
Anyay, its good to see another manufacturer in there. I hope they beat up on BMW, Ferrari and Merc!
- .RJ - 10-23-2006
Evan Wrote:we have had this talk before, but F1 breeds innovation...in F1 (along with money).
There is very little to be gained in your streetcar from F1.
Honda uses F1 and GP racing to 'train' their engineers to think outside the box - and a lot of new technologies have filtered down through racing - electronic aids, composite materials, and so on.
- Evan - 10-23-2006
well, like I said, per $ invested I dont think F1 doesnt have much engineering benefit. There is nothing quantifiable about teaching your engineers to "think outside the box" in a F1 environment (and nothing to say you cant do it cheaper and better with production car racing), and nothing to say electronics and composites wouldnt have been developed without F1 to begin with.
- G.Irish - 10-23-2006
Evan Wrote:Their WRC program was a much better engineering investment than any winged carbon fiber tubbed 20krpm motored race program could ever be.What are some of the technological innovations that have come out of WRC?
- CaptainHenreh - 10-23-2006
G.Irish Wrote:Evan Wrote:Their WRC program was a much better engineering investment than any winged carbon fiber tubbed 20krpm motored race program could ever be.What are some of the technological innovations that have come out of WRC?
Anti lag systems!
Seriously, intelligent differentials, and...um...
...
Anti rock ass protectors! In response to this incident:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqQhQSbe6fw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqQhQSbe6fw</a><!-- m -->
- Evan - 10-23-2006
lol! "up in the asshole of Timo" *makes fisting gesture*
- Evan - 10-23-2006
G.Irish Wrote:advanced awd systems, reliable parts, saftey structures, real world tire improvements, effective strut suspensions, engine durabilityEvan Wrote:Their WRC program was a much better engineering investment than any winged carbon fiber tubbed 20krpm motored race program could ever be.What are some of the technological innovations that have come out of WRC?
all direct improvements in a streetcar available in a short time frame to integrate with a production car. (if the manufacturer is paying attention, anyway)
Just about everything that has "come from f1" comes from it in concept only.
- Ginger - 10-23-2006
Evan Wrote:There is nothing quantifiable about teaching your engineers to "think outside the box" inI don't really have anything to contribute to the F1 discussion. I think it bears noting that easily quantifiable results are not the only things worth considering when making investments. You're right that you can't quantify alternative thinking, but to say that because you can't that it has little to no benefit in the real world is silly. To teach design teams to think by showing them the products of the best engineers in the world can most definitely have a net positive effect on consumer products.
I'm not even remotely well versed in 4 wheel developments, but I'm curious as to where the development of manu-matic transmissions and fuel injection came from?
I can't cite Formula 1 examples, but trickle down technology from MotoGP is bursting, and very directly evident in street bikes. Slipper clutches are as common as radial brakes now, and you won't even find many car guys that know what they are (the clutches). Both developments got their start in GP (as did floating rotors). Tire advancement during the 500 era in GP brought huge changes in motorcycle street tires... and now we're getting dual compound street tires. "Big bang" motors may not have initally been the product of the GP environment, but they were, if you will, perfected there, and were, at a time, not uncommon in the World Superbike paddock. Maybe we'll see them on headlight racebikes soon. Geometry research, traction control, the first motorcycle fly by wire throttles, carbon brakes (which you can buy in the consumer market now), and on and on. Some of the developments weren't necessarily limited to MotoGP, we see similar brake technology in F1, but the stuff still made it to the street... and rather quickly, to boot. That would lead me to believe that F1 technology doesn't not make it to the street, but perhaps in ways that are harder to see... especially given the huge complication of 4 wheelers when compared to 2.
- G.Irish - 10-24-2006
The difference with F1 and WRC is that F1 features more fundamental innovations and science. Because of this it takes a bit longer for stuff to get applied to production cars. So it might be 5 to 10+ years before something can be practically applied to street cars except in cases of supercars where you can afford to put expensive stuff on there (exhibit A: Ferrari's e-diff).
There is a huge list of technology that has come from F1 that would probably take a long time to catalog but off the top of my head...
*the monocoque chassis
*variable valve timing (some forms)
*active suspension
*ground effects
*diamond like coatings
*variable geometry turbos
*traction control
*ABS
*carbon/ceramic brakes
*electronic fuel injection
*sequential manual gearboxes
And of course the fundamental advances in tire technology, composite materials, metallurgy, chassis design, suspension, computer simulation, and aerodynamics/CFD.
Maybe for the benefits realized Formula 1 is too expensive and certainly some of the innovations that first came in F1 would have eventually come sooner or later. But there's no doubt that competition drives innovation and that a great deal of value has been realized from Formula 1 technological development.
Of course competition is a double-edged sword because when one or more teams spends more than everyone else, it usually raises the cost for everybody. The unabated arms race tends to escalate to a point where a bunch of teams drop out, then the spending drops, then teams get back in and it starts all over again.
I think the trick is in how a manufacturer uses F1 (or WRC or Le Mans for that matter). If the team does not share employees and resources with the production side of the factory they are not maximizing the value from F1. I know for a fact that Honda engineers rotate between the various racing programs and production roles and I'm pretty sure Ferrari and BMW do this as well. And all of the higher up executives at Honda came through the racing programs
If F1's sole value was technology development and the manufacturers had to pay 100% out of pocket for it I think the price would be too great. But with money from sponsor deals as well as TV revenue the financials look a bit better and there's the marketing value of doing well in Formula 1. Unfortunately, only 2 or 3 teams do well in F1 at any given time so everyone else doesn't get to realize the full marketing value.
Going into some of the new regulations in F1 I think maybe Le Mans will be a better place for continuing automotive innovation. There we've seen a lot of new stuff in the last few years with alternative fuels and diesel tech. I wouldn't be surprised to see some teams leave F1 for Le Mans in the next 5-10 years.
Of course, I think the only reason Le Mans is relatively cheap right now is because there's only one manufacturer competing there. As open as the rules are I think one could easily spend near what is being spent in F1 if the heavy hitters joined the party.