Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 80

Thread: Unlimited Class Race Car

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    But in that case you would be stifling one aspect of engine design.

    Why not just limit the total amount of fuel a team is allowed to use. To slow cars down just provide them with less fuel so they must use it more efficiently. The desire for the highest power output would be balanced with the need to finish the race. The governing racing body would only need to determine the amount of fuel to provide to the teams based on target lap times. Everything else could be unlimited.
    I understand that. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I also think a fuel limited setup would be interesting. A low power limit would be interesting because you would no longer have the power to drive the high drag aero packages down the track. I mean an F1 car's CoD makes a pickup look really slick (Yes, I do understand that low CoD was not the objective). However, a low power format would make for interesting new requirements ideas for aero design. The trade off between downforce and drag would also be very interesting.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    But in that case you would be stifling one aspect of engine design.

    Why not just limit the total amount of fuel a team is allowed to use. To slow cars down just provide them with less fuel so they must use it more efficiently. The desire for the highest power output would be balanced with the need to finish the race. The governing racing body would only need to determine the amount of fuel to provide to the teams based on target lap times. Everything else could be unlimited.
    Weren't those the Group C regulations?
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    FLight G-suits would improve the driver coping with cornering.
    BUT, again, can't really take plane experience and apply it to cars or tracks.
    Liek said, 20 ft difference in what the pilot intended and achieved ins't an issue in the air.
    On the ground it's a barrier.
    Thus why autonomous remote control is so far away without MAJOR improvements in visual processing ... OR the addition of thousands of locator points transmitting signals around a track !
    ANd as for "intelligent", hell we still struggle to let a truck traverse mild terrain at a runnign pace. Imagine trying to cope with a kerb at 180mph
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    G-suit will only help if you are having vertical G on the person. It'll work on banked track. But on flat track/road courses its lateral and longitudinal G. Squeezing the lower leg with air cusion is not going to do much for your wear in neck muscle or your eyeball popping out under braking...
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    I was thinkgin replicating neck support etc. But yeah, braking's a bummer and Brabham proved driving on your back isn't good

    Re-thinking remote control
    Micro managmeent of the task might well be viable.......
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geqip_0Vjec"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geqip_0Vjec[/ame]
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    6,536
    I think I'd prefer longer races with smaller tanks than limits on fuel. Same result, more exciting to watch. (I like pit strategy).
    Life's too short to drive bad cars.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wishing I was in Moscow, Idaho
    Posts
    2,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    FLight G-suits would improve the driver coping with cornering.
    BUT, again, can't really take plane experience and apply it to cars or tracks.
    Liek said, 20 ft difference in what the pilot intended and achieved ins't an issue in the air.
    On the ground it's a barrier.
    Thus why autonomous remote control is so far away without MAJOR improvements in visual processing ... OR the addition of thousands of locator points transmitting signals around a track !
    ANd as for "intelligent", hell we still struggle to let a truck traverse mild terrain at a runnign pace. Imagine trying to cope with a kerb at 180mph
    There's a pretty big difference between navigating cross country, offroad, on a course you don't know and navagating a set, known, race track. Comparisons to the DARPA race doesn't really apply. However people have been able to get cars to go around race tracks at high speed. The big problem isn't the speed you'd be going at, it's the interference of the other cars.

    But with F1 budgets something could be done in a hurry, given some of the cool stuff they already have out.
    Big cities suck

    "Not putting miles on your Ferrari is like not having sex with your girlfriend so she'll be more desirable to her next boyfriend." -Napolis

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Porto - Portugal
    Posts
    2,755
    I think limiting fuel would be the best way to go, but without refueling, even in a way of translating engine tech to production road cars, a set number of kms per race and fuel would work well, a standard safety cell for the driver. the follwing season would have a longer race or less fuel in the cars.
    "Religious belief is the “path of least resistance”, says Boyer, while disbelief requires effort."

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    IA
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by pimento View Post
    I think I'd prefer longer races with smaller tanks than limits on fuel. Same result, more exciting to watch. (I like pit strategy).

    You can still have that with limited fuel. The fuel doesn't have to be limited to a single full tank, for example it could be limited to three full tanks. Likewise, the fuel limit could be adjusted based on race length. Want more laps, give the teams more fuel or the opposite for a shorter race.

    But in that case we/I are/am assuming some fixed fuel tank size. If everything was really unlimited then teams should be able to decide how much fuel they want to carry so there would be opportunities for different pit strategies including running the race without any pits.
    "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Quote Originally Posted by wwgkd View Post
    There's a pretty big difference between navigating cross country, offroad, on a course you don't know and navagating a set, known, race track.
    Disagree 99% and here's why ...

    at the MACRO level a track is "known".
    BUT when running at the limits then every small difference in grip, difference in the way the tyre has deformed at the point it is making contact makes a HUGE difference to grip.
    A difference that a driver makes a "judgement call" on each time they go through.
    and as said , without major signal transmission systems to position vehicles it comes to VISUAL IMAGING and at high speed.
    So , a lot closer to the DARPA challenge challenges that it is at first scan.
    WHere DARPA vehicles fail to traverse at 40 mph because a foot difference screws them then an inch will screw a racing car cornering at 150
    and as said, NO scope for "nearly right" coz the recovery is via a barrier

    Besides, Scalextric invented the kind of racing it would become already
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wishing I was in Moscow, Idaho
    Posts
    2,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    Disagree 99% and here's why ...

    at the MACRO level a track is "known".
    BUT when running at the limits then every small difference in grip, difference in the way the tyre has deformed at the point it is making contact makes a HUGE difference to grip.
    A difference that a driver makes a "judgement call" on each time they go through.
    and as said , without major signal transmission systems to position vehicles it comes to VISUAL IMAGING and at high speed.
    So , a lot closer to the DARPA challenge challenges that it is at first scan.
    WHere DARPA vehicles fail to traverse at 40 mph because a foot difference screws them then an inch will screw a racing car cornering at 150
    and as said, NO scope for "nearly right" coz the recovery is via a barrier

    Besides, Scalextric invented the kind of racing it would become already

    Except that it's a lot easier to recognize a race track and recover to the position that you want than to try to navigate across a landscape full of nothing but obstacles. The DARPA vehicles often fail because they got stuck or were unable to find their way around an obstacle, not because they got lost completely. Yes, crashes can hapen in races, but the obstacles are limited and the way is known. It's not so much how to go around a nearly infinite number of unknown obstacles as how fast you can go around a few known ones. Rapid corrections are comparatively easy when you have modern computing power.
    Big cities suck

    "Not putting miles on your Ferrari is like not having sex with your girlfriend so she'll be more desirable to her next boyfriend." -Napolis

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    IA
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by wwgkd
    Except that it's a lot easier to recognize a race track and recover to the position that you want than to try to navigate across a landscape full of nothing but obstacles…. Rapid corrections are comparatively easy when you have modern computing power.
    It is different, but I wouldn’t say it is easier. Yes you do know what the track layout it is, but you still have the same fundamental problem of figuring out where the car is on the track at any given time. However, it is far different than the DARPA challenges in that the calculations have to be made in a lot less time. Where the vehicle can stop in the DARPA challenge to determine a solution, in a race car it must be doing everything in near real-time.

    Also as Matra et Alpine stated a race car will need a higher level of positioning precision than the Challenge vehicles, which would result in more complex hardware requirements (positioning hardware anyway). Likewise because everything must be done in less time very fast hardware will be needed.

    For example, if you take the minimum precision as 1 inch as stated above and assume a maximum vehicle speed of 200 MPH that would imply a minimum calculation rate of 3,520 Hz (200 MPH => 3,520 in/s). But that is just a lower bound, that doesn’t include any margin, additional signal processing requirements, etc.
    "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    as Alastor already covered.
    I wasn't suggesting a car got "Lost" .... but that the challenge of being able to get itself in precisely the right place and THEN re-estimate that place for next lap to take accoutn of variances is beyond us at the moment. Let's remember that the LARGEST spending budgets on remote control is military and they can jsut about put a missile through a window. For F1 they need to start hitting dimes in the centres
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wishing I was in Moscow, Idaho
    Posts
    2,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    It is different, but I wouldn’t say it is easier. Yes you do know what the track layout it is, but you still have the same fundamental problem of figuring out where the car is on the track at any given time. However, it is far different than the DARPA challenges in that the calculations have to be made in a lot less time. Where the vehicle can stop in the DARPA challenge to determine a solution, in a race car it must be doing everything in near real-time.

    Also as Matra et Alpine stated a race car will need a higher level of positioning precision than the Challenge vehicles, which would result in more complex hardware requirements (positioning hardware anyway). Likewise because everything must be done in less time very fast hardware will be needed.

    For example, if you take the minimum precision as 1 inch as stated above and assume a maximum vehicle speed of 200 MPH that would imply a minimum calculation rate of 3,520 Hz (200 MPH => 3,520 in/s). But that is just a lower bound, that doesn’t include any margin, additional signal processing requirements, etc.
    True. But the big chellenges in DARPA hasn't been the positioning software, it's been identifying and navigating around obstacles. The challenge isn't speed or precision, it's the large number of unknown obstacles scattered randomly around. Yes, they go slow, but that's because they don't have to go quickly, nor is a precise course an asset when you don't know the correct course ahead of time.

    Identifying known objects at a high rate of speed has already been accomplished, even from unusual angles. And 3.520 Hz is not a hard target to match (even if it is just a lower bound.) I still think the toughest part of this has nothing to do with going around a track quickly but lies in dealing with other vehicles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    as Alastor already covered.
    I wasn't suggesting a car got "Lost" .... but that the challenge of being able to get itself in precisely the right place and THEN re-estimate that place for next lap to take accoutn of variances is beyond us at the moment. Let's remember that the LARGEST spending budgets on remote control is military and they can jsut about put a missile through a window. For F1 they need to start hitting dimes in the centres
    I'm not so sure it is beyond us, or at least not far beyond. I'm pretty sure if you combined a number of existing technologies with a large budget you could get a single car to go around a course at a very high pace in a relatively short amount of development time. Again, this will be dealing with a known course and known obstacles.

    The military isn't neccessarily trying to hit a dime with those bombs, or at least not putting significant effort (and money) into it. After all why try to hit a dime with a $5,000,000,000 (non reusable) bomb when you could hit a window with a $50,000 bomb instead, and do the job just as well? Much harder is shooting down other missiles, and they're now doing that with unguided rockets. The millitary puts a lot of money into things, but they also go with the lowest bidder that can fullfill the requirements.

    Also, you happy that the Cowboys finally got a win? Looked pretty good doing it, too.
    Last edited by wwgkd; 09-26-2010 at 07:39 PM.
    Big cities suck

    "Not putting miles on your Ferrari is like not having sex with your girlfriend so she'll be more desirable to her next boyfriend." -Napolis

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    6,536
    Putting an 'emtpy' car around an empty racetrack at speed has been done - there was an M3 on Top Gear that did that. I can't remember what the prep was for it though.
    Life's too short to drive bad cars.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Favorite James Bond Automobile
    By toyota_trevor in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: Yesterday, 03:14 PM
  2. Famous Touring Cars
    By motorsportnerd in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 353
    Last Post: 07-04-2010, 08:57 AM
  3. Lotus Evora Cup
    By Ecnelis in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-11-2010, 11:38 AM
  4. 2007 Bathurst 12 hour
    By motorsportnerd in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-13-2007, 12:24 AM
  5. V8 Supercars: Round 6 Hidden Valley, NT
    By fpv_gtho in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-01-2005, 03:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •