h a l f b a k e r yThere's no money in it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
On an open cockpit racing car the amount of 'wing' is crucial to the performance of the car and is always a compromise between straight line speed (minimum downforce required) and cornering (maximum downforce required). In Formula 1, teams are not allowed to use active systems which would change the
settings of the wings to give maximum performance during the race. There is another issue with F1 in that cars are not allowed to weigh less than 605 KG's and are weighed after the race to ensure compliance. My solution is to have a couple of compressed air cylinders on either side of the car that would hold say 60KG's of compressed air when full and virtually none when depleted. Using this, the wings could be set at lower downforce levels and, when braking, compressors powered by energy gain from braking would compress enough air to fill the tanks thereby increasing the weight of the car by 60KG's. When accelerating the air is dumped, possibly through a turbine to give an extra power boost, to make the car lighter. On the slow down lap the tanks are again filled to ensure that the car weighs 605KG or more.
F1 rules
http://www.formula1...tions/8692/fia.html
How tiresome! [DrBob, Nov 10 2009]
For UnaBubba
http://www.theonion...ach_reveals_winning
[outloud, Nov 15 2009]
Self driving BMW
http://www.techfres...-bmw-330i-on-video/
Not sure about the description of "military grade GPS", but the tech works. I believe BMW use this type of car in some driver training programs. [kaz, Nov 15 2009]
[link]
|
| |
Well, looking at the detailed F1 rules for the first time ever (linky), I would suggest that this contravenes the rules about recoverable energy (rule 5.2.2 (god I'm so dull!)).
Footnote: I notice that there doesn't appear to be a definition of "recoverable", only a ruling on the rate at which you can recover stored energy, so if you could invent a method for a car to gradually eat itself during the race, virtually every component of an F1 car could be ruled illegal. |
|
| |
Granted. Where does golf fall in your boring scale? |
|
| |
so cheating, does it make it less or more dull? |
|
| |
More dull, as half of the race results seem to be decided in the steward's room instead of on the track. |
|
| |
The rules are in place to keep the cars from going too fast. If one car did this the rest soon would, and they would end up going too fast. (too fast=crash and explode) |
|
| |
// Crash & explode = EXCITING! |
|
| |
Golf is a game better played than watched//
Gentlemen, I give you Frag Grenade Golf. |
|
| |
There is a limit on the energy that may be stored by a KERS device, which would seriously limit this idea.
I believe there is also a 210 Bar limit on the maximum pressure of accumulators (gas pressure tanks). If you could arrange for 20 litres of storage (Not that there's space for it in an F1 car) you'd need to compress air to over 2300 Bar! There is no material I know of which could contain that pressure in a significant volume without weighing several tons. |
|
| |
Televised sport in general ranks close to reality shows and soaps on the boredom scale. |
|
| |
In fact, when it comes down to it, TV is no substitute for a life. |
|
| |
//When it comes down to it, this is no substitute for a life.// [marked-for-tagline]. Modded by myself, all credit to Twizz. |
|
| |
BAR tried a similar version of this, but with a second fuel tank hidden away in the car. It was banned as soon as it was discovered, was the freewheeling LSD on the front wheels and Renault's tuned mass dampers in the nose, active suspention, traction control, two pedal braking.... |
|
| |
They started the race at 605kg, ran down the secondary tank and spent most of the race underweight. In the last pit stop they would then brim the secret tank to bring them back up to the 605kg limit when finishing the race on the fumes from the main tank. |
|
| |
There is a limit to how fast the cars can go - it's called the driver, the squadgy bit in the middle. The rules tend to avoid electronic toys that take away control from the driver, or make any car faster than the red ones. |
|
| |
"the squadgy bit in the middle" |
|
| |
Now there's a thought. The DARPA challenge would be a HELL of a lot more interesting, and potentially renumerative for the geeks involved, if it entered formula 1 racing! It would be separate RC class. Without limits regarding driver safety there would be some SPECTACULAR crashes. Or, having signed all the release forms, any driver might wish to play Kasparov to Northrupp Grumman's best effort on the asphalt. Oh yeah! |
|
| |
You wouldn't need DARPA style self aware cars for autonomous racing. BMW have demonstrated self driving cars that follow a "pre-recorded" lap from a human driver.
You'd just send your rather good human round the track on friday practice, and then let the drones follow the same line lap after lap after lap after lap.
[link] |
|
| |
//let the drones follow the same line lap after lap after lap after lap//
That's all well and good in theory, and would work if the car is only racing the clock; but as soon as there are other vehicles on the track, you do need a modicum of artificial intelligence in the car.
Whether the cars are autonomous or RC, it would make for better racing - higher speeds, tighter turns, bigger crashes! |
|
| |
Like racing armed robots, then... |
|
| |
A few years back I built the hydraulic system for a Robot which competed in a BBC3 one off called 'mechanoids'. Basically, a modification of the Robot Wars plot, but with upright, humanoid robots with versatile arms able to use a variety of tools / weapons. The final event was a race in which the robots were allowed to use weapons against each other. |
|
| |