Alot are of the opinion that F1 technology rarely makes it into road cars because of the completely different way of doing things when it comes to racecars, but with F1’s budget cuts forcing components to last longer (i.e. more than just one race), R&D to improve durability can definitely benefit road car usage, or at least transmission maker Xtrac strongly thinks so.
Xtrac is a name that alot of you will probably be familiar with. They make the 4WD gearbox that goes into our Proton Satria Neo Super 2000 rally car. According to Xtrac’s chief metallurgist Steve Vanes, the latest specification of steel being required to significantly extend the life of a Formula One gearbox could be broadly applied to a wide range of vehicles to improve their driveline reliability and efficiency.
“From a cultural point of view the world of motorsport has changed considerably, and the costs and relevance of its technology to wider consumer markets has become more important. For example, the trend towards engine downsizing in road vehicles to improve fuel efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions can be complemented by the downsizing of transmissions, requiring the intervention of new technologies and manufacturing processes for stronger and more lightweight components,” says Vanes.
According to Vanes, the recent cost-cutting measures in F1 have lead to the development of a brand new specification of steel necessary to extend the service life of gears, shafts, bearings, dog rings, hubs, selector forks, final drives and other highly stressed driveline components. Vanes claims that until recently the typical life of a set of gears for a main shaft was approximately 350,000 cycles. To quantify the improvement that this new Xtrac steel development as the result of F1 R&D is an extension of typical service life to more than 2.5 million cycles.
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
cool story bro!
Dude,
While I do believe these people do good product development work, I think its misleading for them to sound like they are metallurgist. People like ASME and ASTM vouch on steel or metal properties.
A lot of development on steel and metals come from big industry like oil and gas, construction and power generation. The application runs from compressors to turbines which has much higher availability requirement. What they get is a trickle down of the technology.
offtopic>>
bobbilder, luckily, the auto industry don't use (or do they?) exotic material for production :)
Motorsport R&D are just an extension or alternative to a car manufacturer's programme in improving an industrial design. Mind you, there are many car manufacturers that do not have a motorsport programme at all and still be able to design a wonderfully efficient parts for their road car.
For the Proton S2000 car, the parts are not designed or used in view of future development of Proton cars. Its just that a company like Xtrac are competent and experienced enough in motorsport to give the British-built Proton rallycar a competitive advantage and much-needed reliability in the long run (in the IRC).
I don't believe Proton has any deep interest or monetary investment in the S2000 development besides providing the basic bodyshell.
To rudeboi
If Proton really find a useful and reliable Gear Box from Motor sport i believe the will use it to replace current gear box.
There is new spec engine coming out we can't always just depend on Mitisubishi Gear Box we need something more better to reduce power loss if proton coming with new engine.
Does F1 Components make it into road cars? Yes! History has shown this to be true.
However, at the cost of almost US$100million a year funding, F1 is a HELL of a expensive venture for minimal R&D returns.
If your company is an auto giant like Toyota, Mercedes, thats 1 thing. If your company is a (badly run) minnow like Potong its another.
Come on, even BMW decided that F1 is not worth it and sold off their team. Now Najib and Potong decide to be stupid enough to try to join. What a joke Malaysia is. I think we will be "the new Minardi", only probably worse than Minardi.
It will be very funny if we do not use taxpayer moneys (directly or indirectly) to fund this rubbish.
There's nothing wrong in using exotic materials. Mountain Bikers and Roadies will atest to this. We have been salivating at Composites and Titanium for a decade. Remember Chris Boardman's Time Trial bike made by Lotus? Lotus and Audi have been using Aluminium for years. And you'll have front crash members made out of composites that absorbs energy and deforms more effectively than steel. Making the car much safer and fuel efficient.
Some materials tend to have some better property but may lack in others. So its always a catch 22. If you use Titanium, its light but its mega expensive to produce and work on. Porsche's been using ceramic brakes for awhile but they come with price.
Unfortunately the Auto Industry is not the driver (pardon the pun) for new technology.
Totally not in agreement with Not Ah Beng.
If a company is not top of the heap, it has to invest in either marketing/branding and/or R+D. It has to differentiate itself from others. Slick marketing will initially give the buzz, but they'll fizzle once people experience bad products. The Koreans ventured in the US market and initially got some good shares. Mainly because it was cheaper than eveerybody else. But as support structure was lacking, complaints came up and the image of cheap and dirty stuck on the Korean products for some time. That stigma lasted 3 decades.
I'll bet you the Korean could only wish they had today's level of engineering in their product when they first came into that market. If they did, less money would be needed for marketing. Money to remove that stigma.
again..involving in F1 does not help Proton with their poor workmanship and quality issues..that's the main concern of the buyers..who wants a car that drive 200km/hr but with cheap looking plastic panel inside and troublesome power windows??? engine; maybe yes…prfff
cheap lookin plastic panels are also present in in renaultsport cars and hypercars like koenisegg(can never spell it rite)…that doesnt stop them from being bought…proton probably indulged in motorsports as a pr exercise and for its engineers to pick up a thing or 2 along the way..its weird but even in 2009 there are only about 15-20 countires indulging in automobile engineering and we are one of them..thats quite a feat i would say…i drive a rx8 and my gf drives a neo and there hasnt been a single problem on the proton..i guess we all frustrated of the tax band thats preventing us from buying our 'desired' cars and these leads to bashing..i do agree buying a proton is like buying a 'durian' as u dont know what to expect as it can be a horrific experience but i guess everyone's gotta start somewhere…the management over there seems promising and lets see what happens…i think they should be given a chance judgin by the product that a person close to me has.the standard neo (manual) is a hoot to drive with precise body movement..i was suprised at the rate it had similaar cars for lunch..it could stay wit my car while being driven by a less than experienced female..enough said about the level of engineering..the auto is crap though….weird world we live in i guess..hmmmm
@bobdbilder:
You missed the point. Totally.
The point is, US$100 million in funding for an F1 team, very little goes to actual R&D, and out of that little, even less to R&D that is useful to the medium- and low-end cars Potong actually makes.
The rest is paying for logistics, salaries, promotional events, materials, etc etc etc instead of REAL useable R&D. On the other hand, invest that full US$100million into your R&D department and you will get a much higher return on actual R&D.
So that is why F1 is for companies on top of the heap – it is a branding and status symbol rather than an actual R&D. Car companies (like Mercedes or Toyota) look at the technology developed as a fringe benefit instead of the main aim of F1.
As far as your mention of Korean cars, well Potong has just as bad stigma if not worse than Korean cars 3 decades ago.
"bobdbilder said,
Unfortunately the Auto Industry is not the driver (pardon the pun) for new technology."
let me correct that, sir.
auto industry IS the driver for new tech, started long over 100 yrs ago…
Spray paint, coating, metallurgy, advance dynamics, aerodynamics, fuel technology, industrial standards, emission control. all of these are born with it.
spray tech: you'll need to have a layer that is about as thin as a paper to protect your car shines for over 10 yrs.
coating: complement metals to protect the structural integrity of metal structure?
metallurgy: materials to make various demand of consumers and parts.
advance dynamics and systems: the use of rubber compounds for road adhesion, use of high speed computers (CAN-Bus) for traction controls, use of high speed computers to controls engine timings (hundred of combustion per second in an engine?)
fuel tech: hybrids, RON, MON, Fuel cell, battery technology?
industrial standard: bolts, nuts, retainers, ASTM, bhp, bla3… and also the evolution of fitting parts, modern retainers (clips, hooks…) for assembly ease and rigidity?
emission control: zero emission mobility? reduction in emissions?
this is just a few. in order a country to be called 'developed', they must have auto industry because it will spearhead them much further in technology… all of this advancement needed to comply with standards and need to be consumer-friendly and also cost-efficient…
how come you say that auto industry is not the tech driver?
Here's the thing,
If Lotus goes into F1, it would be because its a branding exercise. Its trying to push more Hethel made Proton cars. In their product matrix, Lotus Cars UK can contribute more to the company's performance. There is more non Malaysian market acceptance of the Lotus brand. Hethel does not have the political-economics hurdles that other production sites have.
The Public Relations handling of this branding exercise was a disaster as the government was trying to do a piggyback ride. They wanted to look good. They have no idea how sensitive people are about government spending. I think only NOW they know. Political parties have no understanding about putting up a good image. They are always condescending and talk down to the people. Had they done a real assesment on image impact, and tied down their political hormones, it would have been a wonderful rollout.
If ever there was a need for a makeover, a re-branding it would be the Government. Tony and the rest are just trying to pick up the pieces of what could have been.
not_ah_beng said,
October 14, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
The point is, US$100 million in funding for an F1 team, very little goes to actual R&D, and out of that little, even less to R&D that is useful to the medium- and low-end cars Potong actually makes.
—————————————————————–
I totally disagree. Most of that US$100 million goes to R&D within what FIA allows them which unfortunately isn't much and it is R&D for the F1 car not for technologies useable for road cars, even if the team is supported by a car manufacturer. In modern F1 it is mostly aero development among other things. I hope you get the chance to visit an F1 factory in your lifetime. They do nothing but engineering. R&D is everything. The rest of their expenses are secondary. Any extra money they get, they channel it to R&D first.
heheh nice… proton should release some of these to masses as limited ed neo.. but sure won't be cheap though…:(
if you ask me, it's a long shot. normal road cars will never be a reflection of f1 cars. these are two very different animals. will road car ever use flat sparkplugs, high compression ratio, carbon fibre suspension arms, monotube dampers (well some high performance cars do, but will ever Proton?), honeycomb chassis?
on Lotus f1, by the goings of things, it seems like a bunch of guys at Litespeed saw what Tony et al can do in terms of siphoning the Malaysia govt money while using the Lotus name. Lotus UK probably don't even own the Lotus F1 brand, and is merely (together with Proton) a channel through which govt will pump money into Litespeed (and whoever's on the kickback list).
malaysian commentator know nothing..
hehehe agree wif u.. cuz we luv to comment anything…
YUP2 AGREE2!!better speak nthing.
@Ferruccio:
I totally disagree. Most of that US$100 million goes to R&D within what FIA allows them which unfortunately isn’t much and it is R&D for the F1 car not for technologies useable for road cars, even if the team is supported by a car manufacturer. In modern F1 it is mostly aero development among other things. I hope you get the chance to visit an F1 factory in your lifetime. They do nothing but engineering. R&D is everything. The rest of their expenses are secondary. Any extra money they get, they channel it to R&D first.
_______________________________________
Nop. You are TOTALLY wrong.
http://www.fastmachines.com/f1/the-price-of-formu…
As you can see, F1 budgets (on the whole) for R&D is pitifully low. Even if you take into accounts of Engine cost as R&D (not true) it still amounted to less than half of the teams total budget.
Now, bear in mind that we are talking teams like FERRARI and MCLAREN here with hundreds of million USD$$ to burn.
For an "average" team (which, let us face it, is the BEST CASE SCENARIO for 1Malaysia F1 team), only a pitiful 20-30% goes into budget for Engine+R&D. Total ACTUAL value of R&D for budget of USD$100 million, maybe USD$10million.
Total value of R&D MAYBE useable for road cars one day in the future: USD$ 2 million maybe? If not 0!!
And worst case (and most likely) scenario, 1Malaysia F1 team ends up like a Minardi – burning millions with 0 to show for it…..except being a laughingstock.
Thanks a lot Potong! Sure make us Malaysians day. Will be funny if I didn't cry thinking of how much hard-earned money down the drain!
malaysian commentator know nothing…but like to pretend they know a lot of things!!!
Litespeed, its ironic given what you have said about litespeed and your nick is litespeed :)
Anyway, i noticed additional confusion in the press especially local ones about the name of the team. Some keep calling it 'Team Lotus' which is what the old F1 team created by Colin Chapman was called. That name does not belong to Lotus cars and Proton. David Hunt own the rights to that legendary name.
However the Lotus F1 name is used with blessings from the Lotus Group which is owned by Proton. As the team wants to associate itself with Lotus Cars and 'trying' to associate itself with Team Lotus, the real F1 race team from the past, for which David Hunt I hear is very unhappy about.
Today, there is absolutely no connection between the Lotus Group, (who own Lotus cars and other Lotus engineering subsidiaries) and the historical Team Lotus from F1.
Furthermore Lotus Group does not have the expertise to run an F1 programme and so it is Litespeed that is providing some expertise led by Gascoyne.
It really is one big PR campaign to give credit to parties that are deemed to deserve it.
fique luv nice (cheap)ride said,
October 14, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
hehehe agree wif u.. cuz we luv to comment anything…
…………………………………………………………………………………………
HAHAHA….IAM WITH U,hahaha