No technical limits...
Discussion
Do you think that F1 would be any better if all the limiting regs were dropped and designers were allowed to do what ever they liked? OK, so there would be certain controls such as must have 4 wheels, engine size, but as for everything else, let them do what ever they liked.
Introduce very strict safety tests for front rear and sides so the driver is still protected if he goes off or gets hit. So what if the cars start reaching faster cornering speeds, the drivers know the dangers and are being paid a small fortune.
Would that spice things up?
Max's idea of capping spending is crazy because money will always flow in the sport, and I'm sure there is still plenty of untapped markets ready to put their money into it.
It's the pinnacle of motorsport technology right?
Introduce very strict safety tests for front rear and sides so the driver is still protected if he goes off or gets hit. So what if the cars start reaching faster cornering speeds, the drivers know the dangers and are being paid a small fortune.
Would that spice things up?
Max's idea of capping spending is crazy because money will always flow in the sport, and I'm sure there is still plenty of untapped markets ready to put their money into it.
It's the pinnacle of motorsport technology right?
Edited by TheOriginalGT40 on Friday 27th April 08:18
If you did that I'm sure the cars would be very, very fast and their performance would be limited by the drivers' ability to control that performance. This ability would no doubt be stretched leading to far more losses of control, itself leading to far more crashes and at higher speeds.
So yes, it would spice things up but I think safety would suffer to an extent beyond that which many people would be willing to accept.
So yes, it would spice things up but I think safety would suffer to an extent beyond that which many people would be willing to accept.
if F1 was allowed free reign on design/tech etc, then i really think the cars would be something other worldly. i think cornering speeds around tight corners would only be limited by the drivers ability to cope/have large enough balls due to the possible speed.
top speeds would be 300mph+
would make for interesting viewing i reckon.
top speeds would be 300mph+
would make for interesting viewing i reckon.
This idea was discussed by F1 Racing magazine a couple of years ago iirc. They asked Williams to suggest what a no limits car would look like. From the fog of my memory I think they said it would be 16 seconds a lap faster than current cars and, as was said above, the drivers would become the weakest link with G-Suits required to withstand the G-Forces etc.
Not a route I think F1 wants to head down and there doesn't seem to be much appetite out there for this kind of thing from the manufacturers imho.
Not a route I think F1 wants to head down and there doesn't seem to be much appetite out there for this kind of thing from the manufacturers imho.
Chris_w said:
This idea was discussed by F1 Racing magazine a couple of years ago iirc. They asked Williams to suggest what a no limits car would look like. From the fog of my memory I think they said it would be 16 seconds a lap faster than current cars and, as was said above, the drivers would become the weakest link with G-Suits required to withstand the G-Forces etc.
Not a route I think F1 wants to head down and there doesn't seem to be much appetite out there for this kind of thing from the manufacturers imho.
Not a route I think F1 wants to head down and there doesn't seem to be much appetite out there for this kind of thing from the manufacturers imho.
I agree that the concept described as "If it's got 4 wheels and we can push it into this box and shut the door, you can race" would produce some awesome machines, but they would not make for better racing, and would be very dangerous to their "pilots".
F1 should always be the pinicle of motorsport - fastest, most advance, most expensive, and attracting the elite of the racing breed (plus Ralf). To be successful, it must also provide close and entertaining racing. That's something that has been lost in recent year, but is coming back slowly.
SamHH said:
If you did that I'm sure the cars would be very, very fast and their performance would be limited by the drivers' ability to control that performance. This ability would no doubt be stretched leading to far more losses of control, itself leading to far more crashes and at higher speeds.
So yes, it would spice things up but I think safety would suffer to an extent beyond that which many people would be willing to accept.
So yes, it would spice things up but I think safety would suffer to an extent beyond that which many people would be willing to accept.
Your missing my point, I agree that safety must be of high importance, but at the end of the day the drivers must accept that racing is very dangerous and that you could die, that's all part of motor racing. The skill comes from the driver taking these mad machines to the very edge, but staying on the right side of that edge.
I kind of think the other idea above above drive into a box that can close and then do what you like is a fantastic one. We need cars to look different on the grid. I bet if you painted all the cars white today without sponsor logos you'll never be able to tell who's is who.
I think no design limits but one or two fixed parameters would be the way to go. ie anything goes but the engine must be 2 litre na or 2 litre na plus skinny tyres. That way the ultimate speeds would be limited but the most inventive designers could create a significant performance advantage. Moveable aero, ground effect, active suspension, it would be great to see how the cars could develop.
As stated in another thread, we have gone past the time where "no limit" or "low limit" cars are acceptable.
Although drivers may be prepared to risk their lives to pursue their goals the circuit owners would not be prepared to risk spectators. 300 mph cars would need MASSIVE run offs and gigantic barriers to try and prevent them encroaching on spectator areas. Frankly, I don't think it would be possible to build a circuit that could safely contain such vehicles.
They would be unraceable.
This is 2007, not 1967 and we have moved on a lot in the intervening 40 years.
Although drivers may be prepared to risk their lives to pursue their goals the circuit owners would not be prepared to risk spectators. 300 mph cars would need MASSIVE run offs and gigantic barriers to try and prevent them encroaching on spectator areas. Frankly, I don't think it would be possible to build a circuit that could safely contain such vehicles.
They would be unraceable.
This is 2007, not 1967 and we have moved on a lot in the intervening 40 years.
Eric Mc said:
As stated in another thread, we have gone past the time where "no limit" or "low limit" cars are acceptable.
Although drivers may be prepared to risk their lives to pursue their goals the circuit owners would not be prepared to risk spectators. 300 mph cars would need MASSIVE run offs and gigantic barriers to try and prevent them encroaching on spectator areas. Frankly, I don't think it would be possible to build a circuit that could safely contain such vehicles.
They would be unraceable.
This is 2007, not 1967 and we have moved on a lot in the intervening 40 years.
Although drivers may be prepared to risk their lives to pursue their goals the circuit owners would not be prepared to risk spectators. 300 mph cars would need MASSIVE run offs and gigantic barriers to try and prevent them encroaching on spectator areas. Frankly, I don't think it would be possible to build a circuit that could safely contain such vehicles.
They would be unraceable.
This is 2007, not 1967 and we have moved on a lot in the intervening 40 years.
Personally, I would prefer lower power to reduce speeds and no restrictions on other design parameters.
Today's cars are too alike and have to be because the regulations are so restrictive.
TheOriginalGT40 said:
Your missing my point, I agree that safety must be of high importance, but at the end of the day the drivers must accept that racing is very dangerous and that you could die, that's all part of motor racing. The skill comes from the driver taking these mad machines to the very edge, but staying on the right side of that edge.
I don't believe I am missing your point.
I believe that cars like those you suggest would be more dangerous, there would be more crashes, and more drivers would die. The drivers may be willing to accept this danger, but the public may not and if they were not, nor would the sponsors or the circuit owners.
There is also, as Eric said, the risk to marshals and spectators to be considered. Even if the public are willing to accept the drivers being placed in greater danger, they may not be willing to accept themselves being placed in greater danger. This then brings up the same issue with sponsors and circuit owners.
It would only be interesting for a while - with total freedom there is no way the racing would be close. I imagine watching it would be something like scalextric 
ie boring
In terms of creating limits I always think power is the wrong aspect to restrict. It is the aero that makes the cars both less interesting to watch and more dangerous (high corner speeds) so it is downforce that should be limited.
ie boring In terms of creating limits I always think power is the wrong aspect to restrict. It is the aero that makes the cars both less interesting to watch and more dangerous (high corner speeds) so it is downforce that should be limited.
You'll have massively fast cars but also very dull to watch as they'd drive themselves and with budgets spiralling out of control, domination by one team (with the lighter driver winning) before mass pull-outs by the have-nots, followed by the dominant team pulling-out from lack of competition.
So it would be dull and die within 3 years, then.
I am all in favour of drastically reducing downforce. However, this would have to be part of an overall package which would necessitate a huge reduction in engine capaicity and power.
You must remember that modern F1 are hugely INEFFICIENT when it comes to air penetration. Their drag coefficients are appalling. They need all that horespower just to push themselves through that massive amount of aerodynamic drag created by all the wings, fences, bargeboards and winglets.
If they were removed, they would be much more streamilned and much, much faster in a straight line. Obviously, their cornering and braking abilities would suffer although that, in theory, would produce closer racing and more overtaking possibilities. However, the top speeds would be too high which is why the engine power would need to be reduced.
When you consider that, in 1967 (the last year in F1 where downforce didn't exist), the 3 litre Lotus 49/Cosworth DFV combination was developing 450 bhp and achieving over 180 mph at tracks like Spa and Monza. And that was pushing the limit as to what was feasable without downforce.
To limit today's cars to similar performance parameters you would probably need an engine of less than 1000cc.
The knock on effect is that ypu might end up with other classes of racing having faster cars around GP circuits than the GP cars. That is exactly what happened in the years 1961 to 1965 when F1 only allowed 1.5 litre cars - and the governing body didn't like it. That is why they introduced 3 litre engines in 1966.
You must remember that modern F1 are hugely INEFFICIENT when it comes to air penetration. Their drag coefficients are appalling. They need all that horespower just to push themselves through that massive amount of aerodynamic drag created by all the wings, fences, bargeboards and winglets.
If they were removed, they would be much more streamilned and much, much faster in a straight line. Obviously, their cornering and braking abilities would suffer although that, in theory, would produce closer racing and more overtaking possibilities. However, the top speeds would be too high which is why the engine power would need to be reduced.
When you consider that, in 1967 (the last year in F1 where downforce didn't exist), the 3 litre Lotus 49/Cosworth DFV combination was developing 450 bhp and achieving over 180 mph at tracks like Spa and Monza. And that was pushing the limit as to what was feasable without downforce.
To limit today's cars to similar performance parameters you would probably need an engine of less than 1000cc.
The knock on effect is that ypu might end up with other classes of racing having faster cars around GP circuits than the GP cars. That is exactly what happened in the years 1961 to 1965 when F1 only allowed 1.5 litre cars - and the governing body didn't like it. That is why they introduced 3 litre engines in 1966.
I reckon more limited downforce rather than none at all. But with regard to lower classes being faster I don't think this would happen because a. F1 cars would just be faster at different points on the track and b. the regs in GP2/F3 etc. are all set with reference to their position in the ladder anyway so they would be made to follow the same philosophy
Edited by SimonY on Friday 27th April 16:09
TheOriginalGT40 said:
OK, so there would be certain controls such as must have 4 wheels, engine size, but as for everything else, let them do what ever they liked.
Like remove the driver completly and have a computer do the driving. It would be boring but ridiculously fast, the cars would shrink to the size of a large remote control car (for low weight) and have a hugely expensive 100hp 20cc engine in it or something.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff