Discussion
Well it's dictated by the FIA so that's why they all kind of look the same. Same with engines etc etc. It's all been stifled by the need to have engines last x number of races and by the requirements of safety (this is no bad thing btw)
If / When rules change, the cars will change correspondingly.
Phil
If / When rules change, the cars will change correspondingly.
Phil
Road_Terrorist said:
Anything too radical like the twin wheels or ground effects even active suspension gets banned pretty quickly by the killjoys.
I lost all interest in F1 when they introduced the 'Ooh, that looks like an innovation - BAN IT!' rule, which I think first took effect with the Lotus 88 Twin Chassis car.If it wasn't for this short sighted approach, not only would F1 potentially still be interesting, but we might have actually seen practical spin-offs for road car technology (active suspension, active aerodyamics, who knows what else...).
Westy Pre-Lit said:
Over the last 15 years or so i have noticed that the general shape of these cars hasn't really changed, bar subtle bits and bobs. Have we reached the pinnacle of design or is there something radical in our midst?
Discuss.......
Yeah were still wearing the same clothes as thirty years ago, the human race is at the end of it's developementDiscuss.......
Eric Mc said:
If you parked a 1992 Williams beside a 2007 Williams you would see that they were amazingly different.
Whereas if you parked a 1961 Lotus (type 21, with a spaceframe chassis and cigar body) next to a 1976 Lotus (type 78, with monocoque chassis, stressed engine, wings and ground effect), they'd look absolutely identical in comparison. I can't claim any real interest in F1 these days, but perhaps someone who knows better could come up with a list of fundamental advances that have been made in the technology in the last 15 years. And I'm talking about genuine advances, not this year's tweak to a bargeboard profile or a slightly better material for an exhaust valve. Off the top of my head, the only thing I can come up with is improvements in valve actuation?
It would be easier to come up with a list of promising technologies that have been banned...
One thing I would like to see is a removal of the weight limits. Essentially the car should pass the FIA safety tests and the drivers should be weighted so each car has to carry the same mass but but other than that the cars should be allowed to be as lights as the designers can make them.
There comes a time when a technology matures. Whatever about the inner workings of F1 cars (which is where most of the advantages have been in the past 10 or so years - especially in engine and electronics) what else can be done with the body shells, chassis etc except minor tweaks for serodynamic purposes - often dictated by rule changes.
The rate of advance made between say 1962 and 1982 could not be matched again.
And to what purpose? Can F1 cars be made go even faster than they go now without the driver being merely a passenger? I know that this year they are marginally slower than a year or so ago but I expect that difference will be made up before too long. I really think that the cars are so fast these days that drivers are just about on top of them. I couldn't see lap times falling by say 20% over the next ten years.
The same is true for aviation and, to some extent, manned spaceflight.
The rate of advance made between say 1962 and 1982 could not be matched again.
And to what purpose? Can F1 cars be made go even faster than they go now without the driver being merely a passenger? I know that this year they are marginally slower than a year or so ago but I expect that difference will be made up before too long. I really think that the cars are so fast these days that drivers are just about on top of them. I couldn't see lap times falling by say 20% over the next ten years.
The same is true for aviation and, to some extent, manned spaceflight.
Eric Mc said:
There comes a time when a technology matures. Whatever about the inner workings of F1 cars (which is where most of the advantages have been in the past 10 or so years - especially in engine and electronics) what else can be done with the body shells, chassis etc except minor tweaks for serodynamic purposes - often dictated by rule changes.
The rate of advance made between say 1962 and 1982 could not be matched again.
And to what purpose? Can F1 cars be made go even faster than they go now without the driver being merely a passenger? I know that this year they are marginally slower than a year or so ago but I expect that difference will be made up before too long. I really think that the cars are so fast these days that drivers are just about on top of them. I couldn't see lap times falling by say 20% over the next ten years.
I'm sure they were saying the same thing in the 50's, 60's and 70's, though Eric. I'm sure that no-one could conceive of anything more sophisticated than a steel spaceframe and obviously engines couldn't be made to rev anny higher than 8-9K 'cos you couldn't burn the fuel fast enough and they'd tear themselves apart under the stress. Just like 200 years ago they were saying that man would suffocate if he travelled faster than 20mph...The rate of advance made between say 1962 and 1982 could not be matched again.
And to what purpose? Can F1 cars be made go even faster than they go now without the driver being merely a passenger? I know that this year they are marginally slower than a year or so ago but I expect that difference will be made up before too long. I really think that the cars are so fast these days that drivers are just about on top of them. I couldn't see lap times falling by say 20% over the next ten years.
We've not seen G-suits in racing cars, yet, and they have banned the technologies that could have prevented the drivers from getting such a pounding (like active suspension and the secondary aerodynamic chassis of the Lotus 88)... there's plenty of scope left to expand the performance envelope, if only they would relax the straight-jacket of the rules.
I'm not really saying that technical advancement isn't possible. The point I am making is "to what purpose" would such advancements be put in racing.
Do we want 300 mph racing cars?
Do we want circuits specially modified to contain such devices?
Would the resultant product still be recognisable as motor racing?
Do we want 300 mph racing cars?
Do we want circuits specially modified to contain such devices?
Would the resultant product still be recognisable as motor racing?
Sam_68 said:
We've not seen G-suits in racing cars, yet, and they have banned the technologies that could have prevented the drivers from getting such a pounding (like active suspension and the secondary aerodynamic chassis of the Lotus 88)... there's plenty of scope left to expand the performance envelope, if only they would relax the straight-jacket of the rules.
If they relaxed the rules the driver wouldn't actually be necessary!Actually while we are at it wheeled transport isn't really the quickest way of getting around the circuit, DC was beaten by a Red Bull Air Racer so we end up with F1 cruise missile racing....
Assuming we want to have a driver and also use wheels and an engine it would still be necessary to legislate because otherwise the cars would do 300mph up the main straight, 8g through the corners and the drivers would die in every crash and take half the crowd with them.
Essentially the regulations have to assure the following things for F1.
They are the fastest formula around any of the racetracks they go to.
The racing is relatively safe.
The racing is exiting.
Thus I would suggest the following:
Engines: 1.5 litre turbo - limited to pump gas. Any material other than steel or aluminium used in the engine must be homologated on 1000 road cars (less than £50,000) in that application. Engines have to last one race.
Weight: As light as you can, however FIA tests on the monocoque will assume 600kg
Tyres: Slick ones
Aero: Limited to allow cars to run in each others slipstream
Points: 12 point for a win 8 for second and so on as before: 1 point for each position gained in the top 6
Banned:
Active Suspension - Makes crashes/spins less frequent thus reducing excitement
Traction control - Makes crashes/spins less frequent thus reducing excitement
ABS - Makes crashes/spins less frequent thus reducing excitement
Talksteer said:
Actually while we are at it wheeled transport isn't really the quickest way of getting around the circuit, DC was beaten by a Red Bull Air Racer ...
I think that's difficult to argue, considering IIRC the plane wasn't restricted by corners and simply had to fly roughly the outline of the circuit at the discretion of the pilot. Something of a meaningless exercise in publicity rather than something you'd stake your mortgage on, imo. I agree with slick tyres and aero being limited to the basic shape of the body and a front and rear wing. Not sure what a return to 1.5l turbos would achieve at all. Ban all of the little aero add ons / winglets. Traction control goes next year, which should be a big improvement. And I wasn't aware they had ABS anyway?
If you allowed F1 to be the pinnacle of technology, the racing would be even worse than it is now.
The cars would punch a crazy hole in the air to create the downforce, and electronic systems would limit the input of the driver to the absolute minimum.
Computing power is what has made cars reach their apparent limit. Computer simulation and manufacturing now means that if you can imagine it, you can build it.
Up until the 80s the cars were built by hand and development was based on bright ideas and trial and error.
Unfortunately good racing and technology do not go hand in hand.
Personally I would suggest the following as a way back to good racing...
- Engine specs as standard except no computer controls at all allowed between pedal and fuel system. i.e a linkage running carbs or mechanical fuel injection
- Linkage operated gearboxes
- Linkage operated brakes.
- Significantly reduced front and rear wings.
- A ban on any protruding aerodynamic shapes between front and rear axles.
Or, if linkages are out, specify a control ECU, gearbox and brake system.
This puts the control of the cars firmly back in the hands of the driver and stops the cars punching such a big hole in the air that you can't stay within 2 seconds of the car in front.
These kind of changes have been obvious to motorsport lovers since the days of the active Williams car, but nobody at the FIA has realised it yet.
The cars would punch a crazy hole in the air to create the downforce, and electronic systems would limit the input of the driver to the absolute minimum.
Computing power is what has made cars reach their apparent limit. Computer simulation and manufacturing now means that if you can imagine it, you can build it.
Up until the 80s the cars were built by hand and development was based on bright ideas and trial and error.
Unfortunately good racing and technology do not go hand in hand.
Personally I would suggest the following as a way back to good racing...
- Engine specs as standard except no computer controls at all allowed between pedal and fuel system. i.e a linkage running carbs or mechanical fuel injection
- Linkage operated gearboxes
- Linkage operated brakes.
- Significantly reduced front and rear wings.
- A ban on any protruding aerodynamic shapes between front and rear axles.
Or, if linkages are out, specify a control ECU, gearbox and brake system.
This puts the control of the cars firmly back in the hands of the driver and stops the cars punching such a big hole in the air that you can't stay within 2 seconds of the car in front.
These kind of changes have been obvious to motorsport lovers since the days of the active Williams car, but nobody at the FIA has realised it yet.
All very sensible suggestions, in my opinion.
As I said in an earlier post, I really do think that the technical limit has now been reached for designing recongnisable racing cars. Anything beyond what we now have would be piston engined cruise missiles which happen to carry a driver as passenger.
As I said in an earlier post, I really do think that the technical limit has now been reached for designing recongnisable racing cars. Anything beyond what we now have would be piston engined cruise missiles which happen to carry a driver as passenger.
I assume the shape will be largely influenced by the aerodynamics of the body work. Since we are pretty advanced in that then I assume that's why the basic shape has stayed the same. But if you look at the aero package on the McLaren the car is quite a mad bit of kit close up.
Just look at the shape of the side pods - while the format is very similar, the actual shapes are quite different.
Just look at the shape of the side pods - while the format is very similar, the actual shapes are quite different.
Only other option would be to create what me, my bro and a mate came up with this weekend (after, as I'm sure you'll be able to tell by the name we came up with, a beer or ten) - The World Galactic Car Racing Championship League Five Trillion.
It's all down to the car - for which there are no limits.
There are only two regs:
1. The car must be controlled by a human, but they don't have to be in the car
2. No Robot Wars style weaponary
It's all down to the car - for which there are no limits.
There are only two regs:
1. The car must be controlled by a human, but they don't have to be in the car
2. No Robot Wars style weaponary
Far out, the guy asked about car design and now all you blokes are chiming in with your own 2p on how to 'fix' F1 (as if it was ever broken, it's more popular than ever)? Haven't you read enough about that sort of rubbish?
Get back on the topic, because it's an interesting discussion subject!
Get back on the topic, because it's an interesting discussion subject!
Is F1 more popular than ever?
That's rather a sweeping statement.
I would suspect that it actually isn't. Increases in TV audiences are as much to do with relocating the events into new catchment areas rather than an actual increase in interest in the sport.
Attendances at F1 events have actually been falling - with many venues struggling to make ends meet due to falling numbers of attendees.
This year has seen a genuine increase in interest which I put down to the absence of M Schumacher and the arrival of L Hamilton. This effect may very well wear off sooner rather than later.
That's rather a sweeping statement.
I would suspect that it actually isn't. Increases in TV audiences are as much to do with relocating the events into new catchment areas rather than an actual increase in interest in the sport.
Attendances at F1 events have actually been falling - with many venues struggling to make ends meet due to falling numbers of attendees.
This year has seen a genuine increase in interest which I put down to the absence of M Schumacher and the arrival of L Hamilton. This effect may very well wear off sooner rather than later.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff