Putting the brakes on F1
Discussion
Instead of forcing teams into spending God knows what on KERS, which can only be used a couple of times per lap and so far doesn't seem that convincing, why don't the FIA put some restrictions on brakes. Virtually all other areas of the car have been restricted but the braking systems are never mentioned. Banning carbon fibre discs would be a start. This would increase braking distances by some way thus providing more overtaking per lap. We used to have the term "last of the late brakers" but how many times do you hear that now. One hard push on a modern F1 cars brake pedal and they're down from 200mph to 10mph, the diference being that they can all do it so nobody gets a chance to pass under braking.
..........safety............
If they need to stop in an emergency, they can.
think of hamilton in canada last year....... he could have hurt someone with steel brakes!
instead, he gets a tap on the shoulder, quickly followed by a wiggling finger.. tut tut.
I agree with your idea; but I agree more with the need to stop ASAP.
If they need to stop in an emergency, they can.
think of hamilton in canada last year....... he could have hurt someone with steel brakes!
instead, he gets a tap on the shoulder, quickly followed by a wiggling finger.. tut tut.
I agree with your idea; but I agree more with the need to stop ASAP.
My understanding (I am probably wrong) is that steel brakes are now about as effective as carbon ones. Reason being, the pads build up a coating on the steel disc and then bind on that. It's pad material contacting pad material.
Therefore there's a weight save using carbon discs, maybe some heat dissipation advantages which if using steel discs would mean more ventilation needed and / or more risk of fluid boiling, but nothing of note in terms of braking distance.
I think the only way braking distances would be appreciably lengthened is if the brakes were less predictable or more likely to overheat - but the prospect of introducing more risk into the braking system is unlikely to be welcomed by teams or drivers.
Therefore there's a weight save using carbon discs, maybe some heat dissipation advantages which if using steel discs would mean more ventilation needed and / or more risk of fluid boiling, but nothing of note in terms of braking distance.
I think the only way braking distances would be appreciably lengthened is if the brakes were less predictable or more likely to overheat - but the prospect of introducing more risk into the braking system is unlikely to be welcomed by teams or drivers.
Having come straight from Champ Cars, where they must use iron discs, in 1999 Alex Zanardi tried to persuade Williams to let him use iron discs on his F1 car. He preferred the superior feel.
Thus they did extensive side-by-side testing. According to what was published at the time, the engineers found that the braking performance was essentially the same. Ultimately, the team insisted on carbon, because of the weight advantage.
Thus they did extensive side-by-side testing. According to what was published at the time, the engineers found that the braking performance was essentially the same. Ultimately, the team insisted on carbon, because of the weight advantage.
Current F1 brakes are effective enough to lock the wheels up at any racing speed AFAIK. The talent in driving with them is applying the correct amount of brake pressure to achieve maximum retardation at the limit of tyre grip throughout, and the brakes allow that to happen.
Going to smaller brakes, less effective brakes, would mean that at higher speeds it would be possible to simply stand on them, thereby reducing the talent required to slow the car at maximum deceleration.
Braking would then be such that the car with the best setup achieved the shortest braking distances regardless of driver input, rather than at present where the best drivers can brake at the threshold of maximum grip at all times.
There are still drivers who are better on the brakes than others - the problem is that it happens so fast, and over such a short distance, that a 5% improvement over the guy next to you isn't necessarily enough to make a pass, or be easily seen by the TV viewer.
As ever, it's more obvious when you see it happening trackside.
Going to smaller brakes, less effective brakes, would mean that at higher speeds it would be possible to simply stand on them, thereby reducing the talent required to slow the car at maximum deceleration.
Braking would then be such that the car with the best setup achieved the shortest braking distances regardless of driver input, rather than at present where the best drivers can brake at the threshold of maximum grip at all times.
There are still drivers who are better on the brakes than others - the problem is that it happens so fast, and over such a short distance, that a 5% improvement over the guy next to you isn't necessarily enough to make a pass, or be easily seen by the TV viewer.
As ever, it's more obvious when you see it happening trackside.
flemke said:
Having come straight from Champ Cars, where they must use iron discs, in 1999 Alex Zanardi tried to persuade Williams to let him use iron discs on his F1 car. He preferred the superior feel.
Thus they did extensive side-by-side testing. According to what was published at the time, the engineers found that the braking performance was essentially the same. Ultimately, the team insisted on carbon, because of the weight advantage.
I recall reading somewhere, possibly in a book by Steve Matchett, that Benetton also did comparative testing of carbon and steel brakes in the 90s and found little if any difference in stopping performance. I've also heard it said that carbon brakes require some adjustment to get used to because they don't respond instantly to pressure being applied.Thus they did extensive side-by-side testing. According to what was published at the time, the engineers found that the braking performance was essentially the same. Ultimately, the team insisted on carbon, because of the weight advantage.
Edited by SamHH on Friday 10th April 12:21
SamHH said:
flemke said:
Having come straight from Champ Cars, where they must use iron discs, in 1999 Alex Zanardi tried to persuade Williams to let him use iron discs on his F1 car. He preferred the superior feel.
Thus they did extensive side-by-side testing. According to what was published at the time, the engineers found that the braking performance was essentially the same. Ultimately, the team insisted on carbon, because of the weight advantage.
I recall reading somewhere, possibly in a book by Steve Matchett, that Benetton also did comparative testing of carbon and steel brakes in the 90s and found little if any difference in stopping performance. I've also heard it said that carbon brakes require some adjustment to get used to because they don't respond instantly to pressure being applied.Thus they did extensive side-by-side testing. According to what was published at the time, the engineers found that the braking performance was essentially the same. Ultimately, the team insisted on carbon, because of the weight advantage.
Edited by SamHH on Friday 10th April 12:21
Modern road car ceramics like on the Porsche GT2 and McLaren SLR have some lag because they have to start from relatively cold most of the time, so you get a significant ramp up in torque over the first second which takes a bit of getting used to.
The main benefit of carbon/carbon over steel/carbon metallic is weight and safety, a failing steel disk makes a mess, it turns into a cutting tool, a carbon disk just disintegrates.
flemke said:
Having come straight from Champ Cars, where they must use iron discs, in 1999 Alex Zanardi tried to persuade Williams to let him use iron discs on his F1 car. He preferred the superior feel.
Thus they did extensive side-by-side testing. According to what was published at the time, the engineers found that the braking performance was essentially the same. Ultimately, the team insisted on carbon, because of the weight advantage.
IIRC McLaren switched Michael Andretti's car to steel brakes during his season in F1, can't recall it helping him much but did not seem to hinder him either.Thus they did extensive side-by-side testing. According to what was published at the time, the engineers found that the braking performance was essentially the same. Ultimately, the team insisted on carbon, because of the weight advantage.
Ben
FNG said:
Current F1 brakes are effective enough to lock the wheels up at any racing speed AFAIK. The talent in driving with them is applying the correct amount of brake pressure to achieve maximum retardation at the limit of tyre grip throughout, and the brakes allow that to happen.
you know, that's a really dumb thing to say...just about *any* brake can lock up the wheel, the difference between good and bad is how much energy that can absorb and for how long, locking the wheels does not absorb any energy (you have just turned the tyre into that function).
Carbon brakes are way more effective than steel on several counts, weight is the obvious one, but the more relevant is operating temperature and wear rates, steel disks can't run at much over 650C, so would require much more air-cooling to maintain this compared to a carbon/carbon setup running at up to 1200C, more air cooling = more drag etc.
Currently F1 brakes are limited to 28mm thick and 278mm diameter, steel disks would have a hard time meeting the braking requirements at these sizes (consider this is smaller than most road cars brakes!)
Edit- Some interesting stuff Here
Edited by Scuffers on Friday 10th April 16:46
Scuffers said:
FNG said:
Current F1 brakes are effective enough to lock the wheels up at any racing speed AFAIK. The talent in driving with them is applying the correct amount of brake pressure to achieve maximum retardation at the limit of tyre grip throughout, and the brakes allow that to happen.
you know, that's a really dumb thing to say...just about *any* brake can lock up the wheel, the difference between good and bad is how much energy that can absorb and for how long, locking the wheels does not absorb any energy (you have just turned the tyre into that function).
I'm not claiming that locking the wheels is an effective method of race driving am I? The energy you're talking of is heat: differences in cooling coefficients I mentioned elsewhere.
Just about any brake cannot lock the wheels on a formula car running significant downforce and a sticky slick at 300kph. Which is the context we are talking about - not Elises.
FNG said:
You know, that's a very unfriendly way of posting.
I'm not claiming that locking the wheels is an effective method of race driving am I? The energy you're talking of is heat: differences in cooling coefficients I mentioned elsewhere.
Just about any brake cannot lock the wheels on a formula car running significant downforce and a sticky slick at 300kph. Which is the context we are talking about - not Elises.
Epic fail....I'm not claiming that locking the wheels is an effective method of race driving am I? The energy you're talking of is heat: differences in cooling coefficients I mentioned elsewhere.
Just about any brake cannot lock the wheels on a formula car running significant downforce and a sticky slick at 300kph. Which is the context we are talking about - not Elises.
may I suggest you read up a little more on the subject.
and yes, just about any brake can achieve wheel lock, granted this is not massively helpful, but it's just a matter of clamping the disk hard enough, as your not absorbing the braking loads once the wheel has locked, the brakes will not have to be particularly 'big' to manage this..
And yes, what relevance does this have to an Elise as you bring it up? (apart from they run bigger disks in std form!)
Scuffers said:
FNG said:
You know, that's a very unfriendly way of posting.
I'm not claiming that locking the wheels is an effective method of race driving am I? The energy you're talking of is heat: differences in cooling coefficients I mentioned elsewhere.
Just about any brake cannot lock the wheels on a formula car running significant downforce and a sticky slick at 300kph. Which is the context we are talking about - not Elises.
Epic fail....I'm not claiming that locking the wheels is an effective method of race driving am I? The energy you're talking of is heat: differences in cooling coefficients I mentioned elsewhere.
Just about any brake cannot lock the wheels on a formula car running significant downforce and a sticky slick at 300kph. Which is the context we are talking about - not Elises.
may I suggest you read up a little more on the subject.
and yes, just about any brake can achieve wheel lock, granted this is not massively helpful, but it's just a matter of clamping the disk hard enough, as your not absorbing the braking loads once the wheel has locked, the brakes will not have to be particularly 'big' to manage this..
And yes, what relevance does this have to an Elise as you bring it up? (apart from they run bigger disks in std form!)
Yes, but without totally ignoring everything that's been said, what I meant was how do you increase braking distances thereby increasing overtaking/outbraking chances.....call it what you will. I've now learnt that modern steel brakes, if I understand correctly are as good as carbon ones, the main penalty being weight, I think. But the weight involved would surely be a lot less than a system such as KERS (provided both weren't used together, that is) and wouldn't penalise heavier drivers as KERS would seem to, or will when everybody has it (and would surely be cheaper?). Surely it doesn't matter where a driver brakes (that sounds wrong but you probably know what I mean) provided he knows that the brakes will pull him up. And there would be more room to do it. F1 cars have always been quick (1000bhp+ in qualifying form back in the Brabham BMW days, I believe) but always managed to stop over a full race distance. It seems to me that using a "natural" form of overtaking rather than pressing a button (no pun intended) would be a lot better. And didn't Formula Palmer Audi have some sort of system where extra power was made available a couple of times a lap?
timbo48 said:
Yes, but without totally ignoring everything that's been said, what I meant was how do you increase braking distances thereby increasing overtaking/outbraking chances.....call it what you will. I've now learnt that modern steel brakes, if I understand correctly are as good as carbon ones, the main penalty being weight, I think. But the weight involved would surely be a lot less than a system such as KERS (provided both weren't used together, that is) and wouldn't penalise heavier drivers as KERS would seem to, or will when everybody has it (and would surely be cheaper?). Surely it doesn't matter where a driver brakes (that sounds wrong but you probably know what I mean) provided he knows that the brakes will pull him up. And there would be more room to do it. F1 cars have always been quick (1000bhp+ in qualifying form back in the Brabham BMW days, I believe) but always managed to stop over a full race distance. It seems to me that using a "natural" form of overtaking rather than pressing a button (no pun intended) would be a lot better. And didn't Formula Palmer Audi have some sort of system where extra power was made available a couple of times a lap?
I'm not sure how you lengthen braking distances apart from by stipulating pad material.Agreed, KERS is artificial and somewhat flaky.
Palmer Audi are turbocharged, and power boost was increased boost pressure for a limited time, wasn't it?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff