What should an F1 car look like?

It should look like this......



or this.....



or this.....



Copyright JAG

It should look like this......



or this.....



or this.....



Copyright JAG

Power to fantasy.

Realistically we can't undiscover aerodynamics.....


Paul M

Realistically we can't undiscover aerodynamics.....

so I think it should look like a 2006 GP2 car but with a smaller front wing (with a tight box rule to keep the size down) and a full-length plank from the front of the front tyre to the back of the back tyre, and no rear diffuser.

And the rules should be written by a designer with a particularly furtive mind.....

Paul M

Edited by nmansellfan, 29 November 2011 - 12:52.

Realistically we can't undiscover aerodynamics.....

Over prescriptive rules to engine design often push up costs because teams naturally start chasing the small things like the efficiency of engine oils etc, when the more open routes to gaining power are closed off by regulations. But then when engine regs are more open, teams spend huge money chasing power anyway, just with more freedom! The other point is that in aerodynamic design and engine design (specifically to GP racing), we've got to a point where there has been so much development and evolutiuon over the years, the most ideal solution has usually already been reached - example being the V10 engine from 1996 until the 2.4 litre V8's were mandated.
Gradually from 1989 onwards, all the teams moved towards V10's because they were the best combo of fuel efficiency and power. Although Toyota were looking at a V12 engine before they entered F1 (did it get past the concept stage?), then the FIA banned engines of more than 10 cylinders anyway...

Power to fantasy.

Aerodynamics have ruined Grand Prix racing.

Bring back bolster tanks and exposed spare wheels.

For a start it should not look like a billboard or advertising hoarding, also it should allow the drivers upper body to be in full view with room for the elbows to swirl about.

It should have narrow section wheels and treaded tyres, and not aquaplane if someone spits on the track, It should be painted red, green, blue, yellow or silver, and have the engine in front of the driver .....................Oh!

I think I must be regressing.......................................

Edited by eldougo, 01 December 2011 - 04:57.

Funny you guys mention 1967, as I was always drawn to that era of Can-Am cars as well. But those were my earliest memories of real race cars.

That said, is it possible we most revere the cars that drew us in during our first exposures to the sport? If we asked this question of someone first witnessing a 2011 race, would they answer "2011" in 20 years from now? Just curious...

Over prescriptive rules to engine design often push up costs because teams naturally start chasing the small things like the efficiency of engine oils etc, when the more open routes to gaining power are closed off by regulations. But then when engine regs are more open, teams spend huge money chasing power anyway, just with more freedom! The other point is that in aerodynamic design and engine design (specifically to GP racing), we've got to a point where there has been so much development and evolutiuon over the years, the most ideal solution has usually already been reached - example being the V10 engine from 1996 until the 2.4 litre V8's were mandated.
Gradually from 1989 onwards, all the teams moved towards V10's because they were the best combo of fuel efficiency and power. Although Toyota were looking at a V12 engine before they entered F1 (did it get past the concept stage?), then the FIA banned engines of more than 10 cylinders anyway...

Edited by Duc-Man, 30 November 2011 - 14:59.

There seems to be a lot of evidence to support that view Eric. Mind you, the FI and sports cars of c1957 that I was first exposed to really WERE the best looking!
[I've conveniently almost forgotten the immediate post war home made jobs that I saw as a toddler.]

The two most beautiful F1 cars for me are the Shadow DN5(b) and the Lotus 72. And that is how I would like F1 cars to be looking.

Engines: everything goes as long they can get over the distance with lets say 75 litres of fuel.
Electronics: get rid of everything that is adjustable during drive! No buttons or gauges in the steering 'wheel'!
Stick shift and steel brakes would be great too. On-board starter.

We can't undevelop aerodynamics but it should be possible to restrict them to a level that won't eat tons of money and ages in windtunnels during the season.
Flat bottom from the tip of the nosecone to the center of the rear wheels and no more body work behind that line.
The tip of the nosecone IS the tip of the cars bottom!
Wings can have only two aerodynamicaly profiled elements.
All wing elements have to have straight front and rear edges.
End plates have to be flat and vertical without any kind of openings or non-vertical extensions.
Front wing has to be mounted at the sides of the nosecone. Rear wing has to be center mounted at the gearbox.
No bullshit fins or plates anywhere between front and rear wheels.
The exhaust has to end behind the rear wheels.
Front wings are not mandatory.

Also: every car has to have a NUMBER BIG ENOUGH SO EVERYBODY CAN INSTANTLY READ it from the front or the side without searching.
Edited to add the last sentence.

Not sure that 75 litres would be enough to cover 200 miles at racing speed. Wouldn't that mean something 12mpg? I think that could be something of a challenge.
Apart from that, no arguments. I put in one of my earlier posts that steel discs, to increase braking distances and overtaking opportunities would be welcome. If the minimum weight is also increased it would help in that area too, and keep costs down by reducing the requirement to make so many bits in carbon fibre.

My ideal



Followed by.




............... and in third place is.....!

I'll bite ;) when did a D-Type and Old Yeller race in F1?

I feel like that curly-haired bloke on Qi, I know the bell is going to ring.

Which is exactly what it should be,

Quite possibly and I agree that it's in everyone's interests if the cars are made as fuel efficient as possible. However, I doubt that anyone would want to return to the type of "racing" that the endurance enthusiasts had to put up with in the 80s when, by two thirds distance, racing had stopped and everyone was poodling round the track hoping they had enough to make it to the end.

Mercedes raced the W196 with the wheel covering streamliner bodywork in 1954 - so could Jaguar have raced the D-type as an F1 car if they had fitted a 2.5 litre engine?

I'd say:



And:

I'm not sure about the rules at the time.
The Merc was a single seater, the Jaguar wasn't. And I also can't rememmber ever reading anything about an open-wheeler version of the D-Type.

i'd agree with you post-ground effect with 'simple' aerodynamics, no flicks or bargeboards, no add-on 'lets gain 0.327% downforce with this widget' bits.....i'd go for a kind of 'no wings to be fitted between the axle centrelines, no wings to have more than 2 elements, front wing assemblies to have a maximum chord length of x and a maximum depth of section of a, rear wings to have a maximum chord length of y and a maximum depth of section of b'.....and set the figures to suit a '88 'Hockenheim' spec wing kit