How interesting would a new formula be specifying front engine/ rear drive for F1 !
Obviously a massive architectural change,aerodynamic overhaul,engine layout etc etc
but modern technology would create a car vastly different to the last of the 1950s breed
of front engine racecars.
BTW what would be the fastest front engine rear drive road course cars today of any category ?

After the mysteries of the Lotus 78 were revealed I did some sketches of a front-engined version - the tunnels were enormous!

Not exactly present day, but the Panoz LMP900 cars were probably the fastest modern front engined cars. You'd have to put the LeMans Corvette and Aston right up there as well, though.

Given suitable tyres, history would suggest that a mid-engined layout is optimum for a race vehicle.

Curiously, the centre of gravity position of the Panoz LMP was very similar to that of the R8, but yaw inertias were quite different. Arguably one reason that the Panoz was quick in the wet, whilst the R8 was the quick on slicks.

The examples quoted by FB have one thing in common - the driver doesn't straddle the centreline of the vehicle. A single seater will present problems, I think, at least until the prop shaft becomes redundant.

Given that a proper racecar needs to be pretty big in track and wheelbase for stability,accomodating a driver beside the tailshaft would seem easy.Think Alfetta GT layout,gearbox at rear means no torque multiplication till there,skinny high tech metallurgy tailshaft or maybe hydraulic drive ?

Why not tilt the engine and have an offset drivehsaft?

About the fastest front engined car no argument for me. Japanese Super GT500 machinery.
For the Asian Le Mans Series at Okayama, the pole position was 1min 19.5 by the Lola Drayson, the fastest GT1 was running in 1 min 28
The track record for Super GT cars on that track is 1min 20.5 just 1 second off the current top petrol power lmp1.
Speed comes from very free regulation in aero plus the huge tire war going on.

Didn't Arrows consider a front engined DFV powered car? If it was an Arrows that you drew, that picture has intrigued me for years and years!

Certainly angled engines,extreme diff centre offsets etc have been done many times,
but for dynamics,balance etc starting with all right angles and centre of gravity down the middle
is good if you can get it. Sitting the driver over to one side is not a problem in a big car .
Has F1 demanded the driver in the centre, or does it just always just turn out that way ?

The Panoz-Audi comparison is an interesting one. It makes you wonder how things would have turned out if both cars had the same technical team behind them. There were some real shortcuts on the Panoz side mandated by the damned things namesake of all people!

Let's face it, there were very few overlooked pieces on that Audi.

Very good. Completely missed that one. Don't we know some wanker that worked on that thing?

Wankers?
Well there is at least two members here concerned!
Speaking for myself about the wanking process, I have someone else to do the dirty work for me so this adjective doesn't apply to myself.

You were the wanker I was talking about, but I guess there is another that was also with Drayson, huh?

oi! wankers and assistants

Are you saying that this:



will beat this with same rubber:


It would be really cool to see a F1 car with a "front" mounted engine

If the engines in f1 will continue to shrink and new rules will emerge making it possible to mount ex, a boxer engine in front with gearbox in the rear. The driver could have the feet in the middle of the engine. this would make the driver position further back and the crash testes would be easier making it possible to have more complex noses like the bmw nose.

Making the engine go under the driver in a crash should not be too hard. street cars have that feature.

It would also give a cleaner part after driver making less turbulence to the rear wings.

just day dreamin.

Not saying anything
Lap times do it
the panoz LMP in its last evo in 2003 at LE Mans:
10 Beretta/Jeannette/Papis JML Team Panoz LMP-01 Evo 3m40.766s

from: http://www.johnnyherbert.co.uk/news/races/.../lemans03.shtml

Compare with best qualify of current lmp1 petrol powered:
4 17 Pescarolo Sport LMP1 3:25.062 +2.174

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans

Recent LMP1 are quicker than in 2003 and not just a few
so draw your conclusions

There was an interesting analysis of the Panoz way back when. Basically it pointed out that with the width and tire size regulation pertaining at Le Mans in those days the front engined layout had significant benefits. The the width limit meant that near equal size tyres front and rear gave more total rubber. That required a weight distribution near to 50/50 which was easier to acheive with the front ( stictly central ) engine layout.

Another advantage is that under braking the C of G of a rear engine car rises causing extra front weight transfer and lifting up a part of the car with a high mass centre which may add to any turn in instabilty. With the central/front engine the largest mass moves down slightly. In an F1 car all of this is probably irrelevant due to ballast and ultra low C of G. However in GT cars there may be some slight benefits to outweigh the negatives of a front engine.

BTW there is a very big practical problem for a front engine car with a large engine in that the bulk of the engine compromises the driver sight lines espeically if a top mounted induction system is used.So you cannot recline the driver too much which may in turn affect flow to the rear wing. Also you have less distance to get any cockpit airflow diusturbance re-attached before reaching the wing.

As the esteemed thread starter I would say it is probable a front engine F1, if allowed complete freedom otherwise, may never be as fast as a rear engine .But wouldn't it be an interesting development ; more interesting than KERS or a change of engine size or anything else I can think of,both technically and to watch.

Would there really be insurmountable limitations with heat build up in the cockpit,engine intrusion in accidents ?.....I think it would be just another lot of solutions to reach for competing teams ,which for a few seasons at least would invigorate the sport and see big variations in approach.

Agree with most of what you say but surely you are not advocating a rule change solely to give the designers something to do? Perhaps we could make them run three wheels or wooden chassis?

In my ideal world, all cars would be mid-engined with loud V12s and diesels would be banned, in fact you will end up in jail for driving diesel.
Anyway, how do you plan to balance this thing, i.e. for low fuel run? Moveable aero for the different phases of cornering?
Sprint cars haven't developed much during the years, they're probably the only left front engined open-wheelers.

Sprint cars haven't changed much because they have a formula that works. To whose advantage is changing the hardware for an admittedly artificial racing series? Not the participants that's for sure.

yea but he does not have the air intake behind him no more.

have intakes for engine ever been mounted on the sides?

does f3 count?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rey...rmula_3_EMS.jpg

or did you mean further out than that?

Benetton B189, similar to this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...n-Ford_B188.jpg

That was a pretty car!

why not go the whole hog and have front wheel drive as well
would be amusing to watch !

Basically, it would be possible to fit a complete F1 drivetrain at the front of the tub with the gearbox facing forward.

Imagine the tunnels that would fit given the lack of drivetrain components at the rear.

actually i know about a car with that. Kinda.

I was thinking about something like in the sidepods but this could work too.







It sure looks cool tho..

Greg you are correct, they have the advantage of having a formula that is affordable to many more people than most rear rear engine formulas. There are thousands of them out there racing every weekend drawing good crowds across the US as well as putting on good shows in Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Engine behind the the driver is not allowed in sprint cars but there is more weight on the rear wheels than the front, My last car had the rear motor plate about 38" from the rear axle centre on 84" a wheel base.
Next Fri & Sat night the New Zealand Sprint Car Championship is being held in Cromwell Thirty three cars entered, try and get 33 rear engined cars in a race in NZ except maybe Formula Ford & F5000 with overseas cars as well.
If you allowed rear engine sprint cars you would end up with a F5000 with a 410 engine!!

I know you are not actually suggesting such but I wonder if that would actually work on a dirt oval. Would it have enough suspension travel for one thing?

There is a question above about whats the fastest front engine car. you might need to read that question and the following treads first to understand what im asking about.

I'm sure the designers would be as delighted as the spectators ! They must be jaded fiddling about with the present tired layout,and there seem to be lots of vacant spectator areas--sometimes it sends you to sleep on TV !The layout has evolved with huge effort to a logical set of answers,lets call that quits and let something new evolve. The drivers make it interesting when it is,but I like it best when it's about the cars,and the differences between them.

What I'm saying is, rule changes should have a good reason - Sprintcars are still front engine and live axle(s) for good reasons including, simplicity, durability, servicability, repairability, entertainment etc. Formula 1 is a development class and every effort should be made to make the rules less prescriptive - not more.

What about the ground effects you could achieve though with the donk up front.