Jump to content


Photo

What should an F1 car look like?


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 jimjimjeroo

jimjimjeroo
  • Member

  • 1,383 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 28 November 2011 - 21:57

Personally I think Mclaren MP4-4 - 6

Quite liked the 16, Maybe the FW14, 15 and 16

What do you guys think?

Advertisement

#2 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,771 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 28 November 2011 - 22:35

It should look like this......

Posted Image

or this.....

Posted Image

or this.....

Posted Image

Copyright JAG

#3 simonlewisbooks

simonlewisbooks
  • Member

  • 2,118 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 28 November 2011 - 23:58

It should look like this......

Posted Image

or this.....

Posted Image

or this.....

Posted Image

Copyright JAG


:love: :up: Spot on!

1967: THE year for producing great looking, great sounding, technically diverse GRAND Prix cars without the visual distraction of wings or sponsorship.Just a purity of line and purpose that has never been surpassed.

#4 LRT24

LRT24
  • New Member

  • 18 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 29 November 2011 - 00:01

It should be 2m wide. The rear wing 1m wide. And the wheelbase under 3m. The current cars are way too long and narrow, and the fact that an F3 car is now wider than an F1 car is absurd.


#5 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 29 November 2011 - 03:21

F1 design lost me when they went for the high noses and low front wings first time round which must be mid 90's.

While I would not disagree with many of the suggestions above or those to follow going all the way back to the dawn of racing, I have very little concern for what formula one cars look like so long as at the end of each and every race they were running, without the use of all the frankly ridiculous gizmo's that are required today, like this for the top four positions !

Posted Image
gif image hosting

#6 barrykm

barrykm
  • Member

  • 431 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 29 November 2011 - 03:46

It should look like this......

Posted Image

or this.....

Posted Image

or this.....

Posted Image

Copyright JAG


Indeed, I loved all three of them, but especially the Ferrari with that exhaust system and the solid/non-perspex cockpit surround :up:

#7 RShaw

RShaw
  • Member

  • 132 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 29 November 2011 - 05:00

It should look like this.

Posted Image

#8 Paolo

Paolo
  • Member

  • 1,673 posts
  • Joined: May 00

Posted 29 November 2011 - 07:16

Posted Image

Power to fantasy.

#9 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,650 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 29 November 2011 - 09:48

Posted Image

Power to fantasy.


I'm sorry but it most certainly should not look like that!

I think the earlier posts of Ferrari, Lotus and Eagle racers from 1967/68 are to my mind the epitome of what a Grand Prix F1 car should look like!

:up:

#10 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,668 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 29 November 2011 - 10:09

I think it would be nice if at least one of them could look like that.

#11 Macca

Macca
  • Member

  • 3,304 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 29 November 2011 - 10:28

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

#12 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 29 November 2011 - 11:45

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


Paul M


Quite right :up:

But we can choose to limit them as suggested in post #5 :love:

#13 david5

david5
  • Member

  • 43 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 29 November 2011 - 11:59

A 250F...a 158F1.....a Lotus 79.....a Jordan 191

#14 jeffbee

jeffbee
  • Member

  • 56 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:34

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


I agree, we can't undiscover aerodynamics but we can limit the designers ability to exploit them by keeping the wing sizes and areas of the car that are used to an absolute minimum.
What about everything else though? I've always thought the over prescriptive rules that apply to engine design, i.e. number of cylinders etc, will inhibit creativity and push up costs. Why not allow complete freedom of engine design and configuration, limit aerodynamics, increase minimum weight by 150Kgs so that breaking distances are a reality again and retrurn to steel discs?
Could be interesting.


#15 nmansellfan

nmansellfan
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:52

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 nmansellfan, 29 November 2011 - 12:52.


#16 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,650 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 29 November 2011 - 14:20

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


True but then again as other posters have suggested you can ban rear wings and limit the width of the cars overall.

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...


I do think the 'one size fits all' concept of a 2.4 litre V8 is complete and utter rubbish. Back in 1968 we had BRM V12, Ferrari V12, Maserati V12, Weslake V12, Honda V12 and Matra V12 all battling with the Cosworth DFV V8 and the Repco V8. Each engine had a distinctive sound and when I went to Monaco and sat in the Casino Square the NOISE was fantastic. Now-a-days the engines all sound roughly the same - with the emphasis on rough!

 ;)

#17 simonlewisbooks

simonlewisbooks
  • Member

  • 2,118 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 29 November 2011 - 14:41

Posted Image

Power to fantasy.



"If Major Mallock had been into Indycar design...."

Actually I rather like it! Such variety is much missed in todays single seaters! :smoking:

#18 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 5,989 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 November 2011 - 15:35

Aerodynamics have ruined Grand Prix racing.

Bring back bolster tanks and exposed spare wheels.

#19 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,046 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 29 November 2011 - 16:45

Aerodynamics have ruined Grand Prix racing.

Bring back bolster tanks and exposed spare wheels.


And the 'greasemonkey'! ;)

Advertisement

#20 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 29 November 2011 - 19:08

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.......................................

#21 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,848 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 29 November 2011 - 19:54

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.......................................

So this would qualify:

Posted Image

Unfortunately, by the time the Scarab was ready to race, successful Formula 1 cars no longer looked like that. However, like the next American F1 car, Dan Gurney's Eagle, it looked beautiful.

#22 elansprint72

elansprint72
  • Member

  • 3,303 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 29 November 2011 - 21:47

imho the Eagle was the best-looking series of F1 cars.

So: no wings, no adverts, treads on the tyres; don't mind which end the engine sits.

#23 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 9,450 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 30 November 2011 - 00:22

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...

#24 LRT24

LRT24
  • New Member

  • 18 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 30 November 2011 - 01:15

For me, an F1 car should look like it's the fastest car on the planet. Whenever the FIA starts reducing the size of the wings, narrowing the track, putting grooves in the tires, it makes the cars look a whole lot slower. I think most of us recognize that they have to keep things in check, but it would be nice if they tried to keep the cars LOOKING fast. And I wish they would keep the proportions somewhere in the realm of "car" as opposed to "railroad car" where they seem to be headed now.

#25 GeoffR

GeoffR
  • Member

  • 481 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 30 November 2011 - 01:50

For me, this ......
Posted Image
(previously posted elsewhere)

#26 RB213

RB213
  • New Member

  • 22 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 30 November 2011 - 01:50

Simple:

Posted ImagePosted Image



#27 ralt12

ralt12
  • Member

  • 273 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 30 November 2011 - 02:26

more simple:
Posted Image
Photo by Sutton Images

#28 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 6,163 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 30 November 2011 - 05:07

1970,s F1 all very simple and all look different,made in kevlar today these would be great F1 cars.
Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.usCopyright Unknown.

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


#29 Repco22

Repco22
  • Member

  • 707 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 30 November 2011 - 05:59

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...

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.]

#30 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 6,163 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 30 November 2011 - 08:05

We used to call it Formula Ford F1 because the grid was mostly FORD powered car ,however they all looked different none of this flying winglet cars the have today that one finds it hard to pick one from the other.Designers got to use their imagination and not copy every body else just paint in different colors

#31 jeffbee

jeffbee
  • Member

  • 56 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 30 November 2011 - 13:02

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...


I think they got the best combination of fuel efficiency and power from what they had to work with within the rather prescriptive rule book. I'm sure that if you asked them what they would preferred to be working on there would have been a variety of answers. The FIA likes to justify their stance by claiming it keeps costs down but I'm not convinced that the engine manufacturers throwing vast amounts of money at trying to gain an advantage over someone else with essentially the same kit is a good way of cutting the budgets.

The rigid rule book makes it one step closer to becoming, in the public's eyes, a glorified one make formula.

But, back to the main point of the discussion:
Maserati 250F
Vanwall
Eagle
1966 Ferrari
And, because they were so ugly they became attractive (!):
Ligier JS5
H16 BRM
1970 Matra F1

Some of the early 70s F5000 cars looked the part too.





#32 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,046 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 30 November 2011 - 14:52

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.

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


#33 simonlewisbooks

simonlewisbooks
  • Member

  • 2,118 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 30 November 2011 - 15:03

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.]


You chaps are probably right about that.

From selling books & memorabilia I can tell you that there is a distinct 20 year cycle to it based on what someone in their mid/late 30s finds nostalgic once they have a house to fill and time (and cash) to do so.

Nine times out of ten it's the era in which they first become truly hooked on the sport - which is usually as a teenager. So currently Senna, Mansell, Prost and the end of the turbo-era and start of the 3.5 litre F1 are becoming very much THE era for many.

In my case I go with 1967, although that was the year I was born so I don't have an actual recollection of seeing the cars in action at the time (my first memory of any kind is being at Thruxton in either 1968 or 69). BUT the movie GRAND PRIX had a profound influence on me when it first appeared on TV, so maybe that's my reason for adoring cars of the early 3 litre formula era?

Certainly even as a 5 year old I already thought there were 'good old days' and what I was watching wasn't quite as good as it would have been...



#34 Mallory Dan

Mallory Dan
  • Member

  • 2,667 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 30 November 2011 - 15:03

Lotus 79, or March 782. Both classics

#35 jeffbee

jeffbee
  • Member

  • 56 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 30 November 2011 - 15:21

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.

#36 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 30 November 2011 - 15:22

I think the obvious answer to this question is to simply merge it with the 'Dennis Poore Alfa Romeo' thread, then you have the perfect example.

#37 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 5,723 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 30 November 2011 - 15:38

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.


Which is exactly what it should be,

#38 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 30 November 2011 - 15:42

Posted Image

My ideal

Posted Image

Followed by.

Posted Image


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

#39 elansprint72

elansprint72
  • Member

  • 3,303 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 30 November 2011 - 16:42

Posted Image

My ideal

Posted Image

Followed by.

Posted Image


............... 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.

Advertisement

#40 Nick Wa

Nick Wa
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: June 07

Posted 30 November 2011 - 17:55

A Maser, any of them.

When I doodle a racing car its a 4clt which supports the first influence theory.

#41 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,848 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 30 November 2011 - 18:10

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.

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?

#42 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 30 November 2011 - 19:50

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


I just got a little bi confoosd. I woz finkin ov racin kars.

Still beautiful cars and five star photography by a genius.

#43 jeffbee

jeffbee
  • Member

  • 56 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 01 December 2011 - 09:31

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.

#44 simonlewisbooks

simonlewisbooks
  • Member

  • 2,118 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 01 December 2011 - 10:39

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.

Ah, but times have moved on since early Gp C days and the still-primitive electronics it was forced to rely on.

We already have this strange under-filling scenario in F1 where all cars appear to start the race under the assumption there will be a caution at some point and not all the available fuel will be needed.Moto GP runners already have a very limited tank size and ECUs that back the power down well in advance of the bike running dry.

A severe fuel restriction coupled with a drastic cut in the efficiency of wings (Make them run single planes, no Gurney's , slots or flaps. Job done!) and freedom of engine size and design would certainly give an interesting formula that had considerable relevance to manufacturers and would greatly speed up the development of genuinely fuel-efficient road car technology.
OK, given a few seasons and the bizarre V24s and V twins would no doubt have disappeared and we'd be back to a field of sensible V6s and V8s again, but it would provide a serious new challenge for Adrian Newey to get his teeth into :smoking:

..



#45 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,046 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:45

Such a fuel restriction would propably lead to a lot of hybrid concepts of all kinds.
It is for me kind of strange that GM (the evil gas guzzler making company that has not got the message!) of all car makers comes up with the possibly most simple hybrid car at all. The Chevy Volt a.k.a. Opel/Vauxhall Ampera.
Any kind of combustion engine driving a generator delivering electricity to the motor(s). How hard is that?
It wouldn't suprise me if we see racecars with that kind of driveline in the close future.

#46 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,046 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:50

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'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.

#47 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,745 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 01 December 2011 - 13:28

I'd say:

Posted Image

And:

Posted Image

#48 wrighty

wrighty
  • Member

  • 3,592 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 01 December 2011 - 13:39

I'd say:

Posted Image

And:

Posted Image


i'd agree with you :love: 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 :lol:

#49 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 7,998 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 01 December 2011 - 14:15

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.

The 1954-57 Formula 1 rules were simply 2.5 litres unsupercharged and not much more, not even a fuel restriction. A 2.5 litre D-Type would have been eligible.

After all in the 1.5 litre Formula 2 there were sports Porsches, OSCAs, Lotuses and 'Bobtail' Coopers running against open-wheeled Cooper and Lotus single seaters, and central seat Porsche Spyders. The sports cars may or may not have been stripped of unnecessary items such as lights and seats

The 1961 Formula 1 regulations did require cars to be open wheeled, but even then I don't think they specifically prohibited 2 seaters.

Going the other way, in the thirties even after riding mechanics had been banned there were minimum width restrictions to bodywork similar to that required for a 2-seater.

#50 JacnGille

JacnGille
  • Member

  • 1,574 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 01 December 2011 - 17:05

i'd agree with you :love: 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 :lol:

:up: