74 replies to this topic

[Wally123]

Don't get me wrong I think F1 nowadays is more exciting than the mid 2000's but watching the cars of 2004-2005 in action is a sight to been seen, the speed of those machines is epic. My question is how much faster could cars around a circuit than the 2004 machines whilst still being within the limits of safety?

[Giz]

Tough question, what are the limits of safety? Jules Bianchi crashed at less than normal racing speeds but you could argue that his death was caused as much by poor race management as any of his actions.

[Wally123]

Tough question, what are the limits of safety? Jules Bianchi crashed at less than normal racing speeds but you could argue that his death was caused as much by poor race management as any of his actions.

Yeah accidents can and will always happen, my point is how much faster could cars lap on the circuits of today safely than the cars of around 2004?

Of course it will never be safe but you get my point.

Edited by Wally123, 08 August 2015 - 14:22.

[Marklar]

I think we would reach the limit if a car is crashing into the barrieres with the driver dying (Bianchi is a special case because a crane is not existent in a normal race situstion). Like we reached in
1994 the limit when the cars were too fast for certain circuits.

Which lap times are possible depends not just on the speed and crash structure of the car but also on the downforce level and the circuits.

Edited by Marklar, 08 August 2015 - 14:25.

[Wally123]

I think we would reach the limit if a car is crashing into the barrieres with the driver dying (Bianchi is a special case because a crane is not existent in a normal race situstion). Like we reached in
1994 the limit when the cars were too fast for certain circuits.

Well we don't want cars being too fast for the circuits that's for sure, let's not forget the cars of 2004 were a lot quicker than the cars of 94 and I don't recall people being worried at that point.

[Marklar]

Well we don't want cars being too fast for the circuits that's for sure, let's not forget the cars of 2004 were a lot quicker than the cars of 94 and I don't recall people being worried at that point.

difference were the circuits (especially the barrieres. In 1994 they just had a wall and sometimes a row of tyres) and of course the crash structure of the car.

So I think that we could went easily faster than 2004 without beeing "too fast"

Edited by Marklar, 08 August 2015 - 14:29.

[Wally123]

difference were the circuits (especially the barrieres. In 1994 they just had a wall and sometimes a row of tyres) and of course the crash structure of the car.

So I think that we could went easily faster than 2004 without beeing "too fast"

About time we did then don't you think? Can't believe cars over 10 years old would wipe the floor with the current models.

[Marklar]

About time we did then don't you think? Can't believe cars over 10 years old would wipe the floor with the current models.

Absolutely! But first of all the FIA is trying very hard to be "too safe" (again before someone will come up with that: Bianchis incident had nothing to do with high speed) and secondly the car manufactors have to much influence: they want to sell efficient and safe cars, so they made F1 to an Marketing show for their road cars.

[Kristian]

I think the limit of the human body is 8g before blackouts occur - so anything approaching the kind of cornering speed that produces that g-force is too fast. 

[Nathan]

"How fast is too fast?"

Too fast is when you go beyond the physical ability of the drivers. 

If the cars were safe 'enough' in 2004, they should only be safer today at those speeds..

Edited by Nathan, 08 August 2015 - 15:41.

[Wally123]

"How fast is too fast?"

Too fast is when you go beyond the physical ability of the drivers.

If the cars were safe 'enough' in 2004, they should only be safer today at those speeds..

Yes and they'd be just as safe lapping a good 5 seconds faster than the cars of 2004, bring it on I say.

[Fatgadget]

How fast is too fast?....When fatalities comes into focus. The banning of Group B Rally  cars  during the 80s eg.Also the raft of measures neutering the escalating speeds of F1 cars after Sennas death  in 94..and rightly so might I add. 

Edited by Fatgadget, 08 August 2015 - 16:07.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

In the late 70's Formula One reached a level of performance due to turbo engines and ground effects. From the moment forward, a ceiling has been placed on performance, because it was realized that the cars were reaching the limits of the human drivers.

 

The Firestone Firehawk 600 was a CART (not Indycar) series race scheduled at the Texas Motor Speedway (1.5 mile high banked oval). It was postponed and eventually cancelled due to concerns about driver safety. Basically if a person is subjected to a sustained level of over 4.5 G's, he suffers. The limit had been reached, professional, healthy, and fit drivers were experiencing dizziness as a direct result of the loads imposed on their bodies.

 

Another relevant factor is reaction time, determined by how quickly a car is negotiating a corner and how much time a driver can react to something. The problem with the turbo and down force cars was that a driver aimed for the apex of the corner, gassed his way through it, and prayed he got it right because there was no time to react or correct the line.

 

There was no such thing as cornering technique in the ground effect era. ‘Cornering’ was a euphemism for rape practised on the driver. . . In a ground effect car, reaching the limit was synonymous with spinning out.

 

Niki Lauda.

[ViMaMo]

Maybe its to do with the G levels the drivers experience during an accident. Add to that probability of freak accidents. And how much faster F1 is compared to other series.

[Dan333SP]

In the late 70's Formula One reached a level of performance due to turbo engines and ground effects. From the moment forward, a ceiling has been placed on performance, because it was realized that the cars were reaching the limits of the human drivers.

 

The Firestone Firehawk 600 was a CART (not Indycar) series race scheduled at the Texas Motor Speedway (1.5 mile high banked oval). It was postponed and eventually cancelled due to concerns about driver safety. Basically if a person is subjected to a sustained level of over 4.5 G's, he suffers. The limit had been reached, professional, healthy, and fit drivers were experiencing dizziness as a direct result of the loads imposed on their bodies.

 

Another relevant factor is reaction time, determined by how quickly a car is negotiating a corner and how much time a driver can react to something. The problem with the turbo and down force cars was that a driver aimed for the apex of the corner, gassed his way through it, and prayed he got it right because there was no time to react or correct the line.

 

There was no such thing as cornering technique in the ground effect era. ‘Cornering’ was a euphemism for rape practised on the driver. . . In a ground effect car, reaching the limit was synonymous with spinning out.

 

Niki Lauda.

 

I think the cornering g-forces achieved during the blown diffuser era were higher than anything seen by the ground effects cars of the early 80s. From what I understand, a lot of the problems with those cars were down to virtually rock solid suspension that brutalized them in the cockpits because of the need to keep the underbody sealed to the track surface (hence Lotus experimenting with the twin chassis concept). I also imagine driver fitness in that era wasn't at the same standard that it is today, and the positioning in the cockpit was generally more upright than the fighter pilot-style seating of current cars.

 

Those things combined made it a rough time to be an F1 driver, but for absolute G forces I'd think the 2010 Red Bull RB6 is probably the car with the highest outright potential. The suspension and tire progress since '82 means that the driver is going through a corner much faster than a ground effects car but is also not being beaten to death by curbs and bumps.

[Scotracer]

The g limit is a red herring as they are lateral forces. We know that blackouts occur in fighter pilots because of massive positive vertical g. I haven't seen any studies on purely lateral g and its impact - the CART race issue referred to above was a compound loading in lateral and vertical planes due to the banking.

Where I'd look at the limits are what the safety cells are signed off too in terms of energy dissipation. Because kinetic energy squares with speed, you only need a small increase in impact speeds for a much, much outcome. And then there's spectator risk too. Very high speed crashes can break barriers meaning cars end up in the crowds. We don't want that.

[ANF]

Would the speed of the 2004–05 cars still have been as "epic" had they not had traction control and automatic gear changes?

[Myrvold]

And I seem to remember complaints about small blackouts in F1 as well in 2004, due to high g-forces over long time.

[Ruusperi]

When reaching imaginary F-Zero speeds (500-1000kph) the tracks should only include straights or the run-off area should be miles long. Would it be physically possible to drive that fast a car? Sure, it's still many times slower than normal military aircraft which can do Mach 2.5.

Though I don't think even 10 layers of Tecpro barrier is enough for a head-on crash at the speed of 500 km/h. Though if we replace the human drivers with computers, then there's no problem with the speed or safety (except for spectators).

[Dan333SP]

Would the speed of the 2004–05 cars still have been as "epic" had they not had traction control and automatic gear changes?

 

Yes. TC and the gearbox software made them a little easier to drive quickly over a complete race distance, but those aids didn't really reduce lap times by more than maybe a tenth or two. The grip and power are what gave those cars speed, not electronics. They just made it a tiny bit easier to apply that power, especially in tricky conditions.

[Wally123]

And I seem to remember complaints about small blackouts in F1 as well in 2004, due to high g-forces over long time.

You sure? I've heard that before in Indycar on the ovals but can't remember those complaints in F1?

[BRG]

Would faster cars mean better racing?  Just asking....

[Wally123]

Would faster cars mean better racing? Just asking....

If those cars allowed for closer racing than nowadays definitely IMO...

[KingTiger]

About time we did then don't you think? Can't believe cars over 10 years old would wipe the floor with the current models.

 

Only because of the rules. The technology in those cars was ancient compared to what they have now. 

 

If those cars allowed for closer racing than nowadays definitely IMO...

 

They did not. 

[Wally123]

Only because of the rules. The technology in those cars was ancient compared to what they have now.


They did not.

Who said they did? I'm talking about the new proposed rules that may come in...

[Fatgadget]

Would faster cars mean better racing?  Just asking....

Good question BRG.I think not. Then again that opens up a big can of worms  doesn't it? 

[noikeee]

I don't see any reason why the cars couldn't lap at 2004 speeds or close, since the cars were safe enough then - but it's probably a good idea not to push much further. Unfortunately we have a huge gap these days between qualy laps and race laps due to the big tanks of fuel (no refuelling) and the cheese tyres, so that has to be taken into account, by approaching the qualy laps to the ceiling of performance, not the much slower race laps.

[PlatenGlass]

There hasn't been much discussion of straight line speed. Reducing lap time isn't just about cornering limits.

[redreni]

For me, the cars are too fast if non-freak accidents can happen in which a car can go off in a way which is to be expected and then, when it hits the barrier, it's going to have a harder or faster impact than the safety cell is designed to withstand. Or, if non-freak accidents start to occur where cars are getting up into the fence or entering spectator areas. F1 cars only run on Grade A homologated tracks, so can afford to be faster than would be the case if they were running on tracks with less run-off, etc. After the accident that occurred in the VLN earlier this year, a speed limit was put in place through Flugplatz for the N24, which is a kind of acknowledgement that in that instance, GT3 cars had become too fast for that part of the circuit, because it became clear that anyone going marginally too fast over one particular crest was likely to go clean over the armco barrier. F1 is not in that position.

 

F1 has kept corner speeds down by reducing power and mandating rubbish tyres, but interestingly, top speeds are actually very high by historical standards. The fuel limit forces the teams to keep drag down more than they did when fuel was unlimited and could be added during the race. This reduces the speed at which normal, high-probability accidents happen during cornering. But if you think of the low-probability, high-impact events that could occur at the end of a long straight, when the cars are at or near their top speed, F1 might already be quite near the limit of what it can get away with.

[HoldenRT]

Current F1 is nowhere near the limit of what the drivers can handle.

[Atreiu]

Current F1 is nowhere near the limit of what the drivers can handle.

 

TBH, I have zero curiosity to see that limit reached.

[George Costanza]

If the 1994 rules changes never occured, can one imagine how fast they would have been? Take 1993 rules and regulations (4 wheel steering, ABS, or even CVT) how fast would they be?       

 

Take CVT for example... There was also speculation that it had instantly proved several seconds per lap quicker than the conventional Williams -- which was already miles ahead of its rivals.

 

1993 Williams in normal trim was 1-2 seconds faster than anyone.... CVT would have been even scarier fast.

Edited by George Costanza, 09 August 2015 - 01:31.

[Tsarwash]

The g limit is a red herring as they are lateral forces. We know that blackouts occur in fighter pilots because of massive positive vertical g. I haven't seen any studies on purely lateral g and its impact - the CART race issue referred to above was a compound loading in lateral and vertical planes due to the banking.

Where I'd look at the limits are what the safety cells are signed off too in terms of energy dissipation. Because kinetic energy squares with speed, you only need a small increase in impact speeds for a much, much outcome. And then there's spectator risk too. Very high speed crashes can break barriers meaning cars end up in the crowds. We don't want that.

I think that I'm going to ask you to explain that in a little more detail please. 

[Tsarwash]

Current F1 is nowhere near the limit of what the drivers can handle.

Again, I'm going to ask you to provide some sort of evidence to back up that point please. 

[Tsarwash]

Do we want F1 or other types of racing to be a genetic physical test of which drivers can handle the most G force before blacking out, or do we want championships to be decided by driver skill ? If the former, then we don't need to actually race at all, we can just set up some kind of centrifuge and sort it out properly. 

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Current F1 is nowhere near the limit of what the drivers can handle.

 

And that is where it is supposed to be, at a ceiling of performance so that drivers can function properly. You don't want them suffering blackouts, blurred or tunnel vision, or impaired thinking or memory recall. It's not about abusing their bodies but rather challenging their skills to extract the maximum performance of what the car and track is capable of delivering.

 

And even the most talented and skilled drivers have a limit on reflexes, the ability to react properly to surprises and unwanted situations. If a driver is charging over the crest of Eau Rouge and the car ahead spins and is sitting sideways in front of them, you don't want them unable to react but rather have the ability to avoid, or at least lessen the force of the impact.

[CoolBreeze]

Would the speed of the 2004–05 cars still have been as "epic" had they not had traction control and automatic gear changes?

 

They had semi auto. 2003 was fully auto. 

[garagetinkerer]

They had semi auto. 2003 was fully auto. 

I think not all teams had a fully automatic gearbox, or did they?

 

http://www.f1technic...errari-f2003-ga

This seems to confirm my suspicions of not all teams having a fully automatic box.

___________________________

@redreni

I agree with your observation on limits being reached for straight line speeds, and i think they probably need to add more to the car to cushion blows. On the other hand, i think they could easily go a bit faster around the corners than they manage now. Although, one could argue that late braking induced by higher cornering speeds, it will provide for some spectacular incidents. Your opinion?

 

___________________________

 

People suggest that racing is good, they were saying so even last year when only stupid actions on part of Mercedes and just plain luck RBR some races. I mean Ferrari are in the same position that Williams were last year, it is just that Ferrari capitalised on opportunities. Yes, racing behind is exciting, but if you look behind the podium positions, there's always something. I mean you could say that about most years when one team had a dominant car, but does that make it any better? The target for the regulations specified were to improve racing at the front, and in that the regulations are just as meh as any before, although i suspect fans would admit as much. Worse still, there's little development allowed on engines which are crucial, and there's little testing.

[Henri Greuter]

An aspect overlooked with all this talk about speed:

 

Do we talk about the average speed or the speed required for a car to overtake another?

 

As `safe` as any speed can be. Eventually you reach a point when cars are so fast over a lap that there simply is no place anymore at the track where one driver can overtake another. Unless the car that wants to overtake gets a speed advantage  that enables him to finish the move in enoug time and distance, When all of you wanna see 2004 speeds and faster again, you're gonna need something more that DRS alone to enable moves of drivers on another with a reasonable chnace to succeed. Imagine scenes like that at Monaco......

 

High speeds and overtaking worth the name can only be achieved on tracks like Monza or the bigger US ovals. On the average F1 track it is killing racing as we knew it.

Enjoy.........

 

 

Henri

[ANF]

They had semi auto. 2003 was fully auto. 

Oops, that's correct.

[chunder27]

There are series that in my mind have been too fast and been curtailed in the past and are getting that way now.

 

NHRA managed to cut the length of tracks down recently to try and cut down on serious injuries in drag racing in some of the more powerful clases.

 

And for me motorcycle road racing is facing an uncertain future, the bikes are now getting too fast, there are regular fatalaties and serious injuries and surely something must be done soon.

 

As is the case in top level motocross, it is now very rare for the top riders to manage to race in every round of supercross or world level motocross without bad injuries, the bikes are insanely fast, the tracks ever harder. Rumours abound of capacity limits.

 

Things dear little F1 can only dream of sadly as the racing in that currnetly is objectionable!

[ViMaMo]

Current F1 is nowhere near the limit of what the drivers can handle.

I'm happy with current limits thank you.

[ardbeg]

About time we did then don't you think? Can't believe cars over 10 years old would wipe the floor with the current models.

But the technology is much more fascinating now!

No, that was a joke but I hear many talking about the cool F1 tech as soon as there is a discussion about spec'ing something. Tech brings up speed, regs keeps them down. Money keep them balanced. More and more money. That is a stupid race.
 

[PayasYouRace]

I think that I'm going to ask you to explain that in a little more detail please. 

 

In an F1 car, where the body stays upright during a turn, the force experienced is from your left to your right, i.e. laterally.

 

Blackouts occur when the blood is being forced away from the brain. This happens when your legs and bottom are on the outside of the turn, such as in a plane that rolls into a turn, or on a steeply banked circuit. These are vertical forces on the body. In such a situation your heart cannot pump blood to your brain with enough force.

 

With the lateral loads, your heart and brain are in line, so your body is more resilient to the kind of forces experienced cornering in a car.

[noikeee]

If the 1994 rules changes never occured, can one imagine how fast they would have been? Take 1993 rules and regulations (4 wheel steering, ABS, or even CVT) how fast would they be?       

 

Take CVT for example... There was also speculation that it had instantly proved several seconds per lap quicker than the conventional Williams -- which was already miles ahead of its rivals.

 

1993 Williams in normal trim was 1-2 seconds faster than anyone.... CVT would have been even scarier fast.

 

dumb question: what's CVT? 

[Marklar]

dumb question: what's CVT? 

continuously variable transmission (CVT)

 

http://www.f1fanatic...ansmission-cvt/

[Wally123]

I'm happy with current limits thank you.

Well the drivers sure ain't that's for sure...

[Collombin]

continuously variable transmission (CVT)

http://www.f1fanatic...ansmission-cvt/

Hmmm. Don't think much of their explanation about where the engine revs should be.

[P123]

Well the drivers sure ain't that's for sure...

It's a difficult balancing act- faster does not necessarily mean better racing, even if the cars would be fun (and glued to the track) for the drivers. Who watching on TV cares about the 'physical' limits of the drivers? I'd guess skill is more important- people need to watch and think 'I couldn't do that'. A car on rails doesn't give that impression (probably what we will have for 2017). The likes of Alonso seem to think the cars should lap quicker, and that would solve all F1's problems. A Mercedes laps 5s faster than a Marussia- I don't notice any difference in the appeal from one to the other.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Well the drivers sure ain't that's for sure...

 

You're confusing the ability to go quick against what the car allows you to do. For instance, let's examine the tires as one example.

 

The current tires used in Formula One have a very specific temperature range they operate in. Go too quickly and they get too hot, the tire temperature gets so high that the magic compounds inside the rubber do not deliver the maximum grip. Go too slow, and the opposite happens. So a driver has to drive to a delta, a speed the pits tell him is optimal for tire performance. He isn't driving at 99.9% or attempting to go to 100% but instead is down around 95%, where a lot of talent is still required, but the driver knows deep down inside that he isn't being fully challenged. It's sort of like a runner, he isn't pushing to his absolute maximum, but pacing himself for the entire race, never reaching that limit where he says to himself, "I'm going as fast as I can".

 

Ten years ago when they had the tire wars, a driver would leave the pits and put in 100%, pushing hard, hard, hard, each millimeter of track. When he finished the race his nerves were jangled,the adrenaline was pumping through his body, his eyes were wide as saucers, because he had been going at 100% without let-up.

 

All of that is relative, a driver in a different series with lower performance could still push to the maximum, at his personal best and feel satisfied that he put it all out on the track. Even though the cars had lower top end speed, and cornered and braked with a lot less pace than a Formula One car, he could still push the car and himself to the limit available.

 

So let's return to the original question, when is fast too fast? That is when the driver's body is unable to react in time to situations, or when his physical performance degrades as a result of the stress and forces imposed by the car. There are many different things that can impact on a driver, from it being too hot, to suffering dehydration, too much vibration, too much sustained G forces, these are just some examples. In each case there is a tolerable limit, but past that point the driver's ability to function effectively and safely degrades.

 

So let's pluck one example and break it down, what is safe and what isn't. We have all seen a driver lockup a tire and flat-spot it. In a Formula One car where the rubber is a lot softer and a flat spot produces a substantial loss of rubber, when you factor in the facts that the driver is not insulated from the vibrations and the rotational speed of the wheel produces a very violent vibration, his eyeballs may vibrate so much that this is what he sees.

 

 

Let's pretend this is the tunnel at Monaco. Did you see the marshall waving the yellow flags, can you tell what the car ahead is doing? I'm not kidding, this is how bad it can get.