74 replies to this topic

[ANF]

continuously variable transmission (CVT)

 

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

I wish I could find a better video than this straight line test.

[Nonesuch]

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. 

 

How does the point require evidence when F1 was significantly faster just a few years ago? The drivers seemed to do just fine. There were a number of serious accidents at the time, Ralf Schumacher´s crash at Indianapolis immediately comes to mind, but I´m not sure the sample of similar accidents is big enough to state F1 was much less safe in those days.

 

Not to mention today's star drivers are calling the current cars 'too heavy' and 'quite boring to drive', as Alonso did last year.

Edited by Nonesuch, 09 August 2015 - 15:18.

[Pingguest]

New cars are planned for 2017 - or 2018. The new cars are planned to be the fastest ever in Formula One's history, even faster than the generation of 2004. I do not understand the need for that. Faster cars are physically - not necessarily technically - more demanding, especially if the speed is generated by downforce, which is needed for the increase of speeds considered desirable by the decision makers. In 2004, the cars were thought to be too fast. Drivers had physical complaints and complained about the lack of time to correct a car when such was necessary. And now, eleven years later, some think cars should be even faster than in 2004?

[Peter0Scandlyn]

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.

 

I read the whitewash that the FIA spun on the Bianchi horror as purely and simply too fast.

 

So with the thread title in mind......

[Wuzak]

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.

 

Don't forget the forces experienced by drivers during braking. It is sometimes as much as 5g, and I recall reading an article many years ago that suggested that drivers would grey out during braking. That is, they would lose visual acuity, develop tunnel vision, all the while trying to pin-point the apex of a corner.

 

I don't think it is quite as bad now, due to less grippy tyres and lower downforce levels.

Edited by Wuzak, 10 August 2015 - 05:00.

[V8 Fireworks]

 

2015 Scott Dixon  Indy 500 Pole

226.760mph

 

365km/hr

 

(average)             

 

This is ***too fast*** IMO.  People get hurt every year.      Truly dangerous speeds; us foreigners really don't fully get oval racing. 

 

 

F1? Walk in the park.  Lucky to reach 365km/hr top speed, let alone *average* lap speed.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 10 August 2015 - 06:40.

[teejay]

Yup - speeds at Indy are insanity - people forget they when they watch them "just turning right" on TV. 

 

Chess at 370kmh

[Henri Greuter]

Yup - speeds at Indy are insanity - people forget they when they watch them "just turning right" on TV. 

 

Chess at 370kmh

 

 

Indycars at Indy turn primarily to the left when they do things right......

 

Need for speed is a common disease worldwide it seems, not only in F1.

Dixon's Pole speed of this year is mentioned already over here. While we think Dixon's pole speed of 365 be out of this world already, remember that there have been speeds records records 19 years ago of over 380 and the aim is that these long standing records need to be broken next year to `celebrate` the 100th race...

And despite some close calls this year, there are still people in the USA who believe those records simply must be broken to provide some excitement next yet and draw people back to the track like in the days of up till 1996.

SO F1 is in good company with its search for yet more speed.

 

Henri

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

New cars are planned for 2017 - or 2018. The new cars are planned to be the fastest ever in Formula One's history, even faster than the generation of 2004. I do not understand the need for that. Faster cars are physically - not necessarily technically - more demanding, especially if the speed is generated by downforce, which is needed for the increase of speeds considered desirable by the decision makers. In 2004, the cars were thought to be too fast. Drivers had physical complaints and complained about the lack of time to correct a car when such was necessary. And now, eleven years later, some think cars should be even faster than in 2004?

 

It all depends on the mix of power/traction and available downforce. What I would personally like to see is less reliance on aerodynamic downforce and more on mechanical grip with fatter tires. And if they get the power right, the cars could be able to accelerate like top fuel dragsters, have better brakes, yet be slower in the corners. That way, they could be able to do quicker lap times (warp speed from corner to corner), yet be just as safe in cornering.

 

If Formula One moves to larger wheels and rims, the brakes could be enlarged, because they are presently running at their limits. And with fatter tires, less downforce and lots of power on tap, we could see the return of when drivers were searching for traction, the cars slipping and sliding through the corners. I would rather see cars slower in the corners, but fighting for traction rather than just running through them as if on rails.

[Otaku]

This is ***too fast*** IMO.  People get hurt every year.      Truly dangerous speeds; us foreigners really don't fully get oval racing. 

 

 

F1? Walk in the park.  Lucky to reach 365km/hr top speed, let alone *average* lap speed.

 

 

Pfff... slow

 

1996 indy 500 pole = 236.986 mph / 381.39 KMH (average over 4 laps)

 

 

But now tell me, how many G's do drivers "suffer" at indy?

 

 

 

2004 F1 was more impressive, they were doing ~360 km/h at several tracks without the crappy DRS's help.

[Wally123]

This is ***too fast*** IMO. People get hurt every year. Truly dangerous speeds; us foreigners really don't fully get oval racing.

https://www.youtube....h?v=mqMSIHQQ9mo

F1? Walk in the park. Lucky to reach 365km/hr top speed, let alone *average* lap speed.

Who'd have thought driving around in weird circles could be so exciting...

[midgrid]

For reference, Gil de Ferran has the fastest lap speed recorded at an official race meeting: 241.428 mph / 388.541 km/h at Fontana in 2000.

[Otaku]

It is never "too fast". Ask any driver.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Pfff... slow

 

1996 indy 500 pole = 236.986 mph / 381.39 KMH (average over 4 laps)

 

 

But now tell me, how many G's do drivers "suffer" at indy?

 

 

 

2004 F1 was more impressive, they were doing ~360 km/h at several tracks without the crappy DRS's help.

 

http://www.popularme...t-the-indy-500/

[Henri Greuter]

It is never "too fast". Ask any driver.

 

 

Oh, shall we ask the CART drivers who where there at Texas back in 2001? That event when they got dizzy and had other physical difficulties to verify if it is true that it is never too fast?

 

 

Henri

[Nonesuch]

In 2004, the cars were thought to be too fast. Drivers had physical complaints and complained about the lack of time to correct a car when such was necessary. And now, eleven years later, some think cars should be even faster than in 2004?

 

I don't see the problem with the situation you describe. It seems that you're suggesting that in 2004 the cars, at least some of them, had a maximum performance level that at times exceeded the capabilities of the driver - making their skill and talent a relevant part of the package. Now we have cars that are well within the capabilities of all the drivers - some unforeseen moments during battles aside. These cars, and I realize I am repeating myself, have been called 'boring to drive' by no less a driver than Fernando Alonso.

[Peat]

Re: Indy & Texas

In 1996, the IRL pole was set in a car with stacks of power but little grip compared to the current DW12. Part of the problem this year was that these cars were being properly trimmed out for the first time (aerokits) which has exposed the deficiencies in the stock Dallara which were previously masked by copius drag. 

The CART Texas debacle was down to alot of power and alot grip. The current IndyCars have track specific wing angle regulations to prevent just this. As a result, Texas has looked like an ice-rink rather than a high banked oval the last few years. 

[PayasYouRace]

 In 2004, the cars were thought to be too fast. Drivers had physical complaints and complained about the lack of time to correct a car when such was necessary. And now, eleven years later, some think cars should be even faster than in 2004?

 

Are you sure about that? I don't remember any complaints of the sort. At least, nothing that could directly be contributed to the cars being about 5s faster than they currently are.

[Rob]

The CART Texas debacle was down to alot of power and alot grip. The current IndyCars have track specific wing angle regulations to prevent just this. As a result, Texas has looked like an ice-rink rather than a high banked oval the last few years. 

 

Even with the CART levels of power and grip, you just need larger corner radii to reduce the G forces and eliminate the problem.

[Otaku]

http://www.popularme...t-the-indy-500/

 

So all the drama for 3.2g max at turn 1? For 2004 F1 cars that's child's play.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

So all the drama for 3.2g max at turn 1? For 2004 F1 cars that's child's play.

 

I don't think you comprehend the big picture. Indycars maintain an average lap speed in excess of 360 KPH, lap after lap after lap. That isn't top speed, that is the average speed. Juan Pablo Montoya lapped Monza in 2004 with his Williams FW27 at an average speed of 262.242 km/h in pre-qualifying.

 

At Indy the cars are trimmed out to have the least drag, and thus downforce in a balance between outright top end speed and enough cornering grip to negotiate the corners. They could easily crank up the downforce to get much higher cornering speed. And thus turn 1 at Indy is a razor's edge they run, with zero room for mistakes.

 

Then during a race they have to deal with aero push, the loss of downforce and grip following other cars. The driver has to lift in that situation, but if he lifts to mach, cars pass him. Indy is a different challenge than Formula One, but it is just as difficult. The margin for error is zero, the consequences huge.

[Otaku]

I think it's you who don't get the big picture. Speed means nothing, NOTHING. I could grab a Bugatti Veyron and go 400 km/h on the highway while listening to pink floyd feeling nothing. What matters and makes things "hard" for drivers is G forces, be it while turning or while braking. 

 

The article you posted clearly states that the max G forces drivers are under at the Indy 500 circuit is 3.19 Gs in turn 1 (and remember it's a banked turn). I'll say it again, ~3.2 Gs is child's play for 2004 F1 cars. They did 5 Gs regularly, lap after lap, in lots of tracks.

Edited by Otaku, 11 August 2015 - 23:56.

[rr0cket]

Speed means nothing, NOTHING. I could grab a Bugatti Veyron and go 400 km/h on the highway while listening to pink floyd feeling nothing. What matters and makes things "hard" for drivers is G forces, be it while turning or while braking. 

 

As someone who goes 200mph on the occasion, no where near 400km/h, I don't think you grasp how fast the word is moving at those speeds. G's are physically/mentally demanding. Speed is where you use your response time, reflex, coordination and vision. I'd say it requires more natural ability to deal with the latter. It's a combination of both, but to a point, you can train yourself to cope with G's.

[Peat]

 

The article you posted clearly states that the max G forces drivers are under at the Indy 500 circuit is 3.19 Gs in turn 1 (and remember it's a banked turn). I'll say it again, ~3.2 Gs is child's play for 2004 F1 cars. They did 5 Gs regularly, lap after lap, in lots of tracks.

 

The percentage of the lap/race spent under that load is probably a fair bit different. Also, that G Load in an F1 car will be in different directions and in spikes, I suspect the biggest G is pulled under braking. 

[MikeTekRacing]

F1 G levels are also harder because they change direction.....huge force under braking, Gs moving you forward, hard left turn, Gs move you right, hard acceleration again, Gs move you back etc....

 

a "continuous" type of G is not *THAT* bad......

 

Margin for error though in Indy is almost 0...and the consequences are way way way tougher than braking for T1 @Monza.