F1 getting more obese again

Edited by SenorSjon, 13 May 2021 - 09:03.

Isn't this kind of the natural consequence of cars getting faster and faster with technology? We need to handicap the cars with something, anything, to prevent them going CART-at-Texas dangerous levels of quick.

If it wasn't weight it'd be something else. Even less grippy tyres. Shitty wings that don't generate downforce and make cars unimpressive in corners. Etc.

I'm not saying weight is the best option, by the way.. just a general observation.

Edited by noikeee, 13 May 2021 - 09:13.

When Allan McNish pierced the armco barrier at 130R, the minimum weight was 600 kg.

The driver is included in the 790 kg minimum. That hasn’t changed. So it won’t be near a tonne just yet.

Cars will need to weigh 790kg without fuel. This season cars have 110kg of fuel on board at the start. That, plus a minimum weight for a driver and his seat of 80kg, means cars will weigh a minimum of 980kg at the start of a grand prix in 2022.

watching the Monaco historique a week ago shows you how small those old F1 cars were with so much power. Great racing, easily following each other, overtaking.

Current f1 cars are just terrible, and the hybrid nonsense has only made it worse.

When Allan McNish pierced the armco barrier at 130R, the minimum weight was 600 kg.

The driver is included in the 790 kg minimum. That hasn’t changed. So it won’t be near a tonne just yet.

Cars will need to weigh 790kg without fuel. This season cars have 110kg of fuel on board at the start. That, plus a minimum weight for a driver and his seat of 80kg, means cars will weigh a minimum of 980kg at the start of a grand prix in 2022.

watching the Monaco historique a week ago shows you how small those old F1 cars were with so much power. Great racing, easily following each other, overtaking.

Current f1 cars are just terrible, and the hybrid nonsense has only made it worse.

I know that they are somewhat linked, but the width and particularly the length of these cars are a massive issue. I would go so far as saying that it is at least 50-60% of the problem with racing on circuits, particularly the 'classic' ones.

It's not rocket science that the more room there is for the cars, generally the better the racing is (obviously aero is a big problem too). Look at MotoGP...plenty of room for the riders to race around each other and overtake.

If you look at a race from say, 2008, it's quite shocking how much more room there is on the track for the cars.

Sadly I think that as long as we have big batteries - long cars are here to stay. Maybe they should mandate that the batteries are taller instead of flatter...yes it would impact COG, but at least the cars could be shortened. I'm no battery expert so I don't know if something like that is possible.

Some of the weight increases are being attributed to safety enhancements -- things like the halo, heavier and sturdier tyres. Obvs the hybrid systems were a big factor as well although I don't know if the 2022 spec power units will be heavier than the ones that debuted in 2014.

I don't know what the solution is -- making the cars lighter by taking away some safety is almost certainly going to be a nonstarter. Personally I would watch F1 without the hybrid technology but that's a big part of the appeal for half of F1's engine manufacturers. Bringing back refuelling would reduce the weight of the cars in race trim but most of us have mixed feelings about that. So who knows?

My road car + me, is lighter than 790kg.

I know that they are somewhat linked, but the width and particularly the length of these cars are a massive issue. I would go so far as saying that it is at least 50-60% of the problem with racing on circuits, particularly the 'classic' ones.
 
It's not rocket science that the more room there is for the cars, generally the better the racing is (obviously aero is a big problem too). Look at MotoGP...plenty of room for the riders to race around each other and overtake.
 
If you look at a race from say, 2008, it's quite shocking how much more room there is on the track for the cars.

To raise an obvious counter example, Indycars are a similar width to F1 cars (something like 1.9-1.95 metres), albeit 60cm or so shorter than a Mercedes. But nobody says they don't have enough room to race, and US tracks are normally smaller than the places F1 goes.

For close racing the dimensions of the cars are less important than what lines you can take through the corners where you're setting up and executing the pass, and whereabouts on the circuit you can make up time. And of course what happens to your downforce and car handling when you get near the back of another car.

To raise an obvious counter example, Indycars are a similar width to F1 cars (something like 1.9-1.95 metres), albeit 60cm or so shorter than a Mercedes. But nobody says they don't have enough room to race, and US tracks are normally smaller than the places F1 goes.

 

For close racing the dimensions of the cars are less important than what lines you can take through the corners where you're setting up and executing the pass, and whereabouts on the circuit you can make up time. And of course what happens to your downforce and car handling when you get near the back of another car.

Fair point...I don't watch Indycar so have no idea whether the racing is as good as some people say.

The weight increase of F1 cars is ridiculous.  Gordon Murray talks about weight in regards to his T.50 car vs other hypercars on the market.

38kg heavier than this year. Now 10kg heavier than the planned FE Gen 3 even before adding fuel, which is significant to me because electric cars are always panned for their weight.

I am not technically minded, but there seem to be so many free benefits from losing weight, many that would solve a lot of F1's current problems (obsession with lap time, dirty air, aero sensitivity, tyres, tyres, tyres).

It just baffles me that we keep going in the opposite direction. "Weight" isn't a sexy topic for fans to discuss and so these increments often go ignored, but it is surely the "hidden killer" when you consider how much F1 has changed in the last 15 years.

It's clear to me this is a path we will never revisit. The days of even moderately light F1 cars are over.

Edited by TomNokoe, 13 May 2021 - 10:00.

My road car + me, is lighter than 790kg.

Caterham 7????

My road car + me, is lighter than 790kg.

Caterham 7????

Smart Roadster?

Length of the cars look ridiculous though. Max wheelbase needs to be set.

The maximum wheelbase is finally set in the new regulations. At 3600 mm which is just a bit shorter than the current cars but at least they won't get to 6 meters long 

Some of the weight increases are being attributed to safety enhancements -- things like the halo, heavier and sturdier tyres.

In May 2020 the FIA presented this list of safety recommendations for circuit racing, some of which perhaps have something to do with the latest weight increase. https://www.fia.com/...cident-research It was a result of "investigations of 28 serious and fatal accidents related to circuit racing during 2019".

The list:

I know that they are somewhat linked, but the width and particularly the length of these cars are a massive issue. I would go so far as saying that it is at least 50-60% of the problem with racing on circuits, particularly the 'classic' ones.

 

It's not rocket science that the more room there is for the cars, generally the better the racing is (obviously aero is a big problem too). Look at MotoGP...plenty of room for the riders to race around each other and overtake.

 

If you look at a race from say, 2008, it's quite shocking how much more room there is on the track for the cars.

 

Sadly I think that as long as we have big batteries - long cars are here to stay. Maybe they should mandate that the batteries are taller instead of flatter...yes it would impact COG, but at least the cars could be shortened. I'm no battery expert so I don't know if something like that is possible.

Compare a lap of Barcelona in MotoGP to F1. Lots more time spent braking. Corners aren't flat out. Etc. Vehicle size isn't the primary problem. 

I know that they are somewhat linked, but the width and particularly the length of these cars are a massive issue. I would go so far as saying that it is at least 50-60% of the problem with racing on circuits, particularly the 'classic' ones.

 

It's not rocket science that the more room there is for the cars, generally the better the racing is (obviously aero is a big problem too). Look at MotoGP...plenty of room for the riders to race around each other and overtake.

 

If you look at a race from say, 2008, it's quite shocking how much more room there is on the track for the cars.

 

Sadly I think that as long as we have big batteries - long cars are here to stay. Maybe they should mandate that the batteries are taller instead of flatter...yes it would impact COG, but at least the cars could be shortened. I'm no battery expert so I don't know if something like that is possible.

You accusing the wrong component/aspect of a car for cars to be so long.

Aero is the primary reason why the cars are so long.

Look how narrow the bodywork parts above the floor are. The floor is the widest part of the car, with the bodywork above it as narrow as possible.

There is area aboven that floor to be used if needed/wanted, yet no-one does it. In fact, the opposite, every cm the bodywork can be lowerend and narrowed is used if possible.

And if the opportunity to go wide is not used the only option is: length.....

Let's take a 1979 Williams FW07, the best wingcar of the year.

Measure the distance between rear axle and the backside of the cockpit (thus including the fuel cel..

I think it will be more than possible to squeeze all the components on the current cars easly within this same distance as valid for the FW07.

But it would force the teams to make sidepods that come close to the width like onto that very same FW07.

A horror for the aero guys to work with. They had to start all over again.

Anyway, it ain't the batteries that make the cars so long: Aero and the improved highspeed stability of a longer wheelbased car compared with a short wheel base car, that are the reasons why we have the current cars that are longer that the largest Mercedes (& Maybach)Saloons, Rolls Royces and Bentleys and the likes.

Fuel is a big reason the cars are long, one of the big jumps was 2010. 

But the point is that they don't need to be this long to fit all the fuel, hybrid components etc. If they had to, they could easily fit all of it in a much shorter area at the expense of a more bulky shape. And frankly I think all that empty exposed floor has gotten to the point of looking a bit... ridiculous. We got used to it since the change was incremental over the years but when you think about it, the shape of the back half of a modern F1 car is rather bizarre. Even if it makes sense aerodynamically. 

Edited by Anja, 13 May 2021 - 12:30.

The length of the current cars is a huge problem, it makes them look awful. 

Fuel is a big reason the cars are long, one of the big jumps was 2010.

Edited by TomNokoe, 13 May 2021 - 13:01.

Fuel is a big reason the cars are long, one of the big jumps was 2010.

Edited by Ali_G, 13 May 2021 - 12:56.

They went long because of fuel, and gained that fuel back because of hybrid efficiency, but by that point the car theory had evolved around those longer cars. If a super short car was the fastest way they'd probably build one? 

Downforce is the problem, but no one wants to talk about it. They think getting rid of the chicane at the end of Barcelona will suddenly make the track racy again. Again. 

I don't know what the solution is -- making the cars lighter by taking away some safety is almost certainly going to be a nonstarter. Personally I would watch F1 without the hybrid technology but that's a big part of the appeal for half of F1's engine manufacturers. Bringing back refuelling would reduce the weight of the cars in race trim but most of us have mixed feelings about that. So who knows?

They went long because of fuel, and gained that fuel back because of hybrid efficiency, but by that point the car theory had evolved around those longer cars. If a super short car was the fastest way they'd probably build one?

Downforce is the problem, but no one wants to talk about it. They think getting rid of the chicane at the end of Barcelona will suddenly make the track racy again. Again.

My road car + me, is lighter than 790kg.

That's a loose interpretation of the word car 

I find it sad that people think the narrow-track, grooved-tyre cars should be a template for what an F1 car should look like.

I find it sad that people think the narrow-track, grooved-tyre cars should be a template for what an F1 car should look like.

Definitely. At best I got used to them over the years, but now when I look back at cars from that era they once again look as ridiculous to me as they did during 1998 pre-season testing.

I don't disagree with the length issue, but that is completely separate from the width, it's not like there is a set aspect ratio for an F1 car or anything. Given that most of that length seems to be voluntary for aero reasons, rather than completely unavoidable due to fuel tank/hybrid packaging, and given how tightly regulated other parts of already are, I'd think it would be relatively simple to mandate a maximum wheelbase and/or total length. It might even add a bit of variety in the short term as teams figure out how to repackage their cars to suit.

EDIT: Looks like I completely missed that they are doing just that in the 2022 regs 

Edited by Cornholio, 13 May 2021 - 16:46.

I find it sad that people think the narrow-track, grooved-tyre cars should be a template for what an F1 car should look like.

I find it sad that people think the narrow-track, grooved-tyre cars should be a template for what an F1 car should look like.

Length/width wise, the current cars have no adversary.
I still believe the early nineties cars looked best, they are way shorter and thus lighter. If teams have extra weight to play with, they can make the cars longer. Having less weight, you may need to shorten the car to have it light enough.

What I think to be one of the weirdest aspects of the current long cars.

Look on them from above: the rear wing doesn't reach behind the rear wheels other that the vertical fins. But the actual wing flaps doesn't extend beyond the rear wheels.

While at the front the amount of overhang is close to the level of being rediculous, behind the rear wheels there is little to nothing to be found seen from above.

People moan about the astethics of the narrow cars post 1998 but seen from above, those cars looked more balanced and proportions more suitable and eye pleasing that with the current cars.

At least for me.

When I envision the most extreme overhang of rear wings on an F1 ever back into my mind, I forgot the events and the exact year but it was in either 1973 or 1974 on the Lotus 72.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 13 May 2021 - 20:34.

F1 trends are just as dumb as road car trends.

We are supposed to go more and more fuel efficient and energy efficient, yet cars get heavier and heavier. Total nonsense.

You lately see more heavy SUVs than normal or light cars on the road nowadays, which makes me sick

The preferred nomenclature is “husky” or “big boned”…

Well tbf, getting bigger and heavier as time goes on is a trend not just in F1 but also road cars as a whole. Look at the Golf now, compared to 30 years ago? Or the Clio, Corolla, Ferrari's in general etc. The modern versions have all gotten much bigger over time compared to the earlier models.

well, so does, on average, humanity

Less %% of the current people would fit properly in a 70's Golf compared with the %% of people who would fit into that one nicely back then.

Interesting topic. I also think the current F1-cars are much, much too long and wieldy. My first thought was: ban the front wings, because then engineers would probably replace the search for downforce to the back (which would enhance racing). But then again: it is also possible that engineers would go for length and width to 'repair' the missing downforce.

So here's a suggestion: a maximum incline for racing drivers. If drivers would have a reasonable driving position mandated, the cars would get shorter, the weight distribution would change to the middle of the car and packaging around the center of the car would be more important. Shorter cars, different weight distribution... 

  and then also 

Interesting topic. I also think the current F1-cars are much, much too long and wieldy. My first thought was: ban the front wings, because then engineers would probably replace the search for downforce to the back (which would enhance racing). But then again: it is also possible that engineers would go for length and width to 'repair' the missing downforce.

 

So here's a suggestion: a maximum incline for racing drivers. If drivers would have a reasonable driving position mandated, the cars would get shorter, the weight distribution would change to the middle of the car and packaging around the center of the car would be more important. Shorter cars, different weight distribution... 

 

  and then also 

Another factor involved is that on behalf of Pirelli, there is a mandatory weight distribution level over the axles.

As a result of that, the heavy components like engine etc were placed more forward within the chassis, and the wheelbase lengthened with spacers between gearbox and engine.

Lengthening the wheelbase also became beneficial for generating downforce as well as highspeed stability so there are more reasons to go for that long wheelbase.

I suppose that this mandatory weight distribution ratio needs to be altered, more towards the rear again in order to compensate for the other rule chances that would lead to a reduced wheelbase.
 

The cars might be safer, adding all that weight will make the kinetic energy involved higher again, wreaking havoc against the enivronment like barriers. I wonder if a lighter car would have pierced the barriers like Grosjean did.

I am uncertain about that.

As is already mentioned, if it comes to kinetic energy, the speed element within the equation is going to the second power.

The weight is halved within that equation so a 1% increase of weight has less effect that a 1% speed increase.

So if Grosjean had his accident with an atmo V8 car, I am anything but sure that the barriers would have retained intact in case the car had made impact with the barriers at exactly the same spot.

Given the entirely different nose designs of the latest atmo V8s and the current cars I have my doubt if such a reproduction of impact location with the barrier would be possible to begin with.

But I know two things for sure:

First: the atmo V8 would have carried way more fuel that the Haas of Grosjean did so that would have brought some added weight to the car compared with its empty weigth. The effect of that extra fuel for the resulting fire?????

But secondly, and most important:

The V8 lacked the halo as a part of explaining that major difference in weight.

And had the accident with an atmo V8 been identical, with barriers splitting?

Then the rookie field within the Indycar championship this year would have looked entirely different.

And Jules Bianchi would no longer be the last fatality in F1.