41 replies to this topic

[gruntguru]

Why should "open-wheels" be mandatory in the F1 category? It wasn't always so. Mercedes and Auto Union ran "streamliners" on the high speed circuits. I guess they ran open wheels on most tracks for brake cooling and of course the skinny tyres didn't offer as much drag as modern wheels.

Open wheel is clearly not an optimal solution, so why not free up the rules and allow the designers to seek an efficient solution rather than spending mega research dollars finding marginal improvements to what is a lead balloon (or at least a flying brick) in the first place. I can think of a couple of reasons for the "open wheel" rule:

1. Capping top speeds
2. Visual differentiation from sports car etc categories.
3. Spectators can see the driver. (his helmet at least)

Any others?

Edited by gruntguru, 06 September 2009 - 23:47.

[Ross Stonefeld]

At this point it's just the image that is associated with them and it will never be undone. Just like they'll never be dramatically heavier than they are now.

What is interesting is that F1 is far and away the most watched international form of motorsport, by a staggering margin. But at the domestic level in every country I can think of, touring car or GT racing is more popular than open wheel.

Britain: BTCC is mainstream, F3 rarely has more spectators than drivers
Australia: V8s are king, F3 and formerly Formula Holden barely exist
Germany: F3 is a support category to DTM
USA: NASCAR NASCAR NASCAR

etc


All things being equal, if you could have F1 level 'technology', speeds, tracks, speed, etc in a touring car style body; it would be far more successful than the current model. Even if it was only silhouet racing like DTM and the peak of FIA GT (Think 911 GT1s and Merc CLKs) a more road looking race car would be better than the Formula style. The manufacturers would prefer the link to their brand identities, the sponsors would prefer it because there's a hell of a lot more advertising space, the racing would probably be better, etc, et al.

The equivalency rules would be a nightmare. Even if everyone had the same engine you'd have problems every week with one manufacturer saying the rules don't suit their bodywork profile, but it wouldn't be any worse than diffuser and mass damper BS.

[gruntguru]

Next question is "If bodywork was free, what would an F1 car look like? A le Mans style car or something else?"

[cheapracer]

Also the great thing about bodywork is you can see the cars moving around a lot clearer that adds to the spectacle besides the obvious closer racing.

I'm surprised they haven't at least looked at it from an insurance point of view, it's certainly safer.

OK DOF, time for the big spiel on the Auto Unions at Avus and the Benz that never made it then but one came later in 1955 (whatever) with the air brakes .....

[cheapracer]

Next question is "If bodywork was free, what would an F1 car look like? A le Mans style car or something else?"

No I would go along the lines of limiting them to a severe coke bottle shape if it was up to me to keep in touch with where they originated from.

Hmm I remember something like that either real or concept, see if I can remember it.

Otherwise - Tony I commission you to do a rough pencil drawing. I will pay 2 bottles of beer (one may be opened), a chop and a toothpick (the chop may be stringy).

Oh that reminds me, I saw a monkey with a chop on it's head the other day, at first I thought it was a griller.

Edited by cheapracer, 06 September 2009 - 08:48.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Also the great thing about bodywork is you can see the cars moving around a lot clearer that adds to the spectacle besides the obvious closer racing.

I think it'd be worse actually. I get next to no visual enjoyment from the DTM because I can't see the driver or wheels working the way I can with a single seater. One of the rare downsides to enclosed bodywork.

[Tony Matthews]

Otherwise - Tony I commission you to do a rough pencil drawing. I will pay 2 bottles of beer (one may be opened), a chop and a toothpick (the chop may be stringy).

Oh that reminds me, I saw a monkey with a chop on it's head the other day, at first I thought it was a griller.

The toothpick looks like the safest option. By the way, do you know any monkey jokes?

[gruntguru]

By the way, do you know any monkey jokes?

None that I've noticed.

[cheapracer]

I think it'd be worse actually. I get next to no visual enjoyment from the DTM because I can't see the driver or wheels working the way I can with a single seater. One of the rare downsides to enclosed bodywork.

I just meant for the wheels, otherwise down, down deeper and down (status quo).

You would have loved one of Graham McCrae's F5000's of the 70's , featured a long plexiglass upper half of the nose and you could see his whole body working away. Enormously underated driver was McCrae.

Oh here it is, the GM3 is what your looking for....
http://www.grahammcr...nz/TheCars.html

[ceebdub]

I was always interested to see what would happen if you said to the designers , the car has to fit in to
a box 8 feet wide, 16 feet lond and 3 foot six high. (Crash tests still mandatory), engine free, fuel pump petrol.
150 gallons.
Control tyres (as now)

[J. Edlund]

Next question is "If bodywork was free, what would an F1 car look like? A le Mans style car or something else?"

This is probably the closest we have had to a modern closed wheel F1 car. Powered by a F1 engine from Cosworth, with a weight some 150 kg heavier than a F1 car and capable to do similar lap times as a F1 car. Designed today, it would probably used a raised footbox though.



The same car as an open top Porsche

I think it'd be worse actually. I get next to no visual enjoyment from the DTM because I can't see the driver or wheels working the way I can with a single seater. One of the rare downsides to enclosed bodywork.

In DTM the driver essentially sits in the back seat, and due to the design of the car the visibility is really poor, the driver can hardly see anything that is closer to the car than 20 meters or something like that.

[jimjimjeroo]

what is the most aero dynamically efficient car ever made?

[gruntguru]

I was always interested to see what would happen if you said to the designers , the car has to fit in to
a box 8 feet wide, 16 feet lond and 3 foot six high. (Crash tests still mandatory), engine free, fuel pump petrol.
150 gallons.
Control tyres (as now)

Scary fast. Dangerous in fact.

[Greg Locock]

what is the most aero dynamically efficient car ever made?

Depends what you mean. In terms of Cd some solar cars are down to 0.07, in terms of CdA I imagine that around .05 sq m would be the lower limit, with narrow tires and enclosed bodywork -look at the good mileage marathon streamliners or electric speed record holders.

If you mean what car had the most downforce for a given drag, that is probably a much more interesting and relevant question, don't know but I suspect it would have skirts.

[gruntguru]

. . . don't know but I suspect it would have skirts.

. . . and enclosed wheels.

[Ogami musashi]

There was the intereserie championship with 1 to 2 years old F1's and many of them had enclosed wheels.

I would love to see enclosed wheels and canopies, it would be much more relevant and allow for better aeros as well as far less wake and turbulence.

I don't think it would resemble le Mans cars because if those ones were allowed to they would strip the bodywork down to the wheel and maybe suspensions (not even sure) and that's all (see the trend of last acura's...just before 2010 LMP regulations baned that style of bodywork).

The fuselage of an F1 is very aerodynamic, what kills it are the wheels and the rear wing.

[jimjimjeroo]

How about these.....

[OfficeLinebacker]

There you go. As I was reading this thread I was thinking spats. Clever engineers could figure out spats that move with the wheel hubs, I'm sure, further minimizing frontal area.

With ground effects and flexible side skirts allowed I'm not even sure if wings would even be necessary.

[cheapracer]

I was always interested to see what would happen if you said to the designers , the car has to fit in to
a box 8 feet wide, 16 feet lond and 3 foot six high. (Crash tests still mandatory), engine free, fuel pump petrol.
150 gallons.
Control tyres (as now)

Something akin to this I think....


F1 racing

or this...

Edited by cheapracer, 07 September 2009 - 16:41.

[cheapracer]

The fuselage of an F1 is very aerodynamic, what kills it are the wheels.

We could just get rid of them then and while we are at it and for a vast improvement take those big things off planes called wings.

I'm sure both can operate very efficiently without those nasty draggy impediments.

[Tony Matthews]

We could just get rid of them then and while we are at it and for a vast improvement take those big things off planes called wings.

I'm sure both can operate very efficiently without those nasty draggy impediments.

All you need is a fuselage, about two thousand miles long, get in one end - boarding card ready, please - and walk down to the back of the plane. Bingo, get out at your destination. Simples.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

I'm surprised they haven't at least looked at it from an insurance point of view, it's certainly safer.

This doesn't look safe from insurance point of view.

[OfficeLinebacker]

All you need is a fuselage, about two thousand miles long, get in one end - boarding card ready, please - and walk down to the back of the plane. Bingo, get out at your destination. Simples.

I thought I was the only one who had such absurd thoughts.

Tell me, do you ever get the feeling that everyone else in the world is just an actor, and "life" is just a big psychological experiment, with you as the subject?

[Tony Matthews]

Tell me, do you ever get the feeling that everyone else in the world is just an actor, and "life" is just a big psychological experiment, with you as the subject?

Sometimes, Doctor, sometimes. Can I have another look at those ink blotches, I like them. How can I blow my nose with this silly jacket on? What is liff...lit...lithium?

[gruntguru]

This doesn't look safe from insurance point of view.

Thats another good argument for open wheels!

[Ross Stonefeld]

Equally the various dead drivers and spectators may disagree.

[Ogami musashi]

We could just get rid of them then and while we are at it and for a vast improvement take those big things off planes called wings.

I'm sure both can operate very efficiently without those nasty draggy impediments.

Sure but stays the problem of the driver's head...let's rip it off or mandate "no taller than steering wheel " drivers.

[McGuire]

Equally the various dead drivers and spectators may disagree.

Indeed. It would be very difficult to make the case that overall, open bodywork is safer than enclosed. The main thing exposed wheels do for safety is produce lots of drag to keep speeds down. But they also reduce crush volume and allow wheel hooking.


In F1 cars (Indy cars as well) the exposed wheels serve as the main differentiator between it and other series. It's the brand identity of the vehicle. Screwing around with the brand is a risky business.

[cheapracer]

. But they also reduce crush volume and allow wheel hooking.


In F1 cars (Indy cars as well) the exposed wheels serve as the main differentiator between it and other series. It's the brand identity of the vehicle. Screwing around with the brand is a risky business.

I have seen more serious rollovers from F1 than others due to wheel hooking.

One of the reasons for my 'severe' coke bottle shape is to keep that identity.

[J. Edlund]

what is the most aero dynamically efficient car ever made?

Cars like the Jaguar above produced L/D ratios between 4 and 5:1, but some peaked above 5:1. With unlimited underbody tunnels and a modern front end you should be able to do better.

Grounds effect F1 cars probably reached drag to downforce ratios around 7:1, but it's difficult to find reliable numbers for those cars.

I don't think it would resemble le Mans cars because if those ones were allowed to they would strip the bodywork down to the wheel and maybe suspensions (not even sure) and that's all (see the trend of last acura's...just before 2010 LMP regulations baned that style of bodywork).

That's more or less a front wing/diffuser with wheelcovers, but if they were allowed to run full length tunnels and skirts that would probably have a large impact on the design of the car compared to the current small rear diffusers. Even the big diffusers and the rear mounted wing as on the late group c cars would be a big difference.

[Ogami musashi]

Cars like the Jaguar above produced L/D ratios between 4 and 5:1, but some peaked above 5:1. With unlimited underbody tunnels and a modern front end you should be able to do better.

Grounds effect F1 cars probably reached drag to downforce ratios around 7:1, but it's difficult to find reliable numbers for those cars.



That's more or less a front wing/diffuser with wheelcovers, but if they were allowed to run full length tunnels and skirts that would probably have a large impact on the design of the car compared to the current small rear diffusers. Even the big diffusers and the rear mounted wing as on the late group c cars would be a big difference.

Yes definitely, but that would be a compromise. i mean, it seems in LMS they wanted as low as surface area as possible for "sidepods". I guess this is maybe of inertia characteristics. In any way it is easy to have a LMS body with as much drag as F1 if you put to much area.

But anyway that would be interesting since as you said, there'd be some very different designs.

Now, the speeds would be quite frightening i reckon.

[desmo]

Now, the speeds would be quite frightening i reckon.

Could be. Needn't be though. One need only limit engine power or fuel and/or tires to compensate to achieve whatever speeds are desired.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

Equally the various dead drivers and spectators may disagree.

The point is that the biggest insurance danger is car in the stands. Loose wheel may kill three spectators, while the whole car can wipe out a hundred. Historically, enclosed bodywork cars have had a much more tenuous relationship with the road, and have taken to great heights with as little provocation as a blown tire or a drop that's too steep. Open wheel cars usually need to hook wheels to get airborne, and even then they usually don't hang in the air long enough to clear the barriers (although IRL cars have done a lot to catch up in that area). Open wheel cars just tend to be less airworthy than enclosed cars.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I've seen more airborne IRL cars than sportscars, and it's nothing that can't be fixed with the aerodynamic rules if it was a clear and present danger.

[cheapracer]

Some of the converted F5000's of the second 77 - 82 Can Am era are not exactly what I had in mind but along the lines....



Graham McCrae of New Zealand (one of the most underated drivers in motor sports history) built some great F5000's and converted them to Can Am. And that is a transparent piece of perplex covering the driver as had the GM3 below, not your imagination.

[Ogami musashi]

Some of the converted F5000's of the second 77 - 82 Can Am era are not exactly what I had in mind but along the lines....



Graham McCrae of New Zealand (one of the most underated drivers in motor sports history) built some great F5000's and converted them to Can Am. And that is a transparent piece of perplex covering the driver as had the GM3 below, not your imagination.

Great, as i said interserie in 1994 had F1's with wheel covered. I think a modern F1 would look along those lines:

Interserie 1994 at RSC Photo gallery

[OfficeLinebacker]

Great, as i said interserie in 1994 had F1's with wheel covered. I think a modern F1 would look along those lines:

Interserie 1994 at RSC Photo gallery

Thanks. Those are some weird looking spats, especially on the Jordan. You know if it's done artfully enough, with sleek, form-fitting, black spats, the cars won't look that different at all. It took me a while to realize that Jordan even had wheel covers.

Anyway I like closed wheels, bring 'em on.

[desmo]

Those Interserie cars look like real mongrels, most appear to be open wheelers with little more than cycle fenders hastily fitted. Perhaps there wasn't sufficient incentive to do a comprehensive aero re-engineering, but I'd bet if they had continued to be developed, the designs would have diverged further and further from their open wheel roots and ended up looking a lot more conventional with full envelope bodywork. The whole radically swooping the bodywork low between the front and rear wheels looks very unaerodynamic to me.

[Ogami musashi]

Not quite sure, intereserie was what the name implies: lemans proto vs open wheelers. And open wheelers where always faster. Somewhere in 1996 it was forbidden to run the open wheelers with enclosed wheels.

They had not so much money to do engineering of course.

I actually think that if given possibility that's the lemans cars that would look more like open wheelers.

[cheapracer]

Somewhere in 1996 it was forbidden to run the open wheelers with enclosed wheels.

errrrr........?? (oxymoron)

[Ogami musashi]

Cheap, don't be dumb. You know what i mean, we're talking about it since several post: intereserie had open wheelers (base) with enclosed wheels. or if you prefer with full bodywork.

They were ex F1, Champ car etc.. prior to 1992 there were group C cars in it too.

In fact the full bodywork open wheelers (is it better for you dude?) were not forbidden but apparently nobody could provide interserie with recent enough F1/champ car cars so they became obsolete and the rules were made to allow various open wheelers from F3 to F3000 to compete.

[Aubwi]

They might look something like the Allard J2X with its enormous front wing that shrouds the front suspension. http://www.mulsannes.../allardj2x.html

It was unsuccessful because they couldn't secure a powerful enough engine for all the drag it generated, but today's F1 engines would suit it well, I think.

Edited by Aubwi, 24 September 2009 - 02:51.