24 replies to this topic

[angst]

Okay, maybe I'm being stupid and there's something that I'm missing. Whenever the idea of 'freeing up' the regulations is mentioned in terms of F1 I often hear the argument that the cars would become so fast that they would be near undriveable. So, given the regs that LMP (1 especially) run to, how is it they are not terrifying low-level aircraft? They have substantial underbody aero, big powerful engines etc. etc.

F1 seems to be moving inexorably toward a near-spec series (and the 'world engine' concept is yet another step along that path...), becoming more and more an entertainment, rather than a competition between makers of cars(either constructors or manufacturers). So, really, my question is, couldn't F1 follow something similar to LMP and offer more of a technical challenge?

[Captain Tightpants]

Because Le Mans cars need to run fo hours on end. Formula 1 is a sprint race by comparison. Le Mans cars change very little in comparison to Formula 1, and if you free up the technical reguationsin Formula 1, then designers are just going to go wild. The cars will produce increasing amounts of downforce, and there will be virtually no overtaking because the cars won't be able to get close enough to one another.

[mtknot]

if downforce creating turbulence is such a huge problem then why don't they reintroduce the fan ground effects? With a CVT installed to the drivetrain there wouldnt be issues such as a loss of downforce in low speed corners too. Damn bernie... think of the past D:....

In fact, with 2013 regulations coming along, the wider wheel rims should allow for less reciprocating mass, which would allow for a fan. The 1.5 litre small turbo'd engine would leave room for such a device to work.

Edited by mtknot, 24 April 2010 - 12:52.

[Captain Tightpants]

if downforce creating turbulence is such a huge problem then why don't they reintroduce the fan ground effects? With a CVT installed to the drivetrain there wouldnt be issues such as a loss of downforce in low speed corners too.

No, that would just create problems: the wake a car produces is directly influenced by the shape of its floor. The floor produces more donforce, which creates a greater wake behind the car, which is what makes it harder to pass. Re-introducing ground effects would only serve to create even more downforce, which woul produce a bigger wake and, in turn, it would make it even harder to pass.

[pingu666]

lmp cars are heavier, and the power is abit less than f1, atleast for the petrols 650ish bhp, the diesels do have a big power advantage tho
the restrictor size limits power for sportscars, typical around 30-35mm diamiter,

and lmp cars get rule changes when they think there going too fast aswell...

waaaaaaaay less is spent in sportscars compaired to f1

[Marbles]

While I wholeheartedly agree that the regulations are more than ever encouraging homogenous F1 designs (most obviously in the powerplant department), but I think the role of computer simulation and the ubiquity of sophisticated wind tunnels is an often overlooked contributor to the uniformity of contemporary designs. Sophisticated wind tunnels and abundant computing power creates a situation where each of the constructors crunch the numbers and arrive at roughly identical answers to an identical problem posed by today's narrow regulations.

Consequently, it's my opinion that in an era marked by an abundance of sophisticated, highly accurate design tools, the regulations must provide a series of options that pose fundamental trade offs to the designer if there is going to be any sort of meaningful design diversity within F1. Also, the regulations must change frequently. Modern design tools coupled with large budgets all but guarantees that a return to stifling design uniformity will perennially be but a season away.

Frankly, I'm not sure it is possible--even with wide open regulations--to re-establish the sort of design diversity that marked the vintage decades of F1's past. An abundance of simulation capacity means that no matter how wide open the regulations may be, each of the major teams will quickly arrive at very similar solutions, and within a season or two, nearly identical solutions. The LMP1 class that you cite suggests that this will be the case: while there certainly are fundamental differences in the Peugeot and Audi designs, what is most remarkable about the two designs is their overwhelming similarity, and the speed with which this similarity was established in relation to the various rules changes.

[arknor]

No, that would just create problems: the wake a car produces is directly influenced by the shape of its floor. The floor produces more donforce, which creates a greater wake behind the car, which is what makes it harder to pass. Re-introducing ground effects would only serve to create even more downforce, which woul produce a bigger wake and, in turn, it would make it even harder to pass.

depends how hard the air is worked and ground effect doesnt really work the air to much

[ExFlagMan]

So, given the regs that LMP (1 especially) run to, how is it they are not terrifying low-level aircraft? They have substantial underbody aero, big powerful engines etc. etc.

I seem to recall that it's only a couple of years since LMP's had several attempts at flying - Monza, Le Mans, resulting in changes to the regs to try to keep them on the ground.

[ferruccio]

Okay, maybe I'm being stupid and there's something that I'm missing. Whenever the idea of 'freeing up' the regulations is mentioned in terms of F1 I often hear the argument that the cars would become so fast that they would be near undriveable. So, given the regs that LMP (1 especially) run to, how is it they are not terrifying low-level aircraft? They have substantial underbody aero, big powerful engines etc. etc.

F1 seems to be moving inexorably toward a near-spec series (and the 'world engine' concept is yet another step along that path...), becoming more and more an entertainment, rather than a competition between makers of cars(either constructors or manufacturers). So, really, my question is, couldn't F1 follow something similar to LMP and offer more of a technical challenge?

You're not being stupid. It's a very good point.

F1(FIA) can certainly learn a thing or two from Le Mans (ACO) and what the latter's philosophies are behind the regs they set. ACO certainly work more closely with auto manufactures. The LMP class rules allow NA or forced inducted petrol engines and diesel engines. Hybrids are actually welcomed in 2011. It's interesting to see the variation in approach in both the LMP and GT classes.

The LMP1 machines are very fast machines especially around La Sarthe and ACO have been carefully watching top speeds for safety but the Pugs and Audis are still hitting well over 330 km/h. Some years ago it was significantly higher particularly when the 5km Mulsanne straight was not chicaned.

The petrol engines in LMP1 produce significantly more torque than F1 engines while the diesels are just mind-numbingly high in torque. Though hp is lower, they're still hitting the top speeds mentioned earlier. The LMP cars are technically very interesting machines. In essence they're similar to F1 just slightly wider, longer, heavier with lots more bodywork that reduces drag. They still produce a lot of grip and ex F1 drivers are quick to note that the major difference to F1 cars is felt when braking when the extra weight is most noticeable.

I don't think F1 cannot try and emulate the good points of Le Mans. I just think they're just too far up their own arses to notice it.

Edited by ferruccio, 24 April 2010 - 17:27.

[Ali_G]

No, that would just create problems: the wake a car produces is directly influenced by the shape of its floor. The floor produces more donforce, which creates a greater wake behind the car, which is what makes it harder to pass. Re-introducing ground effects would only serve to create even more downforce, which woul produce a bigger wake and, in turn, it would make it even harder to pass.

Couldn't agree with this at all.

The fall off in downforce for a venturi tunnel over a wing is minimal over that of a wing.

CART cars derived most of their downforce from two limited sized venturi's and had incredibly close racing for years.

[Captain Tightpants]

Couldn't agree with this at all.

I'm just going by what McLaren's Paddy Lowe has said. He reckons the double diffuser isn't the only source of downforce that alters a car's wake: the floor of the car is designed to generate downforce as well, and it is this downforce that changes a car's wake and makes it harder for one car to follow another. Re-introducing ground effects is only going to change the shape of the floor for the purposes of generating more downforce. More downforce equals a larger wake. A larger wake makes it harder for cars to pass one another.

[ferruccio]

A larger wake makes it harder for cars to pass one another.

Yes, but only more pronounced when the following car is heavily reliant on the front wings to generate downforce. In F1 the wings are high and significant

[V8 Fireworks]

big powerful engines etc. etc.

Don't the LMP cars have some kind of air restrictors I think. Hence your 6L petrol V12 or 5L turbo diesel V10 does not produce anything like 1200 hp.

I don't think the aero is unrestricted as you suggest.

But these are excellent points. Why not the same freedoms in F1 regulations!!

There are lots of "homebuilt specials" in LMP not to be negative on the efforts of the assorted non-Audi/Pug/Lola/Pescarlo/Epsilon/Porsche/Acura cars, but there are many teams with low-budget specials... Neat engineering solutions from experienced engineers are plentiful in these cars for sure , but the overall refinement and performance level would put these cars well below Lotus/Virgin in absolute quality terms and maybe even in relative terms to the respective front runners.

The fact that these enthusiast backed teams with relatively amateur drivers are out there in LMP is a credit to the spirit of sportscar racing This is surely totally absent in the modern F1 where privateers acquiring and racing cars is frowned upon even though they would have been and were most welcome to race their old Maserati against Fangio's latest and greatest Mercedes, yet racing Schumi's Mercedes in an old Renault is a no-no!

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 25 April 2010 - 08:10.

[Ali_G]

I'm just going by what McLaren's Paddy Lowe has said. He reckons the double diffuser isn't the only source of downforce that alters a car's wake: the floor of the car is designed to generate downforce as well, and it is this downforce that changes a car's wake and makes it harder for one car to follow another. Re-introducing ground effects is only going to change the shape of the floor for the purposes of generating more downforce. More downforce equals a larger wake. A larger wake makes it harder for cars to pass one another.

As ferrucio has said, the problem isn't trying to minimise the turbulence created behind the car, its in trying to get the cars to create downforce better in turbulence.

The biggest problem is how reliant the cars have become in creating downforce for the front of the car from the front wing. Not alone is there a huge fall off of downforce from the front wing when running in turbulence, due to having the two primary downforce creating devices at either end of the car, you are creating a very pitch sensitive car when one of these wings lose downforce.

Introduce two venturi tunnels into the mix and you are giving the cars a source of downforce which might retain 95% of downforce when running in turbulence, far more than any wing can. You will then have the cars running minimal front downforce with likely regulations meaning reduced front and rear wing sizes. Sam Michael is in favour of this move to promote passing.

BTW, a lot of cars pre 1983 didn't run any front wings at certain circuits. Hell, here's an Arrows with no front or rear wing.

http://img246.images...rowsa23qd5.png/

Edited by Ali_G, 25 April 2010 - 08:28.

[angst]

Don't the LMP cars have some kind of air restrictors I think. Hence your 6L petrol V12 or 5L turbo diesel V10 does not produce anything like 1200 hp.

I don't think the aero is unrestricted as you suggest.

But these are excellent points. Why not the same freedoms in F1 regulations!!

There are lots of "homebuilt specials" in LMP not to be negative on the efforts of the assorted non-Audi/Pug/Lola/Pescarlo/Epsilon/Porsche/Acura cars, but there are many teams with low-budget specials... Neat engineering solutions from experienced engineers are plentiful in these cars for sure , but the overall refinement and performance level would put these cars well below Lotus/Virgin in absolute quality terms and maybe even in relative terms to the respective front runners.

The fact that these enthusiast backed teams with relatively amateur drivers are out there in LMP is a credit to the spirit of sportscar racing This is surely totally absent in the modern F1 where privateers acquiring and racing cars is frowned upon even though they would have been and were most welcome to race their old Maserati against Fangio's latest and greatest Mercedes, yet racing Schumi's Mercedes in an old Renault is a no-no!

Yeah..., the restrictor idea seems much more..., technically challenging than the stupid rev-limiter in F1. Add some weight to the cars, allow some alternatives on the engine front.... lengthen the races a little... that, to me, is what F1 ought to be. What it is increasingly turning into is an all-but spec series. Here is how you build the engine, to these dimensions. Here is how you build the chassis, to these dimensions. Here is how you put it all together... Just crap, imo.

[Ali_G]

Yeah..., the restrictor idea seems much more..., technically challenging than the stupid rev-limiter in F1. Add some weight to the cars, allow some alternatives on the engine front.... lengthen the races a little... that, to me, is what F1 ought to be. What it is increasingly turning into is an all-but spec series. Here is how you build the engine, to these dimensions. Here is how you build the chassis, to these dimensions. Here is how you put it all together... Just crap, imo.

The problem is that in an attempt to slow the cars down and to close out loopholes, the FIA are every year creating a more and more detailed technical regulation rulebook. And its only going to get worse and worse as time goes on.

Its got to the stage now that the deisgners are working off of FIA stencils.


Time to completely rethink the rules again. Open up the rules a lot again but put in certain previsos to ensure that the cars are within certain limits for safety.

[ArnageWRC]

As far as I'm concerned, the ALMS/LMS is superior to F1. 'The Pinnacle' is rapidly becoming a glorified 'spec series'. Thanks Max!!

[angst]

The problem is that in an attempt to slow the cars down and to close out loopholes, the FIA are every year creating a more and more detailed technical regulation rulebook. And its only going to get worse and worse as time goes on.

Its got to the stage now that the deisgners are working off of FIA stencils.


Time to completely rethink the rules again. Open up the rules a lot again but put in certain previsos to ensure that the cars are within certain limits for safety.

Couldn't agree more. That's why I brought up this topic. I think your reference to an FIA stencil is very apt, and is exactly what I see in F1 atm. And..., I could almost forgive the powers that be if it had simply been safety that had guided the rules. But, it isn't. It has been, more and more, about equalising performance. And I wonder if much of this is down to a) the means of the CA and b) the number of competitors building their own cars. When Toyota made their entry into F1 it was (I'm sure most people know this) going to be with a V12. The F1 'community' then demanded that all engines be V10... Now we have V8s with a specified cylinder head angle (among other dimensions) that can only rev to a specified level.

If F1 wants to be 'greener', and 'road relevant' then it could do worse than look at LMP for inspiration (turbo diesels, hybrid engines etc.) without imposing a particular 'answer'.

As ArnageWRC says, and I agree, at the moment LMP is the 'pinnacle'.... maybe they should look at expanding their horizons....

[pingu666]

the restrictor effectivly limits rev's by the way, as the higher the revs, the less air will get into the cylinders per revolution

[Villes Gilleneuve]

BTW, a lot of cars pre 1983 didn't run any front wings at certain circuits. Hell, here's an Arrows with no front or rear wing.

Yes, but they had skirts, which where a whole other safety problem.

LMP is interesting because they developed diesel at a whole new level.

Regardless, many new configurations for F1 could be tried out in simulations these days. They could try venturi-only downforce, or full mech grip, etc.

You forget the reason why F1 doesn't change, it doesn't need to, people watch it anyway.

[V8 Fireworks]

F1 (new)
1.5 L
4 cyl (presumably Inline configuration mandatory)
Twin-turbo mandatory
Direct injection mandatory
Mandatory weight, COG etc will also be specified as per current F1 engines
Hybrids banned

LMP (new)
Air restrictor required
Hybrids permitted

If using racing-specific engine:
Diesel twin-turbo, 3.7-litre up to 8 cylinders
Petrol n/a, 3.4-litre up to 8 cylinders
Petrol turbo, 2.0-litre up to 6 cylinders
Diesel single-turbo, 4.0-litre up to 8 cylinders,

If using production race engine:
Petrol n/a, 4.0 litres unlimited cylinders [GT2 specification]

If using production engine:
Petrol n.a, 4.5-litre unlimited cylinders

Perhaps Tiff Needel needs to be brought in to determine: which is best?

[Ali_G]

Yes, but they had skirts, which where a whole other safety problem.

Skirts were banned in the early 80's and still would be today. The greatly reduced front wing size would still stand.

[benjiwengy]

Two points. Firstly LMP's are SO sexy compared to F1 cars. They look modern, sleek and relevant. Secondly, I would imagine that because their wheels are enclosed they produce less turbulence, therefore closer racing. I think LMP's are the way forward.

Edited by benjiwengy, 27 April 2010 - 12:50.

[Ali_G]

Two points. Firstly LMP's are SO sexy compared to F1 cars. They look modern, sleek and relevant. Secondly, I would imagine that because their wheels are enclosed they produce less turbulence, therefore closer racing. I think LMP's are the way forward.

Quite the opposite I would think.

Due to the wheels being the primary producer of drag from an F1 car, you would reduce the effect of the slipstream substantially for the following car.

As long as the wheels are making a lot of drag outside of the centre line, it would affect downforce production from the following car than much.



On the looks of LMP cars. I really don't like the 908 with that stupid nose. I think the last prototype/GT1 car I really liked was the 1998 Porsche GT1. Before that there were some really nice Group C cars.

[Risil]

On the looks of LMP cars. I really don't like the 908 with that stupid nose. I think the last prototype/GT1 car I really liked was the 1998 Porsche GT1. Before that there were some really nice Group C cars.

The current breed of sports prototypes look too anorexic. A bit like the Jaguar XJR-14 after the previous big-V12 iterations. The Lolas look quite nice, and the Audi R15 looks unusual, but there's nothing out there to match the beautiful Group C/GTP cars. Or even the Ferrari 333SP, which had a kind of graceless beauty about it.

Still much better-looking than Formula One, or Daytona Prototypes. The Riley especially is an abomination.

Edited by Risil, 27 April 2010 - 23:25.