140 replies to this topic

[Augurk]

Very interesting part in section 6.

"Oval tracks will only be licensed for international events for cars
approved for use on them by the FIA.

These are currently: cars specifically designed for racing on
paved oval tracks over 1 mile long (such as NASCAR Cup cars)
and those open-wheel cars which comply with regulations and
performance requirements specifically concerning :

- side intrusion protection
- driver head protection
- frontal impact energy dissipating
- wheel tethers.
Open-wheel cars which comply include the following: Indycars
(IRL); Formula One; GP2 and cars to similar safety regulations;
Formula 3 to 2002 specification onwards."


I think that means F1 can race on ovals.

Well it means they are allowed to. Doesn't mean they can.
I don't think F1 teams and their designers would be too pleased if all of a sudden an oval would be added to the calendar.

[wewantourdarbyback]

Well it means they are allowed to. Doesn't mean they can.
I don't think F1 teams and their designers would be too pleased if all of a sudden an oval would be added to the calendar.

They should be, would be one step closer to F1 actually being the true test of a car and driver.

[PayasYouRace]

Well it means they are allowed to. Doesn't mean they can.
I don't think F1 teams and their designers would be too pleased if all of a sudden an oval would be added to the calendar.

No but I'm sure many F1 engineers/designers would be up for the challenge if the oval was announced with a couple of years notice, meaning they could design for it. Not that the cars would need drastic changes in design anyway.

I've seen many say that F1 cars would not be allowed to race on ovals whenever the question of an oval GP is brought up. They are obviously wrong.

[highdownforce]

Very interesting part in section 6.

"Oval tracks will only be licensed for international events for cars
approved for use on them by the FIA.

These are currently: cars specifically designed for racing on
paved oval tracks over 1 mile long (such as NASCAR Cup cars)
and those open-wheel cars which comply with regulations and
performance requirements specifically concerning :

- side intrusion protection
- driver head protection
- frontal impact energy dissipating
- wheel tethers.
Open-wheel cars which comply include the following: Indycars
(IRL); Formula One; GP2 and cars to similar safety regulations;
Formula 3 to 2002 specification onwards."


I think that means F1 can race on ovals.

The main problem is not on shape of the course but it's on the camber of it.

[PayasYouRace]

The main problem is not on shape of the course but it's on the camber of it.

Would you like to explain? I admit my area of expertise is aerodynamics. Certainly the aerodynamics of an F1 car would not cause a problem on a banked curve. They would help.

Is there some mechanical aspect of F1 cars that would be a problem racing on a banked circuit? That is, one that wasn't a problem at Indianapolis 2000-2004, 2006-2007?

[Captain Tightpants]

Is there some mechanical aspect of F1 cars that would be a problem racing on a banked circuit?

Nope. There is a regulatory aspect that makes Formula 1 cars a problem. The FIA rules actively discourage banking; I believe any more than a few degrees requires special dispensation. I seem to recall reading something about it back when they built the Shanghai circuit - turn thirteen is very banked.

[PayasYouRace]

Nope. There is a regulatory aspect that makes Formula 1 cars a problem. The FIA rules actively discourage banking; I believe any more than a few degrees requires special dispensation. I seem to recall reading something about it back when they built the Shanghai circuit - turn thirteen is very banked.

But that's not what I asked. As the FIA rules state, F1 cars are permitted so race on oval circuits. I asked if there is a technical reason why they don't race on them. We know modern F1 cars can race through banked corners safely from the experience of Indy, as long as the tyres are chosen correctly.

The rules you state relate to camber and banking on purpose built road circuits, which I agree are discouraged from having banking. But then that doesn't mean it's not allowed. As section 7.5 states:

"Along straights, the transversal incline, for drainage purposes,
between the two edges of the track or between the centre-line
and the edge (camber), should not exceed 3%, or be less than
1,5 %.
In curves, the banking (downwards from the outside to the inside
of the track) should not exceed 10 % (with possible exceptions
in special cases, such as speedways). An adverse incline is not
generally acceptable unless dictated by special circumstances, in
which case the entry speed should not exceed 125 kph."

So if F1 were to race at a speedway, which according to what I posted above is allowed, then the only limitation would be technical.

[Captain Tightpants]

But that's not what I asked. As the FIA rules state, F1 cars are permitted so race on oval circuits. I asked if there is a technical reason why they don't race on them. We know modern F1 cars can race through banked corners safely from the experience of Indy, as long as the tyres are chosen correctly.

Yes, theoretically, they can race on an oval. Aerodynamics is not my subject, either, but I do know that before Formula 1 addresses the issues of aerodynamics and ovals, they need to get a banked oval approved as far as I know, most of the major banked ovals - ie the ones that could host a race - are in excess of ten degrees.

[PayasYouRace]

Yes, theoretically, they can race on an oval. Aerodynamics is not my subject, either, but I do know that before Formula 1 addresses the issues of aerodynamics and ovals, they need to get a banked oval approved as far as I know, most of the major banked ovals - ie the ones that could host a race - are in excess of ten degrees.

But the statement I highlighted in bold states that a speedway could be an exception. Of course it would have to be approved. What I want to know is if there is a technical reason why it wouldn't be approved.

Edit: I misread you post. Ignore the question I asked.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 27 May 2010 - 14:39.

[dissonance]

The cars couldnt handle the vertical g-loadings in the banking at 220-230 mph. They just arent designed with that kind of use in mind and the lightweight CF suspensions would collapse. This was all discussed when Indy was on the drawing board, and is the main reason turn 1 was placed before the banking and it only used one section of banking as they started the straight... at lower speeds.

They would need to completely redesign the cars for a single event.

Its probably do-able and would be magnificent to see, they would pull phenomenal speeds the likes never seen before... but its never going to happen.

[PayasYouRace]

The cars couldnt handle the vertical g-loadings in the banking at 220-230 mph. They just arent designed with that kind of use in mind and the lightweight CF suspensions would collapse. This was all discussed when Indy was on the drawing board, and is the main reason turn 1 was placed before the banking and it only used one section of banking as they started the straight... at lower speeds.

They would need to completely redesign the cars for a single event.

Its probably do-able and would be magnificent to see, they would pull phenomenal speeds the likes never seen before... but its never going to happen.

Thank you. I didn't want to make any claims about suspension strength though a banked corner, or any other mechanical issues. Of course, if you gave the teams sufficient notice, this wouldn't be a problem. They would be able to design the cars with suspension capable of taking the banked corner, even to current F1 regulations.

[Clatter]

They should be, would be one step closer to F1 actually being the true test of a car and driver.

What absolute rubbish. Running around an oval track doesn't make it a greater or "true" test at all.

[Clatter]

Nope. There is a regulatory aspect that makes Formula 1 cars a problem. The FIA rules actively discourage banking; I believe any more than a few degrees requires special dispensation. I seem to recall reading something about it back when they built the Shanghai circuit - turn thirteen is very banked.

That's not because of a problem with or to the cars, but purely to keep the speeds down.

[PayasYouRace]

What absolute rubbish. Running around an oval track doesn't make it a greater or "true" test at all.

I agree.

I feel I should point out that I'm not making the argument that F1 should race on ovals, just that it could if it was so desired, and that there are no rules specifically preventing it. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. F1 could do drag racing too, with few/no modifications to the cars. But I'm sure few people want to see that.

In fact, the point I'm trying to make is that the rules for designing a new circuit for F1 seem rather more open than we might have been led to believe.

[OfficeLinebacker]

The cars couldnt handle the vertical g-loadings in the banking at 220-230 mph. They just arent designed with that kind of use in mind and the lightweight CF suspensions would collapse. This was all discussed when Indy was on the drawing board, and is the main reason turn 1 was placed before the banking and it only used one section of banking as they started the straight... at lower speeds.

They would need to completely redesign the cars for a single event.

Its probably do-able and would be magnificent to see, they would pull phenomenal speeds the likes never seen before... but its never going to happen.

Who said they have to go to a track big enough to get up to 230? Phoenix, Richmond, maybe Dover, and of course the super short Martinsville and Bristol come to mind as far as ovals that would almost certainly require enough downforce and have short enough straightaways that the top speeds would barely tickle 170 or so.

I think Phoenix and New Hampshire are pretty flat, too.

[PayasYouRace]

Who said they have to go to a track big enough to get up to 230? Phoenix, Richmond, maybe Dover, and of course the super short Martinsville and Bristol come to mind as far as ovals that would almost certainly require enough downforce and have short enough straightaways that the top speeds would barely tickle 170 or so.

I think Phoenix and New Hampshire are pretty flat, too.

Milwaukee Mile too? I think Nazareth has been demolished now. Those short oval Indy races were often pretty exciting. Obviously a flat, short track like those you mentioned wouldn't be subject to vastly increased suspension loads.

[BenettonB192]

Arn't F1 cars too flimsy for oval racing?

[PayasYouRace]

Arn't F1 cars too flimsy for oval racing?

Well the meet the safety requirements according to the FIA. As has been said, the suspension might not be strong enough to take the high vertical loads on a steeply banked circuit. Obviously that's not an issue on a flatter oval.

[Lights]

I wonder how they will set up the cars. Think it would be dangerous. You shouldn't forget IRL teams have decades of experience of racing on ovals, the current F1 teams do not. We've already seen what crashes can happen on just one banked oval curve with about 300 km/h, what if they would continuously drive on them with 400+ km/h? And that could be in tyres structure, suspension, wings.... the list can go on.

Besides that, would it actually provide exciting racing? I doubt it.

[dissonance]

Of course, if you gave the teams sufficient notice, this wouldn't be a problem. They would be able to design the cars with suspension capable of taking the banked corner, even to current F1 regulations.

Sure, but its not quite as easy as 'putting some stronger bits on'. The design, development & testing of a new suspension system for what is a fundamentally different set of requirements would be costly and isnt something that has a high cost-benefit ratio for a single event. Sure its doable - indy & cart do it all the time, but that is their advantage. Its one of their basic design parameters and their suspensions are designed with high speed banking in mind. Its not even on the radar for regular F1 design parameters. Smaller budget teams would suffer for not paying it due attention... and any failures / resulting accidents are pretty major at 230 in a flimsy carbon fibre monocoque.


As for the short ovals... sure, easy done. But 'rubbin is racin' doesnt exactly mix with ultra lightweight carbon fibre cars. Perhaps they could make it a one off event in last years cars and give everyone in the front 10 rows safety glasses? ;-)

[Clatter]

Besides that, would it actually provide exciting racing? I doubt it.

That would be the most important point. IMHO oval racing is a borefest.

[OwenC93]

I think they would be able to handle the load, since the amount of downforce on the cars and then braking doesn't normally break them, and I assume if on ovals they would use low downforce?

[PayasYouRace]

Sure, but its not quite as easy as 'putting some stronger bits on'. The design, development & testing of a new suspension system for what is a fundamentally different set of requirements would be costly and isnt something that has a high cost-benefit ratio for a single event. Sure its doable - indy & cart do it all the time, but that is thier advantage. Its one of thier basic design paramaters and thier suspensions are designed with high speed banking in mind. Its not even on the radar for regular F1 design parameters. Smaller budget teams would suffer for not paying it due attention... and any failures / resulting accidents are pretty major at 230 in a flimsy carbon fibre monocoque.


As for the short ovals... sure, easy done. But 'rubbin is racin' doesnt exactly mix with ultra lightweight carbon fibre cars. Perhaps they could make it a one off event in last years cars and give everyone in the front 10 rows safety glasses? ;-)

You are right that it's not that easy. But it would not be outside the scope of any F1 team as long as they have the correct information beforehand. I'm not suggesting telling the teams, "Right, we'll be racing at Daytona next year". What I'm trying to establish, is if a car designed to current F1 regs would be able to race on an oval. It looks like it could.

I don't know where you get the idea that F1 cars have flimsy carbon fibre monocoques. The whole discussion started when I noticed that the FIA circuit regulations themselves state that an F1 car is safe enough to race on an oval, along with GP2, and even F3 cars from 2002 onwards.

I also know where you get the idea that short tracks would be "rubbin-is-racing" type stuff. Have you never seen Indycars race at Milwaukee, Phoenix or even Richmond?

Those two statements suggest you never even read my previous posts on the subject.

[PayasYouRace]

I think they would be able to handle the load, since the amount of downforce on the cars and then braking doesn't normally break them, and I assume if on ovals they would use low downforce?

Actually, F1 cars experience higher downforce loads at Monza than Monaco, because downforce squares with speed.

[wewantourdarbyback]

What absolute rubbish. Running around an oval track doesn't make it a greater or "true" test at all.

Road circuits are not the be all and end all of motorsports. F1 markets itself as the pinnacle of motorsports all the time, surely to be true it should include other types of track that are regularly raced on?

I fail to see how including an oval would not put it closer to actually being the greatest test of motorsports.

[pingu666]

they would run downforce level similer to monza, or spa, depending on the oval. notsure if i buy the suspension thing, its not like the IRL car has strong suspension is it? xD, and in nascar people finish races with bent/damaged suspension too

f1 cars are pretty darn strong, perhaps just some cladding around the cockpit would be ok

biggest issue imo would be the aero of the following car

[Lights]

Actually, F1 cars experience higher downforce loads at Monza than Monaco, because downforce squares with speed.

Good point. Must be Parabolica? Insane how fast they can go through there with such little wings.

[OwenC93]

Actually, F1 cars experience higher downforce loads at Monza than Monaco, because downforce squares with speed.

Fair point.

[PayasYouRace]

they would run downforce level similer to monza, or spa, depending on the oval. notsure if i buy the suspension thing, its not like the IRL car has strong suspension is it? xD, and in nascar people finish races with bent/damaged suspension too

f1 cars are pretty darn strong, perhaps just some cladding around the cockpit would be ok

biggest issue imo would be the aero of the following car

Depends on the oval. A Phoenix/Milwaukee style short flat oval would require a rather high downforce setting, perhapes similar to Spa or Silverstone, because most of the time would be gained through running fast though the turns. On an Indy or Michigan they might run a Monza style wing package or smaller. Again I'd rather not comment on suspension. There are probably guys out there who understand that more than me.

The FIA considers F1 cars as suitable for ovals so that's OK.

That is the big issue. The racing might actually be crap. In fact that's why I'm going to argue that F1 oval racing shouldn't be done with the current regulations. We'll see about next year once DDDs are banned.

[Clatter]

Road circuits are not the be all and end all of motorsports. F1 markets itself as the pinnacle of motorsports all the time, surely to be true it should include other types of track that are regularly raced on?

I fail to see how including an oval would not put it closer to actually being the greatest test of motorsports.

They don't run on dirt roads either. F1 is a road racing series and running it on ovals would not make it a truer test of anything.

[fastlegs]

I wouldn't mind seeing 1 oval F1 race each season.

I think it would be interesting to see how each team and driver would perform on an oval.

Having something that is out of the ordinary IMO would create a lot of excitement.

[Cenotaph]

Oval racing is not part of F1 skills, it would be pointless to see the drivers there, imo. Generally F1 fans are not looking for that kind of racing anyway, and it would most likely be a borefest. It might work on a spec series and in series where cars actually have to do a decent amount of braking in ovals, but i can't see ovals being any exciting in F1, unless ppl want to see big crashes.

[hansmann]

I wouldn't mind seeing 1 oval F1 race each season.

I think it would be interesting to see how each team and driver would perform on an oval.

Having something that is out of the ordinary IMO would create a lot of excitement.

Frankly, I think racing on an oval track is as ordinary as it gets, apart from racing in a straight line.
F1 as a whole is designed to test driver and car in a variety of situations in every race, not just turning a tad to the left every other mile.

Using slipstream is a very small part of proper racing, and daring other drivers to crash into you, or someone else, is a little - primitive .

Besides, F1 cars are so close in performance, and the drivers so professional, that such a race would be over in qualifying anyway.

[Kucki]

It would be fascinating to see F1 on an oval! It will also be great for those who are not used to seeing oval racing, they are used to seeing the cars several hundred meters away from each other, suddenly they would see 10 cars within 4 seconds battling wheel to wheel two wide, three wide at very high speeds. Hopefully it will happen one day.

Edited by Kucki, 27 May 2010 - 17:33.

[Disgrace]

But where would the endless expanses of tarmac run-off area fit! You'd have to make a very deep bowl for that!

[PayasYouRace]

Frankly, I think racing on an oval track is as ordinary as it gets, apart from racing in a straight line.
F1 as a whole is designed to test driver and car in a variety of situations in every race, not just turning a tad to the left every other mile.

Using slipstream is a very small part of proper racing, and daring other drivers to crash into you, or someone else, is a little - primitive .

Besides, F1 cars are so close in performance, and the drivers so professional, that such a race would be over in qualifying anyway.

That's the kind of mentality that doesn't come across well. Fans of oval racing, such as myself and many members here, know that oval racing is just a different skill set to road racing. The idea that one kind of racing is "proper racing" is just being closed minded.

Most oval races feature cars extremely close in performance and often with very professional drivers. Somehow they have exciting racing.

[Clatter]

It would be fascinating to see F1 on an oval! It will also be great for those who are not used to seeing oval racing, they are used to seeing the cars several hundred meters away from each other, suddenly they would see 10 cars within 4 seconds battling wheel to wheel two wide, three wide at very high speeds. Hopefully it will happen one day.

I've seen all that with Indycar. There was nothing interesting about it at all.

[Brandz07]

no because it'd simply be boring.

[OfficeLinebacker]

Besides that, would it actually provide exciting racing? I doubt it.

Absolutely it would. First of all they would be lapping the backmarkers constantly and the battling for positions would use backmarkers strategically.

Second of all, any shunt would require a safety car, which would eliminate big gaps.

Maybe they could introduce the Lucky Dog and Wave Around rules as well?

[OfficeLinebacker]

As for the short ovals... sure, easy done. But 'rubbin is racin' doesnt exactly mix with ultra lightweight carbon fibre cars. Perhaps they could make it a one off event

Actually I'm impressed with the amount of contact in F1 this year. People taking wings off, people damaging wing end plates but continuing on, banging wheels and continuing on, etc.

F1 cars aren't as fragile as people think. Especially when you're talking wheel to wheel.

[Lights]

Absolutely it would. First of all they would be lapping the backmarkers constantly and the battling for positions would use backmarkers strategically.

Second of all, any shunt would require a safety car, which would eliminate big gaps.

Maybe they could introduce the Lucky Dog and Wave Around rules as well?

But then ehm, couldn't people would like that kind of racing just watch IRL?

I think the main problem would be that the cars won't be as close as they are in IRL. The gaps between the teams would be bigger, as they're simply not made for a track like that. It will suit one car far better than another, just like the effect Monaco can have.

[Sardukar]

F1 car safety is designed for frontal impacts. Side and rear impacts arent to the same quality of indycar chassis and improvements would have to be made there to make it safe. That would require vastly different designs on the current F1 cars to work and would be too expensive for a 1 off race. You could get away with running F1 in a short oval track but damn it would be boring as hell.

[rjtart]

I see lots of disagreement here. This topic seems ripe for a poll. I don't think it will ever happen, but I'd love to see an F1 oval race.

[LB]

I've seen all that with Indycar. There was nothing interesting about it at all.

Sometimes I feel like checking for a pulse! IRL can be edge of the seat, heart stoppingly scary.

[rolf123]

Regardless of the regulations, the real barrier is a cultural one. I don't mean culture in an international sense, but in a racing sense.

Many F1 drivers today would refuse to drive on ovals. Michael Schumacher for one.

How can you make ovals safe? Yes you can surround the entire track with tyres but they could spill onto the track. You could have a big green no-go zone around the track before the tyre wall but drivers will just keep trying to push the limits and we'll have a ton of steward decisions to contend with. You could have a rougher surface on the green stuff that would make them slower there but I'm not sure if such a thing could be approved. The difference in grip from inside to outside tyres might even cause a car to plough into the wall.

[Boing 2]

If given a years notice and the regs changed to allow for it then yeah i'm sure they could go but the biggest problem would be putting 24 oval rookies into 220mph super trimmed out open wheelers, it'd be carnage!


i've seen some decent side by side moments on ovals but for the most part i find it tedious, i've tried watching a few times but just don't get it. Comparing an oval to say Spa is like comparing Hendrix doing All Along The Watchtower to a modern piece of bass heavy dance music. One has soul and personality, the other just a mindless thump, thump, thump of rythym.

[Absulute]

Road circuits are not the be all and end all of motorsports. F1 markets itself as the pinnacle of motorsports all the time, surely to be true it should include other types of track that are regularly raced on?

I fail to see how including an oval would not put it closer to actually being the greatest test of motorsports.

Sure. Lets have a rally-cross and a demo-derby as well while we're at it.

[Clatter]

Sometimes I feel like checking for a pulse! IRL can be edge of the seat, heart stoppingly scary.

Oval racing just does not do it for me, I simply do not find it exciting.

[Clatter]

Regardless of the regulations, the real barrier is a cultural one. I don't mean culture in an international sense, but in a racing sense.

Many F1 drivers today would refuse to drive on ovals. Michael Schumacher for one.

How can you make ovals safe? Yes you can surround the entire track with tyres but they could spill onto the track. You could have a big green no-go zone around the track before the tyre wall but drivers will just keep trying to push the limits and we'll have a ton of steward decisions to contend with. You could have a rougher surface on the green stuff that would make them slower there but I'm not sure if such a thing could be approved. The difference in grip from inside to outside tyres might even cause a car to plough into the wall.

If Ovals were part of the F1 circus there would not be a single driver who would refuse to race.

[Ruf]

Comparing an oval to say Spa is like comparing Hendrix doing All Along The Watchtower to a modern piece of bass heavy dance music. One has soul and personality, the other just a mindless thump, thump, thump of rythym.