34 replies to this topic

[ferrarifan2000]

if f1 cars have a reverse gear, how come we never see them use it?

[david_martin]

They do have to have a reverse gear under article 9.6 of the FIA technical regulations -

All cars must have a reverse gear operable at any time during the Event by the driver while the engine is running.

So it does have to work, but it does not have to be easy to select or geared at a ratio that would make it practical to engage without enormous amounts of clutch slippage. And because it is essentially "surplus" to requirements and only takes up space and adds additional weight, they are not

[Mellon]

Forcing the cars to reverse out of the scrutineering bay would be one way to slow the cars down a wee bit. Besides it would be safer to have a operational reverse in some situations. In the current drive for safer everything this would be logical step if only of minimal or cosmetic effect.

[BRG]

I don't see why F1 cars shouldn't have a proper reverse gear. It might allow a driver to reverse out of trouble, rejoin the race and maybe score a point or two. Surely the extra weight etc would be worth it for a WC point?

Similarly, why don't they have a decent self-starter? I always cringe when a I see a hugely expensive F1 car retire from a race simply because the driver has spun and stalled it. After all the development work by hundreds of expert workers, all the money, transporting it half way around the world, paying the driver millions of $$$, and then CLONK - it stalls and that's it. Pathetic.

And while I'm on this rant, why do the F1 rules seem designed to exclude as many cars as possible, whereas the CART rules help to keep as many running as possible? It is not very sponsor friendly to encourage a company to stump up $10 million and then their car spins out at the first corner and it can't reverse out, or restart the motor, and if the marshals pushstart it, it is DQ'd.

Answer? take your dosh to CART or NASCAR where your car keeps cropping up on the TV screen...

[desmo]

I agree. F1 cars should be required to self-start and demonstrate drive in reverse. I simply don't see any downside.

[palmas]

I've seen lots of times drivers using reverse to try to exit sand traps. It never works.

I agree with BRG that is more safewise to alow for in car starter, so a stalled car in a bad position can escape.

Also the rules that BRG refers were there to ensure equality (that is if someone stalls and gets a push and someone stalls and there is nobody) and for safety reason (if a car stalls, the mecanics would run into the track, running like fools, to restart the car).
Maybe they should rethink the whole package.

[Mellon]

How could the powers that be ever accept a change that would make driving safer. improve racing AND slow the cars down. Clearly such a change is pure madness

[swoopp]

Why do drivers need reverse?

They can usually spin the car around if they need to get going again. Do you really want the backing up when they can't see where they are going and with other cars around them?

And, starters carry a big weight penalty, and they are problematic. They don't work well in hot confined areas, need to be really big to spin a hot, high compression motor that needs to be spun up to several thousand rpm....

There is a good reason the leave starter off the cars if the rules don't require them.

[palmas]

Ey, swoop, that would be a good idea to slow down cars, so don't say it loud, they might hear you

[Mellon]

swoopp: If a driver spins in Monaco Or Melbourne he can easily end up facing a wall. Or if he goes softly in to the tires he may be able to back up and rejoin the race after fitting a new front wing.

[Ursus]

IIRC Häkkinen had to reverse out of the escape road at Mirabeau in Monaco. In '98 I think it was

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by swoopp

And, starters carry a big weight penalty,

Gear-reduction type racing starters are not very heavy (and F1 engineers would even cut that in half), and all the teams are ballasting their cars anyway.

and they are problematic. They don't work well in hot confined areas,

Others have solved those problems... in NASCAR their starters are right up against the exhaust headers.

need to be really big to spin a hot, high compression motor that needs to be spun up to several thousand rpm....

Again, if NASCAR can do it, with motors that are harder to spin (0.75L/cyl, 12:1 CR, EXTREME valvetrain friction, vs. 0.30L/cyl, 12.5:1 CR) and the higher spin speed needed to start a carburated engine, it should be a snap with an ECU mapped for starting. There should be no need for high cranking speed. I'm pretty sure there is more than enough engineering talent in F1 to figure out how to start an engine under any conditions.

[/b]There is a good reason the leave starter off the cars if the rules don't require them. [/B]

So require them (and make them be proven to work, say, five times, just like they have to prove the driver can exit the car, etc.)... for the many reasons others have presented.... safety, the show (spun off, stalled, DNF vs. spun off, stalled, restarted, went from last place to the podium), the engineering challenge, and of course to give us something to talk about.

[Bjorn]

Hmmm... and I seem to remember Senna spinning, putting it into reverse, coming to a halt on the middle of the track and then driving backwards off the track once... can't remember where or when...

[palmas]

Yes, Bjorn, only Nigel Mansel was lucky enough to spin and stay on the track and facing the right way (he did it at least 3 times)

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by swoopp
And, starters carry a big weight penalty, and they are problematic. They don't work well in hot confined areas, need to be really big to spin a hot, high compression motor that needs to be spun up to several thousand rpm....

That is all true if one assumes an electrical starter. Plus the weight of the ring gear, battery and wiring ...and so on.

What about a compressed air starter?

The cars do carry a compressed air reservoir for actuation of hydraulic systems, if I am not mistaken.

An air-driven motor would be much lighter, as would it's attendant plumbing requirements, and might actually gain from operating within the confines of an extremely hot engine bay.

Picture it: Coulthard spins and stalls, as usual, he may or may not still be in gear.

If he is, he hits the starter, the car chugs forward and the engine refires, as he begins to cruise around while the reservoir 'recharges'. If he had the presence of mind to select neutral, he can restart the engine, and wait a short time @ 15000 rpm or so as the reservoir 'recharges' before rejoining the race.

Repeat process until David hits tire barrier.

The rules would have to specify an electrical starter if they were intended in part to reduce the car's performance. And at that point, the FIA might as well enforce the use of carbs, as far as I'm concerned.

Come to think of it, do the rules specify 'no onboard engine starter allowed', or is it a concession the teams have made of their own volition for the sake of outright speed?

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by imaginesix
What about a compressed air starter?

Late 1970's F1 cars were about evenly divided between electrical starters (Ferrari, Ligier Matra, Tyrell Cosworth, etc.) and pneumatic starters (Renault, most Cosworth teams). Either way they typically had enough battery or air tank for two or three starts.

[carlos.maza]

Bjorn:

Barcelona 1991. Senna, McLaren

[BRG]

Originally posted by Engineguy
Late 1970's F1 cars were about evenly divided between electrical starters (Ferrari, Ligier Matra, Tyrell Cosworth, etc.) and pneumatic starters (Renault, most Cosworth teams). Either way they typically had enough battery or air tank for two or three starts.

Yes, I remember that this was the case - but what happened? Presumably the FIA removed the rule requiring a starter and the teams stopped fittting them. In which case, I reckon it was a mistake as they might save a race or at least a point or two for a team. Or are they actually forbidden now?

I certainly like imaginesix's idea of a compressed air system, so much so that I will refrain from berating him over the comments about Coulthard ;)

[Ursus]

Onboard starters are allowed as I understand it. Actually, as the regs are worded, it's the use of an external starter that's allowed is certain situations(in pits, on the grid). The driver is expressivly allowed to restart the car with an onboard starter if it stalls. He's not out until he needs assistance to move his car.

[DEVO]

Fisi could have used reverse in the last race...

[Matt Davis]

I think that the reverse gear bit should be removed because you can't see enough of where you are going and it would only cause bigger crashes.

[random]

I like the idea of both a reverse gear and starter. The most recent GP at Sepang would have started on time if Fisi had had a reverse gear. And a great many non-start events occur because of a stalled engine.

Starting the race on time is a big bonus for the organizers attemp to keep GP's in a two hour time frame. It's also a big boost for safety. Having the grid form for a non-start is avery, very dangerous event.

That and I think it's just silly that cars are effectively disallowed from reentering the event if they stall their motors on the course. Push starts are not allowed and starter equipment is not required. This makes for a very fan and sponsor unfriendly enviornment.

[Singing in the rain]

With Senna and Häkkinen already mentioned reversing, didn't Mansell once get DQ:ed for reversing his Ferrari in the pitlane?

[bear]

Last week at Sepang Martin Brundle said it was a automatic disqualification if you reversed the car on the race track itself.In CART reverse gears are not always easy to find.

mark

[Winny]

Bear,

Yes Brundle did say that, and I'm sure that is the case, but Hakkinen reversed back up the escape road at Monaco in 99, so there must be a fine line about what is officially the "track".

[swoopp]

If you guys want reverse gears, you probally want riding mechanics too - to tell the drivers where to go.

[BRG]

Great idea, Swoopp! A riding mechanic might have helped Fisichella find his slot at Sepang, or could have helped the Ferrari pitcrew find the right tyres foir Rubens...

[PeaQ]

Indeed, its forbidden to reverse on track...

however, how fast do you guys think a F1 car can go backwards?
If it comes up to speed it would take of, right?

[Thanassis]

Originally posted by Matt Davis
I think that the reverse gear bit should be removed because you can't see enough of where you are going and it would only cause bigger crashes.

I don't think that it should be removed, as reverse gear is necessary at times, but as MD said, visibility is really poor. Those mirrors are far too small!!!
Starters, on the other hand, is something different: they could only be used when a driver stalls his engine. This is not happening really often outside the pits, so they are virtually unecessary!

[BRG]

Originally posted by Thanassis
Starters, on the other hand, is something different: they could only be used when a driver stalls his engine. This is not happening really often outside the pits, so they are virtually unecessary!

Well, let us imagine that Enrique Bernoldi is leading the last race of the year by half a lap in his Minardi-Honda and he is leading the WDC by 5 points from Gaston Mazzacane who is also lying 2nd in this race. As Enrique closes on Schumacher's Jaguar to lap him for the fourth time, he misjudges the manoeuvre and half spins off the road, stalling the engine. Pressing the starter button fires up the motor again and using his reverse gear to pull back out of the gravel trap. He then sets off to win and gain his 7th consecutive World Championship to tumultous applause!!!

Or rather, for the lack of the starter, he sits there in despair as Gaston roars past to score his 7th win of the season and his 1st WDC and secure the Constructors championship for Prost. Minardi sack Bernoldi, and lose their Honda engine deal and their $500 million Microsoft sponsorship. All for the lack of a starter....

[palmas]

BRG, just remove the Jaguar part

[BRG]

Originally posted by palmas
BRG, just remove the Jaguar part

I didn't specify which Schumacher....

[Thanassis]

Originally posted by BRG


Well, let us imagine that Enrique Bernoldi is leading the last race of the year by half a lap in his Minardi-Honda and he is leading the WDC by 5 points from Gaston Mazzacane who is also lying 2nd in this race. As Enrique closes on Schumacher's Jaguar to lap him for the fourth time, he misjudges the manoeuvre and half spins off the road, stalling the engine. Pressing the starter button fires up the motor again and using his reverse gear to pull back out of the gravel trap. He then sets off to win and gain his 7th consecutive World Championship to tumultous applause!!!

Or rather, for the lack of the starter, he sits there in despair as Gaston roars past to score his 7th win of the season and his 1st WDC and secure the Constructors championship for Prost. Minardi sack Bernoldi, and lose their Honda engine deal and their $500 million Microsoft sponsorship. All for the lack of a starter....

And then a UFO lands on the track, and the little green men kidnap both Mazzacane and Bernoldi! After their dissapearance the FIA desides to give the points of first place to Schumacher (who is third in the championship, 7 points behind Bernoldi), and he becomes champion. Of course, all those Schumi haters start complaining about Uncle Bernie and the FIA supporting Schumacher and... well, you have to figure out the rest!

[BRG]

Thanassis

You must mean Schumacher becomes WDC, because remember Schumacher was four laps down ....

[blkirk]

There was a World Sportscar Race at Daytona in 1962 that was won on starter power. Dan Gurney's engine died just before the time limit of the race. He coasted to a stop right before the finish line and waited for the end of the race. Just as the flagman readied the checkered flag, Gurney hit the starter switch and lurched his car over the line to win the race.

If you want to read the whole story, try
Gurney wins at Daytona