Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

2021 engine formula: political wrangling, technical details, aesthetics...


  • Please log in to reply
3392 replies to this topic

Poll: Pick and choose! (418 member(s) have cast votes)

Extra 3000rpm?

  1. Yay (377 votes [90.19%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 90.19%

  2. Nay (41 votes [9.81%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.81%

More prescriptive engine design, standard energy store etc

  1. Yay (210 votes [50.24%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.24%

  2. Nay (208 votes [49.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 49.76%

Removing MGU-H, more tactical use of MGU-K

  1. Yay (308 votes [73.68%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 73.68%

  2. Nay (110 votes [26.32%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.32%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#3351 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 07 December 2018 - 20:48

2015 Merc 3500mm
2018 Merc 3726mm

I'm pretty confident that the 2014 Merc was even shorter, which puts it into the ballpark for 2021 regs. Which is still too long.

McLaren MP4/4 2875mm

 

 

Shocker:  Wheelbase 1983 Ferrari 123C3:  2600 mm, in other words more than a full meter shorter than the 2018 Merc!!!!


Edited by Henri Greuter, 07 December 2018 - 20:50.


Advertisement

#3352 Pete_f1

Pete_f1
  • Member

  • 1,190 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 07 December 2018 - 20:56

Shocker: Wheelbase 1983 Ferrari 123C3: 2600 mm, in other words more than a full meter shorter than the 2018 Merc!!!!


Which would you rather have a crash in?

#3353 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 07 December 2018 - 21:10

Which would you rather have a crash in?

 

Neither.....

 

But keep in mind that, despite the fact that the driver of the Ferrais had their feet ahead of the front axle, both cars have a turbocharged V6 and as far as I could deduct, it had a fuel tank of 220 liter.

You can't blame that extra meter&more solely to the fact that the feet are behind the front axle. If the 1988 McLaren could have a wheelbase of less that 3 meters with a near similar engine configuration and fuel tank capacity, then it is possible to reduce the wheel base to a maximum of 3 meters and still ene up wit safe cars.

 

But the problem that many people posting out here will have with those cars: they would be slower and maybe more tricky to drive, the latter is likely not the problem . But dare to suggest rules that make F1 cars some 5 to 8 seconds slower and look for what kind of outcries we would read....



#3354 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 723 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 07 December 2018 - 21:39

I believe the length of the cars is dictated by the manufacturer's aero design package and not stuff like fuel tanks and engines packed under the bodywork.  Mercedes is certainly capable of packing stuff in as well as anybody else but their cars are consistently longer than others.  That is because their aero design package uses a low rake angle floor which needs to be longer to achieve the same down force as the high rake angle floors used by Ferrari and Red Bull.



#3355 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 December 2018 - 06:23

Neither.....

 

But keep in mind that, despite the fact that the driver of the Ferrais had their feet ahead of the front axle, both cars have a turbocharged V6 and as far as I could deduct, it had a fuel tank of 220 liter.

You can't blame that extra meter&more solely to the fact that the feet are behind the front axle. If the 1988 McLaren could have a wheelbase of less that 3 meters with a near similar engine configuration and fuel tank capacity, then it is possible to reduce the wheel base to a maximum of 3 meters and still ene up wit safe cars.

 

But the problem that many people posting out here will have with those cars: they would be slower and maybe more tricky to drive, the latter is likely not the problem . But dare to suggest rules that make F1 cars some 5 to 8 seconds slower and look for what kind of outcries we would read....

 

The 126C3 also had a transverse gearbox.

 

It was also built under regulations that allowed ground effects tunnels - today's cars have to rely on the underfloor and diffuser, which explains why they need the narrow rear end, and why the extended wheelbase is used.

 

I couldn't find a length for the Tipo 021 from teh 126C3, but the mounting faces for the chassis and gearbox are 480mm apart for the current engines, and almost all components have to fit in a space 700mm long (don't think the battery is included in this).



#3356 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 08 December 2018 - 09:42

The 126C3 also had a transverse gearbox.

 

It was also built under regulations that allowed ground effects tunnels - today's cars have to rely on the underfloor and diffuser, which explains why they need the narrow rear end, and why the extended wheelbase is used.

 

I couldn't find a length for the Tipo 021 from teh 126C3, but the mounting faces for the chassis and gearbox are 480mm apart for the current engines, and almost all components have to fit in a space 700mm long (don't think the battery is included in this).

 

 

It had a transversal gerbox, yes. But the C3 we saw being raced wasn't designed in the ground effects years. Maybe initially but the one that eventually debuted halfway the 1983 season was a flatbottom.

Remember, back in late '82 several wingcars were scrapped and flatbottoms built instead. Ferrari made flatbottom versions of the C2 (C2B) to start the season with.

BTW, the original '82 wingcar 126C2 was at least tested with a longitudional gearbox but I can't recall if it was ever used in a race.

That car could have ended up so much different in its first ever '82 event compared with the final versions of Las Vegas '82. Over the seaon it was modified extensively already.

 

 

Anyway, reducing and limiting overall length and/or wheelbvase will be a massive aero reducing rule that might work really well and because of the danger of something working too well to reduce the speeds won't be implemented by FIA,


Edited by Henri Greuter, 08 December 2018 - 09:44.


#3357 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,911 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 08 December 2018 - 10:05

If the 1988 McLaren could have a wheelbase of less that 3 meters with a near similar engine configuration and fuel tank capacity, then it is possible to reduce the wheel base to a maximum of 3 meters and still ene up wit safe cars.


That’s a big if. The 1988 cars had very different engine configurations. The MP4/4 had a twin turbo with its turbochargers in the sidepods - immensely chunky bricks of sidepods. Modern cars have, as I mentioned earlier, a single turbo, tow motor generators units and an energy store as well to fit in that space. You could of course limit the wheelbase and force the teams to move stuff outwards.

Modern cars are considerably safer than those of 1988 too. They have rear crash structures unheard of back then, and the front crash structures are significantly more advanced than back then too.

#3358 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 08 December 2018 - 12:58

I believe the length of the cars is dictated by the manufacturer's aero design package and not stuff like fuel tanks and engines packed under the bodywork.  Mercedes is certainly capable of packing stuff in as well as anybody else but their cars are consistently longer than others.  That is because their aero design package uses a low rake angle floor which needs to be longer to achieve the same down force as the high rake angle floors used by Ferrari and Red Bull.

 

For sure that this is indeed the main reason as of how we get these nearly 6 meter long cars of today. But it was only possble because there was no limit on overall length or wheel base. With a rock solid maximum dimension like waht we for example have with the LPM's, those extreme lengthy cars never had been an option to even consider. let alone create....



#3359 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,651 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 08 December 2018 - 16:41

I truly don’t understand this mania over the length of the cars. It has next to nothing to do with their ability to race closely. I can see an aesthetic argument but with the awful halo on the car that ship has sailed.

Advertisement

#3360 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,429 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 08 December 2018 - 17:38

You talk about it as though the journey is finished when by all accounts it is only just starting.

It's not just about VW. There's a growing list of countries announcing bans on the sale of petrol and diesel cars to come into effect as soon as 2025 and through to 2050. When you take into account the need for global action on greenhouse emissions which was agreed on in the Paris Accords then it would be naive to suggest that number is going to do anything other than rise. Also recent trends in actually tackling said global emissions suggest these targets are only going to get more ambitious and change faster paced because, frankly, we are not yet doing enough.

So it's of every concern to F1 to take note of what is happening in the industry that gave it life. That industry is now starting an inevitable shift towards low carbon solutions, along with the rest of the world. F1 doesn't have to follow*, but my point was that it has to affect their decision making now.


*if they think they can make 'legacy' racing profitable and abandon the leading edge of automotive technology image pretty much for good.

Was the cave man burning fossils fuels and polluting the atmosphere? In many ways there is proof that the world has done through these climate changes.

#3361 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 08 December 2018 - 19:44

I truly don’t understand this mania over the length of the cars. It has next to nothing to do with their ability to race closely. I can see an aesthetic argument but with the awful halo on the car that ship has sailed.

 

One of the reasons why the current cars can't follow another and race closely is because of the effects of the aero of the first car on the following car.

One of the key components within the current car's aero package is their length, that enables and enhances the fact of the the current aero deals.....

 

So.....



#3362 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,911 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 08 December 2018 - 19:52

So, one doesn’t follow from another. The increased length is in pursuit of more aerodynamic efficiency. The trouble following other cars comes from turbulence caused by the cars and the cars being sensitive to that. Turbulence is increased by less efficient aerodynamics, by disturbing the air more.

It’s not necessarily true that a shorter car will be less sensitive to turbulence. It’s certainly not true that a shorter car will produce less turbulence.

#3363 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 12 December 2018 - 02:52

That’s a big if. The 1988 cars had very different engine configurations. The MP4/4 had a twin turbo with its turbochargers in the sidepods - immensely chunky bricks of sidepods. Modern cars have, as I mentioned earlier, a single turbo, tow motor generators units and an energy store as well to fit in that space. You could of course limit the wheelbase and force the teams to move stuff outwards.

Modern cars are considerably safer than those of 1988 too. They have rear crash structures unheard of back then, and the front crash structures are significantly more advanced than back then too.

 

All 4 manufacturers have the MGUH in the vee and the MGUK down beside the crankcase. They do not contribute to length.

 

The entire V6T, including turbo, is probably no longer than a Ferrari V12 from the '90s. Possibly even competitive with the V10s for length. And they all had shorter wheelbases.



#3364 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,911 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 December 2018 - 15:03

All 4 manufacturers have the MGUH in the vee and the MGUK down beside the crankcase. They do not contribute to length.

 

The entire V6T, including turbo, is probably no longer than a Ferrari V12 from the '90s. Possibly even competitive with the V10s for length. And they all had shorter wheelbases.

 

Well I guess it comes down to the aero requirements then.

 

Come to think of it, we all got a fantastic view of what's under the engine cover of a modern F1 car fairly recently.

 

7b0ce11b92292baab37a88971d7bc378.jpg



#3365 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 482 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 13 December 2018 - 11:00

Fantastic shot PYR. To me it looks like the length could be shortened. But I am no mechanical and aerodynamic expert to tell if this is actually possible.



#3366 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,477 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 13 December 2018 - 11:21

If given the room, I'd guess designers are going to favour relatively flat and long over relatively high and short, simply for weight and CoG reasons.

 

The configurations of today aren't necessary, but probably just what each team considers best under the circumstances.



#3367 CountDooku

CountDooku
  • Member

  • 9,442 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 13 December 2018 - 11:55

Yeah the huge length of the cars today is 100% due to aero. 



#3368 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 December 2018 - 12:24

Yeah the huge length of the cars today is 100% due to aero.


One other factor that comes to mind is the balance and weight distribution of the car. In theory Short wheel based cars would in general be way more tail heavy compared with long wheel base. Thus to have a rolling platfom with a more centrally located GC without using excessive ballast will often also lead to longer cars. The alternative is hanging depleted Uranium or lead way forward within the car
But indeed, it all comes down to the optimum in aero efficiency to shape a car and how to built it. Aero efficiency so often overcomes whatever handicap a certain at first sight ungainly construction might bring. That's nothing new.

In 1979, Brabham realized that with replacing the Alfa Flat-12 for a V12 would be at the expense of the GC of the car raising considerably. But the gain in corner speeds due to application of ground effects made it worth all the while.


Perhaps someone can fill me in but I have understood that the regulations prescribe a certain weight distribution over the front and rear axle of the car. Is this a fixed value or a range for minimum and maximum values to remain within? I can imagine that such rules also enhance the creation of the long cars we know nowadays.

#3369 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 2,868 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 December 2018 - 14:31

Works for me.

ETascGZ.png



#3370 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 December 2018 - 14:41

Works for me.
ETascGZ.png



As far as I can see: this is Max in a 2015 (or 2016?) Toro Rosso. Which could, I repeat could, mean that the distance between head and rear wheel on this car is maybe shorter than it is compared with the even longer (wheelbased....) 2017 and 2018 cars ....

Edited by Henri Greuter, 13 December 2018 - 14:45.


#3371 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 2,868 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 December 2018 - 14:42

Perhaps someone can fill me in but I have understood that the regulations prescribe a certain weight distribution over the front and rear axle of the car. Is this a fixed value or a range for minimum and maximum values to remain within? I can imagine that such rules also enhance the creation of the long cars we know nowadays.

It's fixed within a small margin. But they did arrive to roughly that bias before it got fixed.

 

90's had no such rule and also front tires weren't yet as wide as the rules would have allowed. As soon as Goodyear monopoly ended, front tires started to widen. It was an obvious way to increase grip. Weight bias had to move forwards to accommodate.



#3372 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 723 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 13 December 2018 - 15:36

Perhaps someone can fill me in but I have understood that the regulations prescribe a certain weight distribution over the front and rear axle of the car. Is this a fixed value or a range for minimum and maximum values to remain within? I can imagine that such rules also enhance the creation of the long cars we know nowadays.

 

You are right (as usual).  The way they do this for 2018 is with minimum weights.  The car must weigh no less than 733 kg.  The weight on the front wheels must be no less than 333 kg and rear wheels no less than 393 kg.  This gives a 45.4/53.6 front-to-rear weight distribution with wiggle room.  If your car weighed exactly 733 kg you would have 7 kg to put wherever you wanted.



#3373 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,911 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 December 2018 - 16:01

Fantastic shot PYR. To me it looks like the length could be shortened. But I am no mechanical and aerodynamic expert to tell if this is actually possible.


The problem is we can’t see exactly what’s going on with all the heat shields present. However, there are probably some spacer units in there.

What I don’t get is why people get so bothered about the cars’ lengths. The wheelbase is one of the few things on the car that designers have some freedom over and we do get variations.

Aesthetics are always a personal preference. It’s not universal. Would a modern F1 car look in proportion if it was as short as one from 25 years ago? Or would it look chunky, fat and awkward? We don’t know and probably would never all agree anyway.

#3374 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 December 2018 - 18:15

You are right (as usual).  The way they do this for 2018 is with minimum weights.  The car must weigh no less than 733 kg.  The weight on the front wheels must be no less than 333 kg and rear wheels no less than 393 kg.  This gives a 45.4/53.6 front-to-rear weight distribution with wiggle room.  If your car weighed exactly 733 kg you would have 7 kg to put wherever you wanted.

 

Thanks for filling me (and dare I say: us) in.

About the compliment:   :blush: 

I know for fact that I have been wrong on several occasions and been corrected the hard way. So that "as usual" is definitely not the case.

But still, thanks for the compliment and your time to get my question answered. :up:


Edited by Henri Greuter, 13 December 2018 - 18:15.


#3375 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 2,009 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 13 December 2018 - 19:21

The problem is we can’t see exactly what’s going on with all the heat shields present. However, there are probably some spacer units in there.

What I don’t get is why people get so bothered about the cars’ lengths. The wheelbase is one of the few things on the car that designers have some freedom over and we do get variations.

Aesthetics are always a personal preference. It’s not universal. Would a modern F1 car look in proportion if it was as short as one from 25 years ago? Or would it look chunky, fat and awkward? We don’t know and probably would never all agree anyway.

 

I think it's the perception that short cars would give us twitchier front ends and faster looking racing, where as long cars 'feel' like they would change direction slower and be more leary. 

 

In reality we know this is a function of tyre width and wheelbase as well as length, but I know it's something I have to remind myself from time to time. 



#3376 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted Yesterday, 04:36

The Williams FW14B had a wheelbase of 2,921mm (https://www.f1techni.../williams-fw14b) and an overall width of 2,150mm.

 

The cars of that era look pretty good proportions wise.



#3377 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted Yesterday, 04:47

If that is the STR10 from 2015, the wheelbase was between 3,100mm and 3,200mm, and an overall length of 5,100mm  (per https://en.wikipedia...oro_Rosso_STR10).

 

The 2017 W08 had a wheelbase of 3,726mm (https://en.wikipedia...1_W08_EQ_Power+) and the W09 was the same (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes_AMG_F1_W09_EQ_Power%2B).

 

SO there is some scope for shortening the cars.

 

For 2021 they front tyre width will be reduced, which would allow them to move the weight bias a little to the rear.



#3378 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,911 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted Yesterday, 06:34

The Williams FW14B had a wheelbase of 2,921mm (https://www.f1techni.../williams-fw14b) and an overall width of 2,150mm.

 

The cars of that era look pretty good proportions wise.

 

Sure. I think so too. But, now add in the increased head protection (including the halo) and the front, side and rear impact structures required today. Then consider that you can't undo aerodynamic knowledge and that you wouldn't want to recreate the extremely pitch sensitive aero of the time. Cars were so much more prone to flipping back then because the teams didn't have the resources to explore all attitudes in the wind tunnel.

 

Will it still look as good?



#3379 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted Yesterday, 07:20

If that is the STR10 from 2015, the wheelbase was between 3,100mm and 3,200mm, and an overall length of 5,100mm  (per https://en.wikipedia...oro_Rosso_STR10).
 
The 2017 W08 had a wheelbase of 3,726mm (https://en.wikipedia...1_W08_EQ_Power+) and the W09 was the same (https://en.wikipedia...1_W09_EQ_Power+).
 
SO there is some scope for shortening the cars.
 
For 2021 they front tyre width will be reduced, which would allow them to move the weight bias a little to the rear.



I also wonder, what is the effect of the extreme raised nosed of the current cars, combined with the drivers being more laying than sitting i the car? And is the effect significant?
On first sight, it seems to me that both these trends are related. It first started with putting drivers more int a laying position within the car, '86 Brabham and '88 McLaren the pioneers on this trend. Thn you got the trend of raising the nose of the cars to extreme levels, which made it necessary to raise the legs of the drivers ever higher up in the car, thus also forcing them to remain laying in the car.
As a results: Cockpitt volume became longer and due to the rule that the feet of the drivers have to be behind the `front axle line`, that moved the head of the driver more to the rear, potentially lengthening the wheel base.

Reducing/Banning the raised noses and make the drivers sit in the car again might gain a slight reduction of the wheel base.

In the ever continuing story of how ofte aero gain outdoes any handicap of a new construction detail: banning the raised noses could lower the cars in front and bring down the GC of the car. The disadvantage of the higher located GC, introduced due to the raised nose was again more than nullified, if not overwhelmed by the gains thanks to the aero applications it made possible.

Advertisement

#3380 phrank

phrank
  • Member

  • 953 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted Yesterday, 08:32

Sure. I think so too. But, now add in the increased head protection (including the halo) and the front, side and rear impact structures required today. Then consider that you can't undo aerodynamic knowledge and that you wouldn't want to recreate the extremely pitch sensitive aero of the time. Cars were so much more prone to flipping back then because the teams didn't have the resources to explore all attitudes in the wind tunnel.

 

Will it still look as good?

But the power units are smaller now? Those dimentions can still be target, even if you include the crash structures and current aero knowledge. Just like you can make the more challenging to drive by removing power steering and removing hand clutches and 20 knobs and dials on the steering wheel.



#3381 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 8,752 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted Yesterday, 09:44

The problem is we can’t see exactly what’s going on with all the heat shields present. However, there are probably some spacer units in there.

What I don’t get is why people get so bothered about the cars’ lengths. The wheelbase is one of the few things on the car that designers have some freedom over and we do get variations.

Aesthetics are always a personal preference. It’s not universal. Would a modern F1 car look in proportion if it was as short as one from 25 years ago? Or would it look chunky, fat and awkward? We don’t know and probably would never all agree anyway.

 

The length is a function of the weight limits. They can't achieve the minimum weight so they lower the bar (increase the minimum weight). Teams could make the cars shorter, less materials needed = lighter car. Same happened with the halo where the evacuation time was doubled (5 > 10 seconds to get out).

 

743 kg is almost 200kg heavier than the weight during most of the 90's and '00's.



#3382 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,911 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted Yesterday, 10:59

But the power units are smaller now? Those dimentions can still be target, even if you include the crash structures and current aero knowledge. Just like you can make the more challenging to drive by removing power steering and removing hand clutches and 20 knobs and dials on the steering wheel.


This is why I’m asking the question of why the length is even an issue for some people. It seems to be a purely aesthetic argument and as a result a purely subjective one. I have no doubt that a modern F1 car could be built as short as something from whatever era you choose. But is there any good reason to do so other than your own personal view that they might look better?

#3383 phrank

phrank
  • Member

  • 953 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted Yesterday, 11:09

This is why I’m asking the question of why the length is even an issue for some people. It seems to be a purely aesthetic argument and as a result a purely subjective one. I have no doubt that a modern F1 car could be built as short as something from whatever era you choose. But is there any good reason to do so other than your own personal view that they might look better?

It is a subjective thing of course, but, to me, F1 is a visual spectacle, so the look of an F1 car is vital to its success. Beside there have been numerous tech rules introduces, solely on the basis of aesthetics, like banning the x-wings and introducing the slanted rear wing and delta front wing (what technically not a delta wing, I know)



#3384 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,911 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted Yesterday, 11:15

I also wonder, what is the effect of the extreme raised nosed of the current cars, combined with the drivers being more laying than sitting i the car? And is the effect significant?
On first sight, it seems to me that both these trends are related. It first started with putting drivers more int a laying position within the car, '86 Brabham and '88 McLaren the pioneers on this trend. Thn you got the trend of raising the nose of the cars to extreme levels, which made it necessary to raise the legs of the drivers ever higher up in the car, thus also forcing them to remain laying in the car.
As a results: Cockpitt volume became longer and due to the rule that the feet of the drivers have to be behind the `front axle line`, that moved the head of the driver more to the rear, potentially lengthening the wheel base.

Reducing/Banning the raised noses and make the drivers sit in the car again might gain a slight reduction of the wheel base.

In the ever continuing story of how ofte aero gain outdoes any handicap of a new construction detail: banning the raised noses could lower the cars in front and bring down the GC of the car. The disadvantage of the higher located GC, introduced due to the raised nose was again more than nullified, if not overwhelmed by the gains thanks to the aero applications it made possible.


The current lay-down position was invented by Adrian Newey and Damon Hill to accommodate his tall frame into the FW18. It caught on because it got the driver’s torso low down in the car, and his head lower and out of the airstream, but without putting him the awkward chin-to-the-chest attidute of earlier cars.

The driver’s legs aren’t really that important in this position and can be raised or lowered without too much trouble. You can try this yourself on your sofa.

#3385 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,911 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted Yesterday, 11:17

It is a subjective thing of course, but, to me, F1 is a visual spectacle, so the look of an F1 car is vital to its success. Beside there have been numerous tech rules introduces, solely on the basis of aesthetics, like banning the x-wings and introducing the slanted rear wing and delta front wing (what technically not a delta wing, I know)


True, but do you think a modern car would look any good if it was short and fat rather than long and sleek as they are now? This isn’t a question to make you change your mind. I’m asking so you might consider that shortening the cars won’t return them to an older look. It’ll make a new look.

#3386 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 8,752 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted Yesterday, 11:22

It also coincided with the frontal area of the head rest sides. Watch the Benetton and Ferrari in 1996 and they had quite a bulky solution, while the Williams (and iirc Jordan) solutions barely had an aerodynamic influence on the car. And of course the CoG was lowered as well with the torso lower. 

 

800px-Ferrari_F310_1996_Schumacher.jpg

(By tonylanciabeta, cropped/retouched by Morio - photo taken by tonylanciabeta, flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wiki...?curid=3791432)

 

vs.

 

1024px-1996_Williams-Renault_FW_cropped.

(By This photo was taken by Przemysław JahrAutorem zdjęcia jest Przemysław JahrWykorzystując zdjęcie proszę podać jako autora:Przemysław Jahr / Wikimedia Commonscropped by Morio - Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wiki...?curid=4325695)

 

 

But not only aesthetics make me want shorter cars, but I believe it is easier to overtake on street tracks with less car needed to overtake before a corner.



#3387 phrank

phrank
  • Member

  • 953 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted Yesterday, 11:28

True, but do you think a modern car would look any good if it was short and fat rather than long and sleek as they are now? This isn’t a question to make you change your mind. I’m asking so you might consider that shortening the cars won’t return them to an older look. It’ll make a new look.

I think a modern car would look better if it was short, for me this would give much better proportions. I doubt they will get 'fat' looking, because of all technological advances that have been made in packaging and aerodynamics. So I accept and expet them not to look like the cars from the end 80's/begin 90's era, what would be good, I dont want them to look old, just better. For example the 2018 Indycar has roughly the same dimensions/proportions, only with and updated aero and a more backward placed driver and most people agree its a great looking car.



#3388 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 482 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted Yesterday, 14:12

I think a modern car would look better if it was short, for me this would give much better proportions. I doubt they will get 'fat' looking, because of all technological advances that have been made in packaging and aerodynamics. So I accept and expet them not to look like the cars from the end 80's/begin 90's era, what would be good, I dont want them to look old, just better. For example the 2018 Indycar has roughly the same dimensions/proportions, only with and updated aero and a more backward placed driver and most people agree its a great looking car.


From the cockpit screen to the very end of the car, the DW12 chassis has had a great overhaul. This part of the car looks great. But I still dislike the bulky nose section.

#3389 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 723 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted Yesterday, 14:52

I see the cars got heavier again in the 2019 Regs.

Now minimum is 740 kg and weight distribution is dictated by percent with front minimum of 45.5% and rear minimum of 53.5%.  This gives 336.5 kg front minimum and 396 kg rear minimum with 7.5 kg to play with.

 

I would think at least some effort would be made by the teams to find tiny drivers - like race horse jockeys.


Edited by nonobaddog, Yesterday, 14:53.


#3390 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,911 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted Yesterday, 14:55

But also for 2019 is the combined minimum weight for driver and seat isn’t there? So it doesn’t matter how much the driver weighs.

#3391 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 723 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted Yesterday, 15:09

But also for 2019 is the combined minimum weight for driver and seat isn’t there? So it doesn’t matter how much the driver weighs.

 

Right you are! - at one time I knew that but as an old person I reserve the right to forget stuff at random times.

 

From the regs - 

4.6 Weight of the driver :
4.6.1 The weight of the driver with his seat and driving equipment will be established by the FIA technical delegate at the first Event of the Championship, this reference weight may be amended at any time during the Championship season if deemed necessary by the FIA technical delegate. This reference weight will be used to establish the minimum weight of the driver and ballast referred to in Article 4.6.2 below.
4.6.2 The reference weight of the driver will be added to the weight of any ballast designated for this purpose and, at no time during the Event, may this be less than 80kg.
 
So as long as the driver weighs less than 80 kg (176 lbs in old money) his weight is not a handicap.  Although the lighter the driver the more ballast you can have and you could lower the center of gravity somewhat by putting the ballast lower.


#3392 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 482 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted Yesterday, 15:15

The lighter the driver the more advantage a team has with him. Even if it's only shifting weight around, it is helping. Probably even more with the new introduced rules compared to the he old rule where a driver didn't count with the minimum weight.

#3393 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 8,752 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted Yesterday, 15:24

In the new rule, the seat area including the driver is always 80 kg. So no advantage there.