74 replies to this topic

[Henri Greuter]

It's simple.
 
Simpler engines and a shorter wheelbase for starters. That's 100kg right there.

Indeed, there are a few options left, like the ones you mention. Though I wonder if a more simple engine will save you that much weight: unless you mean getting rid of all the hybrid techno.

But then, look at the history of F1 since 2000....

Can we name any simple remedy ever applied since 2000 to a problem solvable with a simple problem? Most often it ended up with yet more complicated solutions to retain the source of all problems whatever it took to keep it and `fights` its complications with even more complicated solutions.
And in no field this has been done more often then with aero. It is so simple to slash aero efficiency with a few rules. But nobody wants to be the one who denies the aerodesigners the tea tray, raised noses, long wheelbases to enable ever longer yet less wider sidepod structures and so on, etc......

The last truly draconian aero rule I can think of was the instant ban on ground effects for 1983.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 19 October 2018 - 13:05.

[boillot]

The last truly draconian aero rule I can think of was the instant ban on ground effects for 1983.

True, and before that perhaps the ban of high wings at Monaco in 1969. And that’s it. Engine changes were much more frequent and drastic. A bit strange for a road going and not aeronautical sport.

[Garndell]

Indeed, there are a few options left, like the ones you mention. Though I wonder if a more simple engine will save you that much weight: unless you mean getting rid of all the hybrid techno.

But then, look at the history of F1 since 2000....

Can we name any simple remedy ever applied since 2000 to a problem solvable with a simple problem? Most often it ended up with yet more complicated solutions to retain the source of all problems whatever it took to keep it and `fights` its complications with even more complicated solutions.
And in no field this has been done more often then with aero. It is so simple to slash aero efficiency with a few rules. But nobody wants to be the one who denies the aerodesigners the tea tray, raised noses, long wheelbases to enable ever longer yet less wider sidepod structures and so on, etc......

The last truly draconian aero rule I can think of was the instant ban on ground effects for 1983.

 

The last era of V8's had a minimum weight of 95KG, the V6 Turbo PU's have a minimum weight of 145KG.  I suspect they shoot for the minimum weight so yes it would have to lose some Hybrid parts (KERS from 2009 & 2011-2013 may have been included in the 95KG but I don't know).

 

I don't think a ban on bargeboards would be draconian, I do think there will be more work done in that area with the 2019 front wings though.

[Beri]

Look at all that money spend that adds nothing to the racing.

+1

These things would cut costs by the topteams already by millions. They seem to have a different variation on their bargeboards almost every race.

[Henri Greuter]

The last era of V8's had a minimum weight of 95KG, the V6 Turbo PU's have a minimum weight of 145KG.  I suspect they shoot for the minimum weight so yes it would have to lose some Hybrid parts (KERS from 2009 & 2011-2013 may have been included in the 95KG but I don't know).
 
I don't think a ban on bargeboards would be draconian, I do think there will be more work done in that area with the 2019 front wings though.

Last V8's also had KERS and battery system for E-storage. Shall we add that up to the weight of the engine package????

[Nathan]

I guess it is hard being the pinnacle of engineering and then be aesthetically pleasing.  What do we want the pinnacle of engineering or a nice looking car?

 

I am for a cleaner look by the way, but it sometime conflicts with my thoughts of, "let's see what the engineers can do".

I hardly notice barge boards but all the crap on the front wing and in front of the rear wheels bugs me for some reason

 

This is a real good question.

 

To begin, I think in general few motorsports are really pushing the pinnacle of technology for racing cars.  The only thing that rivals a current F1 car is an LMP1 hybrid and those are like hen's teeth.  High tech motorsport has simply been priced out.  I think this allows F1 to lessen the feats of engineering and still remain at the pinnacle.

 

Fans I think prefer driver vs. driver than car vs. car.  I think fans prefer aesthetics and wheel-to-wheel racing to outright aerodynamic performance.  I think fans prefer a more balanced performance spectrum among teams.  So after considering all of the above I think F1 can both afford and has a need to lower it's technological peak.

[baddog]

Look at all that money spend that adds nothing to the racing.

 

It allows Red Bull Racing to provide SOME kind of excitement this year I guess.

[Henri Greuter]

True, and before that perhaps the ban of high wings at Monaco in 1969. And that’s it. Engine changes were much more frequent and drastic. A bit strange for a road going and not aeronautical sport.

 

Monaco '69, I forgot about that one. That is probably the most radical one ever implied, during an actual racing weekend!

 

Maybe we can add the near instant rule changes after Imola and Monaco   (edit '94)  too? one of those being the introduction of the plank to assure getting more ground clearance, hence less aero generated grip?

Edited by Henri Greuter, 20 October 2018 - 11:51.

[boillot]

Monaco '69, I forgot about that one. That is probably the most radical one ever implied, during an actual racing weekend!

Maybe we can add the near instant rule changes after Imola and Monaco too? one of those being the introduction of the plank to assure getting more ground clearance, hence less aero generated grip?

Yes. And in the end, all these changes have been triggered by fatal or very serious accidents.

[Henri Greuter]

Yes. And in the end, all these changes have been triggered by fatal or very serious accidents.

 

Chilling thought: what is needed to .....

[boillot]

Chilling thought: what is needed to .....

Exactly.

[pitlanepalpatine]

To be honest I'd rather they'd do something about the floors. The cars look fairly sleek until you get the top down view and you just see this moving rectangle.

[TF110]

No, they shouldn't get rid of them, they should make them simpler. But the question is really only a part of what the problem suggested is. The front wings and all the little fins are what is the issue, not just bargeboards. The pop ups on those are the problem, not the bargeboards themselves. They could be useful for flowing air in the right way instead of dirtying up the air made by the car. They SHOULD be used in conjunction with some form of ground effect started by channels on the front wing and generated under the nose of the car to flow the air towards the area below the sidepods. Lmp's have them too but there's no issues with following those cars closely behind.

[kumo7]

Cars cannot follow the car simply because the car in front created turbulences.

Unstable air flow kills the effect of front wings.

 

SO getting rid of rear wings will help reduce the rear turbulence, getting rid of front wing will help reducing the effects with or without car in its front.

 

With no front nor rear wings, the cars will go slower, and slower than lower category is a problem.

so abolish both front and rear wings from all categories of open wheel racing. 

 

Besides, there you have Mega-monster technology and heads of genious that improves the speed.

Edited by kumo7, 21 October 2018 - 05:14.

[Otaku]

The ideal F1 car aesthetics should be similar to IndyCar's current design, in my opinion.

 

 

That's absolutely horrendous.

 

 

Now, if they bring back something like this I wont complain:

 

[kumo7]

To be honest I'd rather they'd do something about the floors. The cars look fairly sleek until you get the top down view and you just see this moving rectangle.

 

This.

 

Get rid of everything except four tires, chassis, suspension, PU and its ancillaries, then discuss how it can be packed in the body work. 

Packing, but not aerofoils, no wings neither front nor rear.

 

Traction control and other bits, will help cars race on track, hell it may even have auto break assists defined by FIA for safety concerns.

Edited by kumo7, 21 October 2018 - 07:45.

[Henri Greuter]

That's absolutely horrendous.

 

 

Now, if they bring back something like this I wont complain:

 

 

 

The angle wiith which the Indycar in Superspeedway trim is taken is very unfavourable for the car since ti still makes that rear wheel deflector oh-so visible.

Seen from aside however, the car looks very well balanced, dimensions (length etc) are quite fine and getting close to the car you hallow.

[Henri Greuter]

This.

 

Get rid of everything except four tires, chassis, suspension, PU and its ancillaries, then discuss how it can be packed in the body work. 

Packing, but not aerofoils, no wings neither front nor rear.

 

Traction control and other bits, will help cars race on track, hell it may even have auto break assists defined by FIA for safety concerns.

 

 

I still think it to be so funny to remember that back in 1979,1980 and 1982 we actually had F1 cars running without frontwings or otherwise very minimal wings. And they didn't look so weird at all! Granted, the cars of that era generated tons of downforce through ground effects and we saw what that had for results.

[FPV GTHO]

I still think it to be so funny to remember that back in 1979,1980 and 1982 we actually had F1 cars running without frontwings or otherwise very minimal wings. And they didn't look so weird at all! Granted, the cars of that era generated tons of downforce through ground effects and we saw what that had for results.

They also had minimal length in the noses. Todays cars would be incredibly ugly without some form of front wing.

[Henri Greuter]

They also had minimal length in the noses. Todays cars would be incredibly ugly without some form of front wing.

 

 

I think the length of the noses wouldnt be the problem on current cars without wings: the level of how they are raised and the bodywork between the front wheels almost marginally highet then just ahead of the cockpit making them look even more rediculous.

[Kalmake]

The angle wiith which the Indycar in Superspeedway trim is taken is very unfavourable for the car since ti still makes that rear wheel deflector oh-so visible.

Seen from aside however, the car looks very well balanced, dimensions (length etc) are quite fine and getting close to the car you hallow.

That Indycar is 5 meters long (source Indycar.com) same as a current F1 car. That old McLaren is 4.5.

 

Long wheelbase is exceptional to the current F1 car. Seems they are limiting it from 2021.

[Henri Greuter]

That Indycar is 5 meters long (source Indycar.com) same as a current F1 car. That old McLaren is 4.5.

 

Long wheelbase is exceptional to the current F1 car. Seems they are limiting it from 2021.

 

Current F1 car is at least 5.6 meters.

And much of the extra meter of length of the indycar compared with the McLaren is du to the extreme long nose of the indycar

Edited by Henri Greuter, 21 October 2018 - 10:03.

[kumo7]

I still think it to be so funny to remember that back in 1979,1980 and 1982 we actually had F1 cars running without frontwings or otherwise very minimal wings. And they didn't look so weird at all! Granted, the cars of that era generated tons of downforce through ground effects and we saw what that had for results.

 

Only that it was banned, as was. 

 

Never the less, now with more cal power in AI, I am sure race car will run differently and find some incredible technology.

 

Currently anything which was found on other platform are brought in to F1 to make the F1car run faster.

Kinda like injecting dog's blood into a wolf to run fast, while doing the other way round was an ancient form.

 

 

 

Besides a open wheel racer with no front and rear wings with current Pu will be a hell of a car to drive. 

We need skilled drivers to make them race....

[Nonesuch]

That Indycar is 5 meters long (source Indycar.com) same as a current F1 car.

 

The Indycar is 512 cm long with a 298-308 cm wheelbase.

 

Last year's Mercedes F1 car was listed by the team as being 'over 500 cm' long with a much longer 373 cm wheelbase.

 

Motorsport's Craig Scarborough claimed the Mercedes was 'over 570 cm', but the teams don't seem to be very forthcoming about the exact figures: https://www.motorspo...974680/1376623/

[Kalmake]

The Indycar is 512 cm long with a 298-308 cm wheelbase.

 

Last year's Mercedes F1 car was listed by the team as being 'over 500 cm' long with a much longer 373 cm wheelbase.

 

Motorsport's Craig Scarborough claimed the Mercedes was 'over 570 cm', but the teams don't seem to be very forthcoming about the exact figures: https://www.motorspo...974680/1376623/

Renault web says 5480mm https://www.renaults...ula-1-car-.html

 

In my head was a 2017 table from F1technical where they were all around 5 meters. It must be wrong then so I wont link it.