Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The size of modern F1 cars


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#1 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 3,779 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 02 February 2019 - 00:37

Insane when you see them side by side, taken from a Reddit post

 

https://www.reddit.c...errari_f1_cars/

 

Someone mentioned some of the cars were mods from Assetto Corsa and might be a bit off but I know last years Merc had a wheelbase 1m longer than an average mid 90s car so it looks about right.

 

dzcbf2trrzd21.png

 

SB8s5Dx.png



Advertisement

#2 StanBarrett2

StanBarrett2
  • Member

  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 02 February 2019 - 01:54

The size of SF71-H is ridiculously insane compared to the 312 of 1967



#3 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 18,515 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 02 February 2019 - 02:33

Wow. No wonder the cars were more exciting to watch twenty years ago.

#4 OvDrone

OvDrone
  • Member

  • 13,221 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 02 February 2019 - 02:42

It can still get worse:

 

kQtyWB9.jpg



#5 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 02 February 2019 - 04:38

No wonder they have such a hard time passing these days...

#6 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 02 February 2019 - 04:45

They have also gotten uglier from 2009 onwards. Imagine the London double decker bus beside last year's car. 

 

Seriously this shows how wrong F1 is now 



#7 BalanceUT

BalanceUT
  • Member

  • 2,273 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 02 February 2019 - 05:06

Fewer legs crushed nowadays, and you can see why. 



#8 Alburaq

Alburaq
  • Member

  • 2,860 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 02 February 2019 - 05:18

But the rear is getting longer and longer too.

(while the front has been lengthened mainly because the the rules wanted that explicitly)

2010vs2018 (remember that the 2010 cars went longer at the rear when the fuel tanks had to carry fuel for the whole race...)

renaul10.jpg


Edited by Alburaq, 02 February 2019 - 05:45.


#9 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 2,858 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 02 February 2019 - 07:05

Wow. No wonder the cars were more exciting to watch twenty years ago.

I'm not sure they were.

#10 Christbiscuit

Christbiscuit
  • Member

  • 348 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 02 February 2019 - 07:12

They’d have a lot of fun using 60’s wheelbases at 2019 cornering speeds.

I’m not sure I mind, to be honest. Less death and maiming isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The size isn’t the cause of modern F1 problems, no sir.

#11 Alburaq

Alburaq
  • Member

  • 2,860 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 02 February 2019 - 08:19

Length and wheelbase are ridiculous. weight is too big too and all that should be reduced in the future.

But yes, it's not f1's number 1 problem.


Edited by Alburaq, 02 February 2019 - 08:19.


#12 Paul Parker

Paul Parker
  • Member

  • 2,198 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 02 February 2019 - 08:25

They’d have a lot of fun using 60’s wheelbases at 2019 cornering speeds.

I’m not sure I mind, to be honest. Less death and maiming isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The size isn’t the cause of modern F1 problems, no sir.

 

Agree regarding safety issues but nevertheless they are grotesque looking and far too big, no wonder there are so many collisions on track.



#13 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 13,697 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 02 February 2019 - 08:33

Took this at AI this year. Just ridiculous.

 

c7rfZBO.jpg

 



#14 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 02 February 2019 - 09:02

Short oval car.



#15 pacificquay

pacificquay
  • Member

  • 4,028 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 02 February 2019 - 09:20

Yes the cars are a bit bigger but I think people need to learn a bit more about scale, angle and perspective before attempting to post these composite comparison pics

#16 kumo7

kumo7
  • Member

  • 3,396 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 02 February 2019 - 09:26

No wonder they have such a hard time passing these days...

 

FIA can actually shut their mouth up whenever teams complain about it.

The driver who blame the back makers making they over take difficult can be made aware of this size issue...



#17 Alburaq

Alburaq
  • Member

  • 2,860 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 02 February 2019 - 10:20

Yes the cars are a bit bigger but I think people need to learn a bit more about scale, angle and perspective before attempting to post these composite comparison pics

 

I think you need to just look for pictures showing pre-2010 cars... 

Cars are a lot bigger and the comparisons are just a mean to show they are bigger. There is no need for precision, because the difference is big, and everybody knows that even the best comparisons are not precise.

The most representative ones are the old showcars that have been modified to look like post-2009 cars. 

The Mclaren/merc one is way out of scale yes.


Edited by Alburaq, 02 February 2019 - 10:22.


#18 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 3,779 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 02 February 2019 - 10:22

But the rear is getting longer and longer too.

(while the front has been lengthened mainly because the the rules wanted that explicitly)

2010vs2018 (remember that the 2010 cars went longer at the rear when the fuel tanks had to carry fuel for the whole race...)

renaul10.jpg

 

The 91 Ferrari (3rd from the left) also had to carry fuel for the race and a V12 engine, I think it's more to do with the powertrains and battery packs.



#19 Jeeves

Jeeves
  • Member

  • 1,068 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 02 February 2019 - 10:27

It can still get worse:

 

BMW Sportscars, outsizing the Nimitz class since 2016.

 

Always good to have one or two in a race, in case they need an emergency landing area for the medevac helo.



Advertisement

#20 Alburaq

Alburaq
  • Member

  • 2,860 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 02 February 2019 - 10:39

Many factors do incite the teams to lengthen their cars. The hybrid PUs and all their ancillaries are indeed tricky to package and even if the fuel tank is only 110kg big, it's easier to lengthen the rear in order to help packaging (dont forget that the ES and the ERS CPUs must sit underneath the fuel area)... The mandatory weight distribution too incites them to lengthen the wheelbase. But aero is probably the main reason; they want to retain the very slim/undercut sidepods, the long floors for more ground effect, the more steady flow towards the rear of the car... One of the reasons the teams build gearbox casings that are way too long... 



#21 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 31,245 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 02 February 2019 - 10:49

 The size isn’t the cause of modern F1 problems, no sir.

 

Too right. This "issue" seems to be a favourite hobby horse for a few fans, yet it has very little to do with how good the racing is.



#22 Anja

Anja
  • Member

  • 7,204 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 02 February 2019 - 11:50

Many factors do incite the teams to lengthen their cars. The hybrid PUs and all their ancillaries are indeed tricky to package and even if the fuel tank is only 110kg big, it's easier to lengthen the rear in order to help packaging (dont forget that the ES and the ERS CPUs must sit underneath the fuel area)... The mandatory weight distribution too incites them to lengthen the wheelbase. But aero is probably the main reason; they want to retain the very slim/undercut sidepods, the long floors for more ground effect, the more steady flow towards the rear of the car... One of the reasons the teams build gearbox casings that are way too long...

It's all for aero's sake, just look at all the empty space. They could fit all the components in half the length of that area if they had to.

#23 Danyy

Danyy
  • Member

  • 3,066 posts
  • Joined: September 17

Posted 02 February 2019 - 12:56

It's all for aero's sake, just look at all the empty space. They could fit all the components in half the length of that area if they had to.


Soteacndy1000006038_-00_nestle-aero-milk-c made the cars get fat? Makes sense!

#24 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 4,993 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 02 February 2019 - 12:59

To be honest, I find it exaggerated how the F2002(?) stands against the SF71-H.
The F2002 was 4400mm in length, the SF71-H was 3500mm or so on wheelbase alone? The picture makes it look like it is half a meter longer. So exaggerated.

#25 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 2,498 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 February 2019 - 13:34

The size of the cars may not be the biggest issue around. We don't know how much effect it has on overtaking. Nevertheless, it's likely to make some difference on tight and twisty circuits. While the rules are being changed, why not tidy this up?



#26 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 11,325 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 February 2019 - 14:21

The size of the cars may not be the biggest issue around. We don't know how much effect it has on overtaking. Nevertheless, it's likely to make some difference on tight and twisty circuits. While the rules are being changed, why not tidy this up?

 

 

One of the effects the length of the cars has on overtaking is that this extreme length enhances the efficiency of aero and hence the top speeds in both straight line as well as in corners.

And the faster the cars, the more difficult it is to overtake without any artificial aids onto one of the cars only, like DRS....

 

But how many of the people out here want slower cars, even if it would provide better racing????



#27 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 3,779 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 02 February 2019 - 15:03

To be honest, I find it exaggerated how the F2002(?) stands against the SF71-H.
The F2002 was 4400mm in length, the SF71-H was 3500mm or so on wheelbase alone? The picture makes it look like it is half a meter longer. So exaggerated.

 

I'm getting a wheelbase of 3.7m for SF71H and 3.0m for the F2002 which looks about right to me.

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Ferrari_SF71H

 

http://www.grandprix...org/fer2002.htm



#28 paulstevens56

paulstevens56
  • Member

  • 91 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 02 February 2019 - 15:04

I had no idea they had gotten so much bigger, bit of a strange situation really.

 

And a shame.



#29 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 2,498 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 02 February 2019 - 15:05


But how many of the people out here want slower cars, even if it would provide better racing????

Me.



#30 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 19,278 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 02 February 2019 - 15:12

Size has got zero to do with how good the racing is, unless we have to endure more nonsense from the rose tints who like to tell us things were better 20 years ago.  They certainly were not.

 

They may appear a bit on the large side in comparison pics (and I agree they are a bit stretched now), but I suspect most who were to see a refuelling era F1 car in the flesh would likely be surprised at how petite it is.  Now they need bigger fuel tanks, therefore no chance being as short as a mid-noughties car.



#31 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 19,278 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 02 February 2019 - 15:15

Me.


You're not alone. F1 allowed itself to get in a funk about how fast the cars were lapping vs GP2 and vs 2004. It wasn't 'progress'. So they listened to a few whining drivers, and a few whining teams and went with the Red Bull influenced aero splurge the sport is now lumbered with and have tried to do a patch job on for 2019, despite the fact they were increasing the impact of F1's decades old problem. Brainless stuff.

#32 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 11,325 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 February 2019 - 16:25

Size has got zero to do with how good the racing is, unless we have to endure more nonsense from the rose tints who like to tell us things were better 20 years ago.  They certainly were not.

 

They may appear a bit on the large side in comparison pics (and I agree they are a bit stretched now), but I suspect most who were to see a refuelling era F1 car in the flesh would likely be surprised at how petite it is.  Now they need bigger fuel tanks, therefore no chance being as short as a mid-noughties car.

 

 

The answers as of why the cars are so long are pretty much already anwered, I requoted them below.

 

 

Many factors do incite the teams to lengthen their cars. The hybrid PUs and all their ancillaries are indeed tricky to package and even if the fuel tank is only 110kg big, it's easier to lengthen the rear in order to help packaging (dont forget that the ES and the ERS CPUs must sit underneath the fuel area)... The mandatory weight distribution too incites them to lengthen the wheelbase. But aero is probably the main reason; they want to retain the very slim/undercut sidepods, the long floors for more ground effect, the more steady flow towards the rear of the car... One of the reasons the teams build gearbox casings that are way too long... 

 

 

It's all for aero's sake, just look at all the empty space. They could fit all the components in half the length of that area if they had to.

 

 

I also recall something about a rule that certain parts ar not permitted to be further away than a given maximum, measured from the center line of the car. So putting certain parts away from the center line and make side pods wider and thus being able to reduce the length of the car is very difficult.

But the most difficult aspect with teh currend cars is the mandated weight distribution. Making the cars so long in order to get the engine mor forward, as well as the fuel tank with the batteries below them is one of the easiest manners to get this done. That it also enables tho shift the radiators mor to the front and thus stretch the side pods...

 

How extreme things have gone, take a look at de width of the actual side pods! the true pods are nowhere near as wide as the floor of the car anymore like in the past. The widest parts above the floor all are aerocrap parts: fins and bargeboards...

And if the pods could be narrowed even further, it would be done.....



#33 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 11,325 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 February 2019 - 16:25

Me.

 

 

Thanks!



#34 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 16,707 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 02 February 2019 - 17:10

I'm not a fan of thesr limos either, but smaller cars can also be poor for racing.

To me it seems like another reason to rip up the rulebook and start from scratch.

#35 NotAPineapple

NotAPineapple
  • Member

  • 626 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 02 February 2019 - 18:15

But how many of the people out here want slower cars, even if it would provide better racing????

I'd like to see them more unstable and harder to drive and I think that chopping a meter off the wheelbase would do that quite nicely.

#36 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 12,694 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 February 2019 - 18:50

One of the effects the length of the cars has on overtaking is that this extreme length enhances the efficiency of aero and hence the top speeds in both straight line as well as in corners.

And the faster the cars, the more difficult it is to overtake without any artificial aids onto one of the cars only, like DRS....

 

But how many of the people out here want slower cars, even if it would provide better racing????

 

Yes please.



#37 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 3,779 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 02 February 2019 - 19:00

The FW14b weighed 505kg the F2002 600kg, last years Ferrari 733kg that's almost a 50% weight gain.



#38 Paco

Paco
  • Member

  • 7,251 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 February 2019 - 19:08

I think the Lewis car comparison demonstrates it well how crazy the cars are now as result of refueling ban (which i still hold is ridiculous) and battery packs.   I didn't visual what I thought was off design wise the last few years but know it totally makes sense... I always felt the MGP look crazy long but couldnt wrap my head around why.  CAUSE IT IS.

 

Theres gotta be a way so strink the cars again..  Even if representations can skew things a bit, its pretty clear how out of hand in size the cars have gotten.

 

YjNbL5_ugYPR4LYHi5-7OtetdZzTo-rxgjKvpCFL



#39 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 3,779 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 02 February 2019 - 19:14

Think the scale is off on that one though, the wheel diameter shouldn't be smaller on the younger car.



Advertisement

#40 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 31,245 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 02 February 2019 - 19:24

The FW14b weighed 505kg the F2002 600kg, last years Ferrari 733kg that's almost a 50% weight gain.


You need to add Nigel Mansell’s 80 kg or so for the FW14B. Prior to 1995 the driver’s weight was not included.

#41 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 3,779 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 02 February 2019 - 19:34

You need to add Nigel Mansell’s 80 kg or so for the FW14B. Prior to 1995 the driver’s weight was not included.

 

Yeah, I'd forgotten that, if you allow 70kg for an average driver the car is about 660kg today which doesn't look quite so bad.



#42 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 02 February 2019 - 21:36

I think the Lewis car comparison demonstrates it well how crazy the cars are now as result of refueling ban (which i still hold is ridiculous) and battery packs.

Rear of the car has stretched for better aero. Maybe the easiest part to understand is how the bigger floor on the Merc means more downforce. They could fit everything with a meter less, but the car would have more drag and less downforce.

 

I don't think they would shorten the car even if the tanks was half the size and batteries gone. They would make it thinner instead.



#43 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 6,179 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 02 February 2019 - 21:58

Size has got zero to do with how good the racing is, unless we have to endure more nonsense from the rose tints who like to tell us things were better 20 years ago. They certainly were not.

Ah and therein lies the rub. 20 years ago (1999) things probably were not better your right.

However 22 years ago (1997)? They most certainly were alot better. 24 years ago? The same. 29 years ago (1990)? Without a doubt far better.

Where we are today started with the outrageously stupid 1998 regulations. Since then F1 has been dying a slow, painful death. And here we are today.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 02 February 2019 - 22:02.


#44 l2k2

l2k2
  • Member

  • 814 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 02 February 2019 - 23:33

Yeah, I'd forgotten that, if you allow 70kg for an average driver the car is about 660kg today which doesn't look quite so bad.

 

Well, 575 (or even 605) vs. 733 kg does still sound quite bad to me. The modern London double deckers, I mean F1 cars, are still more than 25% heavier than their predecessors were not that long ago!



#45 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,624 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 02 February 2019 - 23:52

If you think the third car from the left, if I'm right, is one of the best looking F1 cars in history, you'll know what to call today's cars.



#46 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 3,717 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 03 February 2019 - 05:56

The FW14b weighed 505kg the F2002 600kg, last years Ferrari 733kg that's almost a 50% weight gain.

 

As somebody said earlier on, I would rather crash in last year's Ferrari than the FW14. 



#47 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 31,245 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 February 2019 - 08:19

If you think the third car from the left, if I'm right, is one of the best looking F1 cars in history, you'll know what to call today's cars.

 

Do you mean the third from the right? Or are you actually saying the SF15T is one of the best looking cars in history.

 

If the former I'll agree with you on the 643. Beautiful car, but looking rather old fashioned and quaint to modern eyes.



#48 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 11,325 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 03 February 2019 - 10:39

It can still get worse:

 

kQtyWB9.jpg

 

 

BMW Sportscars, outsizing the Nimitz class since 2016.

 

Always good to have one or two in a race, in case they need an emergency landing area for the medevac helo.

 

 

I am one of the people shocked about the looks of the BMW GT cars when you see them in a starting field with other GTs.

 

But....

 

As of now, I still haven't seen pictures of a GT race in which both the latest BMW and the current Bentley GT racers 'çause that's for looks at least another whale of a car....

 

But then, there is something else to say:

We're making jokes about the size of the BMW.

 

Keep in mind however that a current F1 is still L O N G E R than the BMW that's been joked about....



#49 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 28,125 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 03 February 2019 - 11:16

How long have we been banging this drum....... It's ridiculous. The cars are 100kg overweight and 50-75cm too long.

Lose 100kg and you're instantly 3 seconds quicker, you can drop so much painful aero and achieve similar lap times.

Edited by TomNokoe, 03 February 2019 - 11:16.


#50 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 03 February 2019 - 11:35

But how many of the people out here want slower cars, even if it would provide better racing????

 

F1 is slow enough as it is. The number of times race-times from 2003-2005 are beaten is still low.  Speed is, however, not the main concern.

 

As Alonso nicely identified back in 2014, the cars are: too heavy, too slow, and boring to drive. You can make the cars and faster, and lighter, and more exciting to drive.

 

Everyone in F1 knows how. They just don't want to.