Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

The size and weight of modern F1 cars (Merged)


  • Please log in to reply
711 replies to this topic

#101 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 52,284 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 23 February 2019 - 16:59

Boing 2, on 23 Feb 2019 - 16:51, said:

Golden Section, a set of proportions found all through nature and used in architecture for about 5000 years.

 

OK, but why does it apply to the wheelbase + tyre radii but not necessarily just the wheelbase, or the wheelbase - tyre radii, or the overall length of the car? For that matter, why should that particular mathematical relationship mean anything in this discussion?



Advertisement

#102 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 19,036 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 23 February 2019 - 17:33

PayasYouRace, on 23 Feb 2019 - 16:59, said:

OK, but why does it apply to the wheelbase + tyre radii but not necessarily just the wheelbase, or the wheelbase - tyre radii, or the overall length of the car? For that matter, why should that particular mathematical relationship mean anything in this discussion?


Go look it up.

#103 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 52,284 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 23 February 2019 - 17:38

Tenmantaylor, on 23 Feb 2019 - 17:33, said:

Go look it up.


Where can I look up Boing 2’s arbitrary choice of where to apply it.

#104 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 23 February 2019 - 17:52

Golden ratio is myth, urban legend and irrational.



#105 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,588 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 February 2019 - 17:53

Kalmake, on 23 Feb 2019 - 17:52, said:

Golden ratio is myth, urban legend and irrational.

 

Yet somehow it works.



#106 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,588 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 February 2019 - 17:57

MikeV1987, on 22 Feb 2019 - 22:47, said:

They are too long, but at least they are fast. In 2014 they were barely faster than GP2 cars.

 

Who cares? I'd rather trade speed if it produced a better RACE car (i.e. not one that can only go fast around a track when there's nothing to impede it).

 

As long as it looks fast, it does not have to be fast.


Edited by pdac, 23 February 2019 - 17:58.


#107 Grippy

Grippy
  • Member

  • 590 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 23 February 2019 - 18:03

I think what Boing 2 spotted was clever but also fairly superficial in this context - it works because the rectangle is the correct proportion and the main image weighting is at one end, the actual Golden Ratio, not so much.

 

Photos and art use it a lot as the human brain finds it harmonious,

 

GR and much more here if interested..https://www.drawingh...roportions.html :wave:



#108 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,588 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 February 2019 - 18:06

Boing Ball, on 23 Feb 2019 - 16:17, said:

Those cars have the front wing width they should have gone for this year: the "outwash" effect of the wing would hit the front tyre.

 

Yep. The width of the front wing should have to fit between the front tyres.



#109 THEWALL

THEWALL
  • Member

  • 2,624 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 23 February 2019 - 20:07

Kind of ironic that they try to be "green" and the cars are so heavy too...



#110 aisiai

aisiai
  • Member

  • 404 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 23 February 2019 - 20:21

Kalmake, on 23 Feb 2019 - 17:52, said:

Golden ratio is myth, urban legend and irrational.

 

(nerd mode on) Irrational it definitely is! (nerd mode off)



#111 Rupert

Rupert
  • Member

  • 308 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 23 February 2019 - 21:22

V8 Fireworks, on 23 Feb 2019 - 15:56, said:

The current rear tyres are actually wider than the Goodyear rears were and look quite acceptable, 

 

AFAIK, the current rear tyres have the sane width as the tyres from 1992(and before)



#112 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 6,371 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 23 February 2019 - 21:33

pdac, on 23 Feb 2019 - 17:57, said:

Who cares? I'd rather trade speed if it produced a better RACE car (i.e. not one that can only go fast around a track when there's nothing to impede it).

 

As long as it looks fast, it does not have to be fast.

I care, the crazy cornering speeds that these cars do is what separates F1 from all the other open wheel series. They had a hard time racing each other in those 2014-16 cars too, they also spent most of the race conserving fuel and tires and avoided attacking each other to make their tire strategies work. How is that any better?

 

Hopefully one day they figure out how to get the best of both worlds.


Edited by MikeV1987, 23 February 2019 - 22:26.


#113 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 23 February 2019 - 21:56

Grippy, on 23 Feb 2019 - 18:03, said:

I think what Boing 2 spotted was clever but also fairly superficial in this context - it works because the rectangle is the correct proportion and the main image weighting is at one end, the actual Golden Ratio, not so much.

 

Photos and art use it a lot as the human brain finds it harmonious,

 

GR and much more here if interested..https://www.drawingh...roportions.html :wave:

The myth started in renaissance. My human brain reckons there should be scientific proof of this by now. There isn't.



#114 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,588 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 February 2019 - 23:42

Kalmake, on 23 Feb 2019 - 21:56, said:

The myth started in renaissance. My human brain reckons there should be scientific proof of this by now. There isn't.

 

Perhaps all the proof that is needed is how those involved have decided upon the aspect ratio for TVs and laptop screens and tablet screens and phone screens - not all a perfect match, but close enough to illustrate that this is what they believe is the mass market preference.



#115 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 24 February 2019 - 01:45

Rupert, on 23 Feb 2019 - 21:22, said:

AFAIK, the current rear tyres have the sane width as the tyres from 1992(and before)

 

Yes and no.  The current Pirellis rear are nominally 405mm wide [a 405/670-13 -- width/diameter-rim] while the Goodyear rears were nominally 15" (380mm) wide [a 15.0"/26"-13" or, in metric, a 380/660-13 -- width/diameter-rim].  However the nominal (tread) width of a tyre is not necessarily the same as the physical tread width, nor does it take into account the section width.


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 24 February 2019 - 01:46.


#116 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 24 February 2019 - 01:48

Kalmake, on 23 Feb 2019 - 21:56, said:

The myth started in renaissance. My human brain reckons there should be scientific proof of this by now. There isn't.

 

Golden ratio is more from humanities and artistic fields, than from the "hard" sciences  ;) .  I don't think there is hard scientific proof of anything in the field of psychology!


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 24 February 2019 - 01:49.


#117 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 February 2019 - 08:17

pdac, on 23 Feb 2019 - 23:42, said:

Perhaps all the proof that is needed is how those involved have decided upon the aspect ratio for TVs and laptop screens and tablet screens and phone screens - not all a perfect match, but close enough to illustrate that this is what they believe is the mass market preference.

16:9 is a compromise ratio with some geometric compatibility to previous standards. 16:9 is about 10 percent off golden ratio. If that is "close enough" then you can fit a lot in this myth indeed.

 

Phone screens are commonly wider ratios than this.



#118 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 4,926 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 24 February 2019 - 10:20

PayasYouRace, on 23 Feb 2019 - 16:59, said:

OK, but why does it apply to the wheelbase + tyre radii but not necessarily just the wheelbase, or the wheelbase - tyre radii, or the overall length of the car? For that matter, why should that particular mathematical relationship mean anything in this discussion?

 

When I look at an open wheel racer the wheels visually define a box that sets the cars proportions for me, that's why the golden section thing works for me.



#119 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 4,926 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 24 February 2019 - 11:31

Kalmake, on 23 Feb 2019 - 17:52, said:

Golden ratio is myth, urban legend and irrational.

 

https://www.mathsisf...-fibonacci.html



Advertisement

#120 boillot

boillot
  • Member

  • 767 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 24 February 2019 - 11:37

aisiai, on 23 Feb 2019 - 20:21, said:

(nerd mode on) Irrational it definitely is! (nerd mode off)

Indeed it is, being based on the square root of 2 :-)

#121 aisiai

aisiai
  • Member

  • 404 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 24 February 2019 - 13:33

boillot, on 24 Feb 2019 - 11:37, said:

Indeed it is, being based on the square root of 2 :-)

root of 5 ;)



#122 boillot

boillot
  • Member

  • 767 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 24 February 2019 - 13:35

aisiai, on 24 Feb 2019 - 13:33, said:

root of 5 ;)

Of course, silly me!



#123 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 February 2019 - 14:59

V8 Fireworks, on 24 Feb 2019 - 01:48, said:

Golden ratio is more from humanities and artistic fields, than from the "hard" sciences  ;) .  I don't think there is hard scientific proof of anything in the field of psychology!

What are you getting at? Do you just ignore everything they claim in psychology then?

 

It's pretty simple to study the claim. They have done it for 200 years.



#124 Alburaq

Alburaq
  • Member

  • 3,317 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 24 February 2019 - 15:02

I've removed the mandatory fin to see how the Ferrari would look like without it, and even if the 2019 Ferrari has a more compact engine cover than 2018 (and a bigger fin), you can still see how todays cars are exaggeratedly lengthened at the rear.

I know the cars length is the least of F1 problems...
arton111.jpg


Edited by Alburaq, 24 February 2019 - 15:04.


#125 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 1,555 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 24 February 2019 - 15:22

Big cars are not exciting to watch. Unless those are NASCAR or Australian V8 vehicles

All other categories single seaters, prototypes, sportscars and even touring cars should be small, quick and nimble with a reasonable power.

For F1 power to weight should be 1:1

900Bhp and 900 pounds

#126 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 13,499 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 24 February 2019 - 18:29

FPV GTHO, on 23 Feb 2019 - 12:57, said:

Not really following your logic there. The current contact patch is split 305/405mm or roughly 43/57% front to rear. Not far off what the mandated weight distribution is. According to the tender, the 2021 tyres will be 270/405mm or roughly 40/60% front to rear. The weight distribution will need to be moved back to suit. Teams are currently pushing their power units forward to meet the weight distribution with little ballast to play with, so you would think the simplest solution would be to reduce that distance between power unit and axle to match the new weight distribution. That would then lead to shorter cars.

 

 

Well, I had to give this a serious think over and I still doubt I I have done enough thinking in the right direction!

 

As far as I can see, when keeping the length of a car identical but the front wheels becoming lighter, it means that the fron end of the car will become lighter and the Centero point of the weight shifting backwards.

According me, when  the rear wheels are put more rearwards, (longer wheelbase & car....) then the CG shifts forwards again. But somehow I can't follow your logic that reducing the wheelbase will result into the same. At least assuming that there is no further loss of weight.

 

Mind you, this does not mean that I don't believe you. You could be right.

Perhaps I must bring out my Lego parts and do some experiments to see what happens then.



#127 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 24 February 2019 - 20:00

FPV's logic is based on that narrower front tyres will very likely lead to a change in the mandated weight distribution, I think he's correct that it'll be 40/60 with the new tyres. The new balance could be reached by making the rear shorter or by moving the driver/engine back. Increasing the wheelbase seems difficult as it should be harder to make the aerodynamics still work, so my guess would be that shifting the weight balance to the back will lead to shorter cars in the end.

#128 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,393 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 24 February 2019 - 22:02

Henri Greuter, on 24 Feb 2019 - 18:29, said:

Well, I had to give this a serious think over and I still doubt I I have done enough thinking in the right direction!

As far as I can see, when keeping the length of a car identical but the front wheels becoming lighter, it means that the fron end of the car will become lighter and the Centero point of the weight shifting backwards.
According me, when the rear wheels are put more rearwards, (longer wheelbase & car....) then the CG shifts forwards again. But somehow I can't follow your logic that reducing the wheelbase will result into the same. At least assuming that there is no further loss of weight.

Mind you, this does not mean that I don't believe you. You could be right.
Perhaps I must bring out my Lego parts and do some experiments to see what happens then.


I'm not really bothered by the natural shift in weight by having lighter front wheels. The biggest effect will be the smaller wheels can't manage as much weight and will be overworked. We saw the opposite of this in 2009 when the front wheels gained proportionally more contact patch in going to slicks over grooves compared to the rears. The teams were in a mad rush to push as much weight forward as they could to get the most out of the tyres.

If the same weight distribution was ideal and the only change was lighter front wheels, then they likely would increase the wheelbase. But I don't see that being the case. Generally speaking the tyre footprint, weight distribution and aero centre of pressure all have to work in unison. Change one, change them all.

#129 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 52,284 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 February 2019 - 23:06

BiggestBuddyLazierFan, on 24 Feb 2019 - 15:22, said:

900Bhp and 900 pounds

 

900 PS to 900 kg.



#130 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 24 February 2019 - 23:55

To take a proper SI approach, one might have F1 cars at 750 kW and 750 kg.

 

That's pretty close to where they are at the moment, although of course that doesn't account for the driver and the fuel. At the start of a race, an F1 car will weigh upwards of 900 kg.


Edited by Nonesuch, 24 February 2019 - 23:55.


#131 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 February 2019 - 00:08

Nonesuch, on 24 Feb 2019 - 23:55, said:

To take a proper SI approach, one might have F1 cars at 750 kW and 750 kg.

 

That's pretty close to where they are at the moment, although of course that doesn't account for the driver and the fuel. At the start of a race, an F1 car will weigh upwards of 900 kg.

 

 

The weight of the driver is included in the minimum weight. 

 

So with a full tank of fuel the car will be about 850kg.

 

Edit: forgot minimum weight went up to 740kg this year and fuel to 110kg.


Edited by Wuzak, 25 February 2019 - 00:13.


#132 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 February 2019 - 00:11

BiggestBuddyLazierFan, on 24 Feb 2019 - 15:22, said:

Big cars are not exciting to watch. Unless those are NASCAR or Australian V8 vehicles

All other categories single seaters, prototypes, sportscars and even touring cars should be small, quick and nimble with a reasonable power.

For F1 power to weight should be 1:1

900Bhp and 900 pounds

 

900lb = 408kg.

 

Doesn't seem practical with current safety standards. And certainly not if the driver is included in the mass, which it would be if you are aiming for 1:1 power to weight.

 

If we take the current mandated 80kg for driver/seat/equipment, you are looking for 328kg for the complete car and engine. Not going to happen.



#133 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 1,555 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 25 February 2019 - 07:28

Wuzak, on 25 Feb 2019 - 00:11, said:

900lb = 408kg.

Doesn't seem practical with current safety standards. And certainly not if the driver is included in the mass, which it would be if you are aiming for 1:1 power to weight.

If we take the current mandated 80kg for driver/seat/equipment, you are looking for 328kg for the complete car and engine. Not going to happen.


408 kg empty car.

Refuelling allowed.

#134 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 25 February 2019 - 08:36

Wuzak, on 25 Feb 2019 - 00:08, said:

The weight of the driver is included in the minimum weight.

 

:up:  Indeed, it was late. :p

 

The minimum weight of the car is 743 kg (article 4.1). Part of that is the driver (plus any ballast that may be necessary) for a minimum of 80 kg.

 

A further 110kg of fuel may be added, which, if used, would add up to at least 853 kg at the start of a race.



#135 r4mses

r4mses
  • Member

  • 2,425 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 February 2019 - 09:15

BiggestBuddyLazierFan, on 24 Feb 2019 - 15:22, said:

For F1 power to weight should be 1:1

900Bhp and 900 pounds

 

I don't think we ever had that... ever.



#136 mirrorboy

mirrorboy
  • Member

  • 106 posts
  • Joined: February 13

Posted 25 February 2019 - 09:16

A quick photoshop edit to create what for me is the perfect F1 car: shortened wheelbase, no halo, no sharkfin, no massive fw/rw

 

2b4070544f5d5d2f0b4c50ea342b2a99-full.jp


Edited by mirrorboy, 25 February 2019 - 09:16.


#137 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 1,555 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 25 February 2019 - 09:42

r4mses, on 25 Feb 2019 - 09:15, said:

I don't think we ever had that... ever.


Thats the exact point.

F1 should be about something never seen before

Thats where the excitement is. Not in DRS.

#138 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 18,893 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 25 February 2019 - 14:01

Nonesuch, on 25 Feb 2019 - 08:36, said:

:up: Indeed, it was late. :p

The minimum weight of the car is 743 kg (article 4.1). Part of that is the driver (plus any ballast that may be necessary) for a minimum of 80 kg.

A further 110kg of fuel may be added, which, if used, would add up to at least 853 kg at the start of a race.


Getting near endurance racing weight levels...

#139 Otaku

Otaku
  • Member

  • 1,795 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 February 2019 - 14:07

mirrorboy, on 25 Feb 2019 - 09:16, said:

A quick photoshop edit to create what for me is the perfect F1 car: shortened wheelbase, no halo, no sharkfin, no massive fw/rw

 

2b4070544f5d5d2f0b4c50ea342b2a99-full.jp

 

Can't see



Advertisement

#140 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,639 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 February 2019 - 14:31

BiggestBuddyLazierFan, on 24 Feb 2019 - 15:22, said:

Big cars are not exciting to watch. Unless those are NASCAR or Australian V8 vehicles

All other categories single seaters, prototypes, sportscars and even touring cars should be small, quick and nimble with a reasonable power.

For F1 power to weight should be 1:1

900Bhp and 900 pounds

 

a car with 2000hp per ton would be pretty crazy seeing as a current F1 car has around 1300hp per ton.



#141 mirrorboy

mirrorboy
  • Member

  • 106 posts
  • Joined: February 13

Posted 25 February 2019 - 17:14

Otaku, on 25 Feb 2019 - 14:07, said:

Can't see

I think you can now!



#142 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,588 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 February 2019 - 18:08

mirrorboy, on 25 Feb 2019 - 09:16, said:

A quick photoshop edit to create what for me is the perfect F1 car: shortened wheelbase, no halo, no sharkfin, no massive fw/rw

 

2b4070544f5d5d2f0b4c50ea342b2a99-full.jp

 

Looks fast



#143 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 13,657 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 26 February 2019 - 06:11

Here you'll see a good comparison. Both are comparable in size and weight.

In the top photo you'll see the HMS Hood
M182609.jpg

In this bottom picture you'll see the Mercedes W10
573b03172d6bd.jpg

#144 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 13,657 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 26 February 2019 - 06:11

mirrorboy, on 25 Feb 2019 - 09:16, said:

A quick photoshop edit to create what for me is the perfect F1 car: shortened wheelbase, no halo, no sharkfin, no massive fw/rw

2b4070544f5d5d2f0b4c50ea342b2a99-full.jp

As for safety, it will never happen that the front wheels/front axle are/is being brought back towards the safety cell. As a general idea, it looks great.

Edited by Beri, 26 February 2019 - 06:12.


#145 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,393 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 26 February 2019 - 06:32

Beri, on 26 Feb 2019 - 06:11, said:

As for safety, it will never happen that the front wheels/front axle are/is being brought back towards the safety cell. As a general idea, it looks great.


I don't think anything was shrunk at the front for that photoshop. Nevertheless, the teams are already running more length between the front wheels and sidepods to maximise the bargeboard area, so they could still be shrunk there.

#146 Rupert

Rupert
  • Member

  • 308 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 01 March 2019 - 03:56

V8 Fireworks, on 24 Feb 2019 - 01:45, said:

Yes and no.  The current Pirellis rear are nominally 405mm wide [a 405/670-13 -- width/diameter-rim] while the Goodyear rears were nominally 15" (380mm) wide [a 15.0"/26"-13" or, in metric, a 380/660-13 -- width/diameter-rim].  However the nominal (tread) width of a tyre is not necessarily the same as the physical tread width, nor does it take into account the section width.

Thanks, where did you find those info, btw, please?



#147 JeePee

JeePee
  • Member

  • 6,018 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 01 March 2019 - 08:22

Wow. First pic in the opening post is insane. So much for "oh my god, that rear is so tightly packed".

 

Yeah. They got a freaking football field of space to put the components in.



#148 Peat

Peat
  • Member

  • 9,426 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 01 March 2019 - 08:41

Photo4_s.r.l._840634.jpg?itok=BzIRJsX7

Lewis and Valterri got sore throats that morning having to shout to hear each other. 

Of all the talk of 'safety', how is it safe that a single car broadside takes up almost all the width of a FIA Cat1 circuit? 

Moreover, It just looks silly!



#149 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 2,376 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 11 March 2019 - 14:12

No idea, where they´ve got this info from, as i couldn´t find it anywhere else.........but AMuS reports, that the cars will be shortened for 2021 and that the wheelbase will be limited by the regulations (subtitle of Picture 15).

 

 https://www.auto-mot...k-budget-format


Edited by LiJu914, 11 March 2019 - 14:13.


#150 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 35,322 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 11 March 2019 - 14:13

LiJu914, on 11 Mar 2019 - 14:12, said:

No idea, where they´ve got this info from, as i couldn´t find it anywhere else.........but AMuS reports, that the cars will be shortened for 2021 and that the wheelbase will be limited in the regulations (subtitle of Picture 8).

https://www.auto-mot...k-budget-format


That has been known for a while. Their aim is 3400mm, IIRC.

Still not great, but progress.