8 replies to this topic

[Christiaan]

If FIA suddenly said the minimum mass is 700kgs and increased the length of the cars by say 200mm to allow this, and increased the minumum height of the rear, I predict the following

1. An automatic increase in momentum by 17%. This reduces the linear acceleration by a proportional amount.

2. The increased normal reaction force will increase the total tyre friction by 17% at low speeds and about 5% at high speeds. This is more mechanical grip, and that means more passing.

3. Lateral tyre loads will increase because of the increased momentum and cars will have to slow down at the corners. This is what Max Mosely has been trying to do all along.

4. Designers will be more liberal and not worry too much about balance because ballast will alwasy make the car 50-50. This will give it better handling and will make swish swashing easier during Alesi type passing moves.

5. Engine manufacturers will have more freedom to reintroduce heavier cheaper materials. The need for lightness will not be as big a constraint as it is now. The 80-20 rule will say that reducing an engine from 100kgs to 80kgs will increase the engine cost by 80%. Increasing it from 100 to 125 could quite easily cut the costs down signifacantly.

6. Skin friction drag could increase by about 5% at low speeds to about 20% at high speeds. This makes the car slower yet again.

7. Increased length would give FIA would have more freedom stipulate dimensions for the rear end of the car. These dimensions would be made such as to increase slipstreaming and thus increase passing. The decreased rear hieght would decrease the capacity of the car's body to generate downforce. Reduced aero downforce again= reduced cornering speeds. Also, cleaner air would trail the car thus increasing slipstreaming.


wot dya all think?

[FordFan]

I suggested something similar on the RC after the death of the Marshall in OZ. Seems like an obvious solution, put I was roundly criticized in that by increasing the weight (and momentum) you increase the damage done when things go wrong (a much more massive object flying into fencing, etc.)

If slowing the cars down is the goal though, I couldn't agree more.

[Ben]

I think you're completely wrong on 2) Chris.

Think about it. If you increase the normal load with mass you generate more force but you have to because the mass has gone up (mv^2/r after all). With a fixed friction coefficient you wouldn't gain anything and with a realistic tyre's decaying friction coefficient with increased normal load you would have a net loss in cornering performance.

The way to increase lateral forces without increasing the centripetal force required to make a turn at a given speed is to have aero downforce - more normal load with negligable mass increase.

Ben

[wati]

Originally posted by Christiaan
If FIA suddenly said the minimum mass is 700kgs and increased the length of the cars by say 200mm to allow this, and increased the minumum height of the rear, I predict the following

wot dya all think?

Cars can be as long as constructors want them to be. There are no limits at car lenght, I think.
700kg? You want another CART series?

I think: Not a good idea.

Wattie

[random]

If the limit were raised, I'd expect the teams to simply add another 50-100kg of ballast to the current chassis. I think most teams run too much ballast already, and a serious look into lowering (not raising) the minimum weight needs to be considered.

I think the teams would still use the lightest materials possible, everywhere they could. Figuring that it's better to have a lot of dense ballast at the very bottom of the car than weight spread out all around and up higher in the motor.

You seem to want to reduce speeds while keeping the cars safe. There is and always has been a very simiple solution, remove the wings. Won't happen as it's a prime advertising space, but removing the wings will solve many of the perceived issues with current F1 regs.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by random
I think the teams would still use the lightest materials possible, everywhere they could. Figuring that it's better to have a lot of dense ballast at the very bottom of the car than weight spread out all around and up higher in the motor.

If I were a designer/constructor this is certainly the soultuion I would go -- no, run -- for. It would be lovely to have 100 - 200 kg within 50mm from the tarmac.

Originally posted by random
You seem to want to reduce speeds while keeping the cars safe. There is and always has been a very simiple solution, remove the wings.

I think removing wings is too drastic, but I think their size and structure could be significantly reduced/changed. Like for instance reducing their total area significantly, and stipulating, let's say, one wing element on the front wing, two at most on the rear.

I also like the flat bottom rule. Easy to understand. It does create some more ground effect than the today's stepped bottom, but this could be controlled in other ways. Also, I think that it wasn't a good idea to raise the front wing to reduce its ground effect. After the new rule came into effect, there were a number of accidents where a car ran into another one in front, presumably because the front wing ran in unclean air and had suffered reduced downforce and therefore reduced the car's braking capacity. Had the wing still relied on ground effect, this would have been less of a problem.

So, what I would do is to reduce wings significantly, let the aero depend more on ground effect, but use flat bottom and no venturis. Possibly you could ban the diffuser too, which would be quite effective in reducing downforce. Today's aero is quite efficient, and even an "innocent looking" car has an ability to stay "glued to the tarmac." Nothing bad about that, but we don't need that big wings anymore.

Then back to slicks, to increase mechanical grip instead, wider cars to do the same but also to increase drag. If necessary, reduce engine capacity and weight. If a weight increase is to be considered, it should be spent on safety first.

Know what? The cars will soon be as fast as they are now.

[DEVO]

I still think that refueling stops should be removed. Allow for tire changes only... even that could go in my opinion. This simple rule could do wonders.

How many times will the fuel rig break at williams this year for them to propose this idea... how many times did it happen last year?

[FordFan]

Won't a flat bottom give F1 the same problems the prototype Le Mans cars have - i.e. taking flight??

I had heard Le Mans organizers were thinking of moving back to the tunnels to avoid that sort of problem. It would be even worse for the formula one cars, as they are significantly lighter that the LMP 900 cars.

[Ben]

They are indeed. 'bout bloody time too

Ben