11 replies to this topic

[DEVO]

Is it me or do the McLaren cars seem to brake latter then anybody else going into a corner? I know there is a limit to the size of brake, because the hub is only 13in. in diameter. Is there a rule that prevents a team from having more then a single brake rotor in the hub (2 sets of calipers per wheel) for better heat distribution? I mean, if the car is underweight already, why not push the weight out to the four corners? It can't be that much weight, and if it is why not make the 2 sets of brakes smaller to save weight but the overall increase in braking would still outperform a single larger brake. Anybody?

[Clatter]

These are the regs covering the questions you asked.

I'd like to see the size of the disc reduced so that braking distances would increase, also the driver would have to look after the brakes abit more. Hopefully this would aid overtaking.

11.2 Brake calipers :

11.2.1) All brake calipers must be made from aluminium materials with a modulus of elasticity no greater than 80Gpa.

11.2.2) No more than two attachments may be used to secure each brake caliper to the car.

11.2.3) No more than one caliper, with a maximum of six pistons, is permitted on each wheel.

11.2.4) The section of each caliper piston must be circular.

11.3 Brake discs :

11.3.1) No more than one brake disc is permitted on each wheel.

11.3.2) All discs must have a maximum thickness of 28mm and a maximum outside diameter of 278mm.

11.3.3) No more than two brake pads are permitted on each wheel.

[DEVO]

Thanks. I was just reading an article (I think it was the "Rules (part 3) article) on this BB and it mentioned a reason why we haven't seen lower profile tires in F1. They mention brake size being limited in F1 by the hub size of 13 in. I don't buy that excuse that it's easier to regulate if the hub size limits the brakes... they still check the car anyway so why not check the size of the brakes.

[variocam]

A Montreal company is trying something on some sportscars durring races. They ahve developed a caliper that is round and covers the whole disk. This would be within the F1 regs acording to the previous post as long as it only used 6 pistons. Anyone hear of this?

[Sudsbouy]

DEVO:

Something you mentioned in your earlier post goes against the direction that current F1 designers are heading. Specifically, you mention 'pushing the weight out to the four corners'.

When you talk about the 'four corners', you're talking about unsprung weight. This weight isn't controlled by the suspension and the greater it is relative to the sprung weight, can adversely affect handling.

In addition, pushing the weight out would also change the dynamics of the car, whether it's sprung or unsprung. That is, if the weight is concentrated in the center of a car, it will change directions more readily. I think this is referred to as the polar moment.

Finally, your statement that 'it can't be that much weight' flys in the face of the fanatical devotion to reducing weight. It's religion to everyone in F1 that lower weight is faster (below minimum allows you to move ballast around for better handling). They will go to great lengths and expense in this endeavor.

Thank you.

[desmo]

The only way around the limit imposed by the 13" wheel on disc size I see would be inboard-mounted front discs ala Lotus 72. Given the inboard springs and dampers employed today there are serious packaging problems inherent in this.

[DEVO]

Originally posted by Sudsbouy
DEVO:

Something you mentioned in your earlier post goes against the direction that current F1 designers are heading. Specifically, you mention 'pushing the weight out to the four corners'.

When you talk about the 'four corners', you're talking about unsprung weight. This weight isn't controlled by the suspension and the greater it is relative to the sprung weight, can adversely affect handling.

In addition, pushing the weight out would also change the dynamics of the car, whether it's sprung or unsprung. That is, if the weight is concentrated in the center of a car, it will change directions more readily. I think this is referred to as the polar moment.

Finally, your statement that 'it can't be that much weight' flys in the face of the fanatical devotion to reducing weight. It's religion to everyone in F1 that lower weight is faster (below minimum allows you to move ballast around for better handling). They will go to great lengths and expense in this endeavor.

Thank you.

Thanks for your comments.

Yes unsprung weight could be a problem but not if the end result gives you an overall advantage. Yes I agree that team are trying to reduce weight and I think it has been achieved to the point that teams are forced to carry ballast to meet the minimum weight requirements. Obviously you would want the weight at the lowest point of center of gravity. The only way I see F1 getting better brakes is either by creating a caliper as large as the rotor (covering the whole rotor) as mentioned above or having multiple rotors per wheel as mentioned in original post... which there are regulations against doing such a thing.

[Lamont]

Originally posted by DEVO
I don't buy that excuse that it's easier to regulate if the hub size limits the brakes... they still check the car anyway so why not check the size of the brakes.

They talked about this same issue on the last race broadcast on Fox. One of the other reasons mentioned for keeping the hub size fixed is that if you regulated the brake size and not the wheel size, larger hubs would allow for more cooling to the breaks, thus allowing them to be more efficient....

[Sudsbouy]

DEVO:

In your response, you mentioned that some teams are 'forced to carry ballast'. Every team deperately wants to carry ballast, as much as possible.

With regards to the general direction of this thread, I wonder how much more effective the brake systems can be. Everything I've heard states that the biggest difference a driver experiences between F1 and cars in other series is the phenominal brakes. It's been described as 'like hitting a wall', they're so effective. In fact, passing under braking is much more difficult now because there's so little difference in braking performance between the teams' cars.

Thank you.

P.S.

I would think that completely encircling the disk would limit cooling, which is already a problem on the more demanding circuts.

[DEVO]

Suds:

True! Braking isn't an issue that F1 needs to be concerned with improving... in fact the opposite is true as you stated. I was just curious about the regulations on this matter, hence the post. I just hope that next year's ride height regulation will improve some of the racing as far as turbulence and downforce issues are concerned with.

[tak]

Back to the topic of McLaren braking--I think it's safe to say that the Mclaren loses less downforce than their competitors when the car pitches forward under braking. It is pure speculation as to wether that is from suspenion set up or the aero package (or both).

[Sudsbouy]

Possibly another factor in McLaren's apparent advantage may be due to having a lower center of gravity and a more optimal placement of the weight. If I recall correctly, Newey has been on a several season campaign to reduce the weight of their car to the absolute minimum.

Thank you.