They should do it like Junkyard Wars (is that still a show?): A scrap yard full of old F1 parts, and the teams have a day to build a car using those parts.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
With the 2022 rule change on the horizon bargeboards will no longer be a feature of F1 cars, but what are they, how do they work, and will F1’s designers be able to replicate their function in 2022?
They should do it like Junkyard Wars (is that still a show?): A scrap yard full of old F1 parts, and the teams have a day to build a car using those parts.
Great idea! We can keep the 3 day weekend format tho!Hoffman900 wrote: ↑22 Oct 2021, 20:37They should do it like Junkyard Wars (is that still a show?): A scrap yard full of old F1 parts, and the teams have a day to build a car using those parts.
Well there goes the "one side only" possibility:hollus wrote: ↑21 Oct 2021, 22:02Would it be technically legal not to have any sidepod inlet at all?
All cooling would have be central or at least with a central intake and the results might be horrible, but the regs do not force an actual front facing opening in the sidepods, do they?
Is there an volume defined for the opening where there would be scope for aero widgets?
Maybe on one side only?
For the rest, maybe the jury is still out:→ The car centre line and plane of symmetry for the car, the car must ostensibly be symmetrical except for some cooling variation and front wing flap adjustment.
3.7 Rear Bodywork
3.7.1 Sidepod
Bodywork declared as “Sidepod” must:
a. Lie within RV-RBW-SPOD.
b. Form no more than two curves on its surface when intersected by any X or Y plane, each of which must be tangent continuous and open. Furthermore:
i. Assessed on any X plane, any such curve that is wholly or partially visible when viewed from the side of the car, is subject to the following requirements:
- Parts of this curve that are visible from the car centre plane (viewed parallel to the Y-axis) and not visible from the side may contain no concave radius of curvature (as defined by Article 3.1.4) smaller than 50mm.
- All other parts of this curve may contain no concave radius of curvature smaller than 200mm.
ii. Assessed on any Y plane, whenever two such curves are visible when viewed from the front of the car, no part of either curve may have a concave radius of curvature smaller than 200mm.
iii. Compliance with (i) and (ii) is not required within a single 50mm diameter sphere defined by the competitor.
c. In any Z plane, any cross section of bodywork must form a single curve on its surface which must be tangent continuous and open.
No mention of the front aperture, interesting sentences like "whenever two such curves are visible" (so it does not apply to a single curve?), and different radii depending on whether a part is visible from the side or from the center line of the car.3.7.6 Apertures
Once the Rear Bodywork surfaces are fully defined in accordance with Articles 3.7.1 to 3.7.5, the following apertures may be added:
a. For the purpose of allowing suspension members and their fairings and driveshafts to protrude through the bodywork and provided that the result of adding the aperture does not subvert the intention of regulation 3.7.4, a single aperture may be added for each suspension member and driveshaft. No such aperture may have an area greater than 12,000mm2. No point on an aperture may be more than 200mm from any other point on the aperture. Individual apertures may adjoin or overlap each other. At the legality ride height defined in Article 10.1.4, the aperture must enclose the suspension member, including its fairing, or driveshaft for parts forward of XR= -55.
b. For the sole purpose of allowing cooling flow exits, apertures may be added provided they lie within RV-RBW-APERTURE. The total area (per side of the car) of such apertures may be no greater than 150,000mm2. Furthermore, any apertures added must be arranged such that, when viewed from above, no part of RS-RBW-APERTURE may be visible through the aperture and any underlying part of the car exposed by application of an aperture must lie no further than 50mm normal to the untrimmed surface. For the avoidance of doubt, no part of the car exposed by application of an aperture may lie external to the untrimmed surface.
c. For the sole purpose of allowing cooling flow exits, apertures may be added inboard of Y= 25. The total area of such apertures may not be greater than 30,000mm2 per side of the car.
d. For the sole purpose of cooling auxiliary components, (such as Electrical Components, etc.), apertures may be added forward of XF=1300 or below Z=100. The total area of such apertures may not exceed 5,000mm2 per side of the car.
e. For the sole purpose of giving tyre temperature sensors visibility of the tyres, a single aperture with an area no greater than 1500mm2 on each side of the car.
All areas mentioned in this Article will be measured on the untrimmed Rear Bodywork surface.
Didn't they expect the 2017 cars to be 5s quicker than 2016? 2017 ended up being just about 2s quicker on average, so they could be way off this time as well.BassVirolla wrote: ↑22 Oct 2021, 15:36https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... s-gedacht/
2022 cars nearly as fast as current cars, they say.
The width was only ever reduced from 2.15m to 2m and then 1.8m because of regulation changes. Many of the most iconic F1 cars like the Ferrari 640-643 and McLaren MP4/4 are the full 2.15m wide. IMO, the full width of a Grand Prix car should be restored, though 2m width is still better than 1.8m.
The issue is the added length needed by the hybrid systems and battery. But I agree with you, the current cars are stupidly long! The width is fine, just the length is an issue imo.
I think the 3.6m wheelbase works better for the Pirelli fixed weight distribution.JordanMugen wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 09:45The width was only ever reduced from 2.15m to 2m and then 1.8m because of regulation changes. Many of the most iconic F1 cars like the Ferrari 640-643 and McLaren MP4/4 are the full 2.15m wide. IMO, the full width of a Grand Prix car should be restored, though 2m width is still better than 1.8m.
The wheelbase is obviously unrestricted from the beginning of the Grand Prix car regulations up to 2021 (as indeed the width was unrestricted until 1972 IIRC, and even the number of wheels was unrestricted until '81 IIRC!), and a wheelbase of 3600mm was obviously the minimum the teams were willing to agree to, for the purposes of minimising redesign work (presumably).
The hybrid system doesn't add length. It's all empty floor space in planview.
Oh ok, good to know. Thanks.jjn9128 wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 09:59The hybrid system doesn't add length. It's all empty floor space in planview.
there was a minimum wheelbase for F1JordanMugen wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 09:45.... The wheelbase is obviously unrestricted from the beginning of the Grand Prix car regulations up to 2021 .....
Have you any link to anything about that? I can't find anything in the FIA historic rules database. Which is incomplete at best.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 11:08there was a minimum wheelbase for F1JordanMugen wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 09:45.... The wheelbase is obviously unrestricted from the beginning of the Grand Prix car regulations up to 2021 .....
afaik in the 1951-announced 1954 rules to keep out of GPs the 500cc motorcycle-engined cars that became F3 cars
(such cars with bigger motorcycle engines had competed in 1950 Monaco GP and other 'F1' races _ eg Schell and Moss)
and eg in the 1962 South Africa (WDC/WCC) GP - also concurrently a round of the SA DC
(the SA DC was restricted to 4 cylinder 'obsolete' F1 and F1-compliant cars)
Neuman's Lotus 7 (famously slipstreaming Clark's V8 Lotus 25) had been lengthened to meet the F1 wheelbase rules
(btw presumably to keep out F Junior cars the 1961 1500cc F1 had a 1300cc minimum engine size)
The english translation starts with "contrary to all fears". Is that something to be feared? I thin they're already too fast with too little margins, too high cornering speeds, too short brake distances for proper on-track racing. Especially with the clumsiness of today's bus F1 proportions.BassVirolla wrote: ↑22 Oct 2021, 15:36https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... s-gedacht/
2022 cars nearly as fast as current cars, they say.
If it turns out like that, I wonder if any effect whatsoever will remain of the increased ability to follow.
the link re the 'Brausch' Nieman Lotus 7 I've now put in the previous postjjn9128 wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 12:43Have you any link to anything about that? I can't find anything in the FIA historic rules database. Which is incomplete at best.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 11:08there was a minimum wheelbase for F1JordanMugen wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 09:45.... The wheelbase is obviously unrestricted from the beginning of the Grand Prix car regulations up to 2021 .....
afaik in the 1951-announced 1954 rules to keep out of GPs the 500cc motorcycle-engined cars that became F3 cars
(such cars with bigger motorcycle engines had competed in 1950 Monaco GP and other 'F1' races _ eg Schell and Moss)
and eg in the 1962 South Africa (WDC/WCC) GP - also concurrently a round of the SA DC
(the SA DC was restricted to 4 cylinder 'obsolete' F1 and F1-compliant cars)
Neuman's Lotus 7 (famously slipstreaming Clark's V8 Lotus 25) had been lengthened to meet the F1 wheelbase rules
(btw presumably to keep out F Junior cars the 1961 1500cc F1 had a 1300cc minimum engine size)