WilliamsF1 wrote:Hope they get rid of the coke bottle shape. 25 years is just too long.
This is more full length than a coke bottle shape
But those cars were very unpopular among drivers.Holm86 wrote:WilliamsF1 wrote:Hope they get rid of the coke bottle shape. 25 years is just too long.
This is more full length than a coke bottle shape
A F1 car wont ever look like this again. The driver position will never be that forward-situated because of safty reasons. Too bad cause those F1's looked awsome.
The rules state that the drivers feet are to be behind the suspension componentsHolm86 wrote:
A F1 car wont ever look like this again. The driver position will never be that forward-situated because of safty reasons. Too bad cause those F1's looked awsome.
Unpopular coz they were too fast for drivers.Pingguest wrote:
But those cars were very unpopular among drivers.
I doubt it, the current breed of cars are way faster. Those ground effected cars were very unpredictable and rigidly sprung.WilliamsF1 wrote:Unpopular coz they were too fast for drivers.
The ground effect and turbo cars of the early eighties were very difficult to drive due to several technical differences.Pingguest wrote:I doubt it, the current breed of cars are way faster. Those ground effected cars were very unpredictable and rigidly sprung.
To put it in a nutshell, these cars were more difficult to find the limit, something that is very much missing in today's cars. Hope 2013 rules achieve in making cars difficlt to drive (while still eing safe).WhiteBlue wrote:The ground effect and turbo cars of the early eighties were very difficult to drive due to several technical differences.Pingguest wrote:I doubt it, the current breed of cars are way faster. Those ground effected cars were very unpredictable and rigidly sprung.
Number one is probably the turbo lag which caused the power to come seconds after the pedal was pushed. According to Gerhard Berger you had to push the pedal to the metal in corner entry to get the power at the exit. Something like this isn't going to happen with the new engines. They are not going to have a turbo lag and will have much more torque in low revs.
The pre 1982 cars also had no provision for a stepped reference plane and limits on skirts as we expect from the new ground effect cars. So their reaction to loss of downforce in yaw conditions will be totally different to the new 2013 cars.
Thirdly those chassis were very floppy and bendy being designed from aluminum mainly. They are no comparison for the massively rigid carbon fibre monocoque designs of the present. A rigid chassis offers much more control to the driver.
To put it in a nutshell, these cars were more difficult to find the limit, something that is very much missing in today's cars. Hope 2013 rules achieve in making cars difficlt to drive (while still eing safe).WhiteBlue wrote:The ground effect and turbo cars of the early eighties were very difficult to drive due to several technical differences.Pingguest wrote:I doubt it, the current breed of cars are way faster. Those ground effected cars were very unpredictable and rigidly sprung.
Number one is probably the turbo lag which caused the power to come seconds after the pedal was pushed. According to Gerhard Berger you had to push the pedal to the metal in corner entry to get the power at the exit. Something like this isn't going to happen with the new engines. They are not going to have a turbo lag and will have much more torque in low revs.
The pre 1982 cars also had no provision for a stepped reference plane and limits on skirts as we expect from the new ground effect cars. So their reaction to loss of downforce in yaw conditions will be totally different to the new 2013 cars.
Thirdly those chassis were very floppy and bendy being designed from aluminum mainly. They are no comparison for the massively rigid carbon fibre monocoque designs of the present. A rigid chassis offers much more control to the driver.
That's the rumor around the Audi R18. Using rears in the front because it will supposedly be running front wheel KERS next year.747heavy wrote: Another interesting question, taking front wheel KERS into considerations is the future direction of tire sizes/development.
If we look at current trends in LMP racing, I would not be totally surprised if we would see equal (or closer matched) tire sizes in F1.
With the addition of front wheel drive (via KERS) and the possible switch to larger diameter rims in the future, I could see F1 ending up with the same tire front and rear. (with more weight and downforce moving forward)
This would also reduce some costs for the tire supplier, so maybe they are not all that unhappy about it.
Just a thought/speculation, nothing more.
The car needs a redundant front wing, a symmetrical profile similar to the camera mounts, that angles it self whenever the car pitches off the ground in the event of an accident.747heavy wrote:I think we will definately not see a return of the driver position shown in the Renault photo above, as allmost any race series demands the driver feet´s behind the front axle line now - and for very good reasons.
Nevertheless we could see a car, looking similar, just having the driver sit further back.
We will need to see, what the new bodywork/chassis regulations say about the length of the sidepods and the clearance behind the front wheels.
As more forward the sidepods can start, as higher the tunnels will be at the end of them (if there are no additional rules, limiting the exit height of the tunnels etc.)
Making for a larger area under the car and ergo more downforce.
If the tunnels can extend high enough (approaching deck height at the end of the sidepod), we may don´t see the coke bottle shape of the current cars.
In this case a more sportscar like look or the look of the first generation GE F1 cars is likely.
But I would not expect to see the straight square sidepods shown on the Renault, most likely, we will still see undercuts to reduce frontal area.
For now, I would expect that the cars will look closer to an Champcar/GP2 or Formula Atlantic with still some coke bottle shape remaining.
But I could be wrong.
I can see that there is perhaps a trend to extent the sidepods futher forward to make room for the KERS equipment around the front axle, but we will need to wait and see, how far the FIA/FOTA will go in this direction.
Because an increase in floor area will increase the potential to generate downforce
(F=p*A), if no other measures are taken to limit how much low(er) pressure you can generate under the car.
(such as demanding a raised floor on the sides ala LMP etc. or a steped floor)
While there are benefits to be had from generating the majory of the downforce by the floor, less drag, and possibly less wake and turbulences behind the car, there or also some risks to consider.
Are we maybe going to see more accidents like this one in the future?
I hope not, but the potential is there, so some thinking needs to be done and countermeasures taken, before we worship the GE god again.
Especially if we allow a large floor area more forward e.g. longer side pods.
(remember the LMP blow overs of recent years)
Another interesting question, taking front wheel KERS into considerations is the future direction of tire sizes/development.
If we look at current trends in LMP racing, I would not be totally surprised if we would see equal (or closer matched) tire sizes in F1.
With the addition of front wheel drive (via KERS) and the possible switch to larger diameter rims in the future, I could see F1 ending up with the same tire front and rear. (with more weight and downforce moving forward)
This would also reduce some costs for the tire supplier, so maybe they are not all that unhappy about it.
Just a thought/speculation, nothing more.
similar to a canard wing (trim tab) on a figther jet (aircraft)?ringo wrote: The car needs a redundant front wing, a symmetrical profile similar to the camera mounts, that angles it self whenever the car pitches off the ground in the event of an accident.
This wing would be behind the nose, and be very tough, so the wheels of another would not be able to damage it.
Think the 2008 wings just higher and further back, with bigger chord, but symetrical.
That's what unlimited hydro boats use. But they still flip.ringo wrote:The car needs a redundant front wing, a symmetrical profile similar to the camera mounts, that angles it self whenever the car pitches off the ground in the event of an accident.
