1500 hp were good for one qualifying lap if you got lucky. For races engines were around 900 hp and even tuned down like this blowing up left and right.gold333 wrote: All that really matters is power to weight.
In 2017 it is 728 kg / 900hp, in the mid eighties it was as insane as 565 kg / 1500 hp (both figures are including driver). It should be higher today, not lower.
Why flat bottom ??gold333 wrote:The way I see it that stepped floor is causing these long cars. I say get rid of it and give us a flat bottomed car again.
Wasn't the stepped floor introduced haphazardly mid way through 1994 (in the form of a thin wooden plank) and formally in 1995 (in the form of a molded stepped floor) to slow the cars down post the accidents in the first part of 1994? If so, this "slowing down" measure of a stepped bottom has no place in 2017 quest for speed.
All that really matters is power to weight.
In 2017 it is 728 kg / 900hp, in the mid eighties it was as insane as 565 kg / 1500 hp (both figures are including driver). It should be higher today, not lower.
We finally got our pre-1998 slicks and smooth bodywork back in 2009. In 2017 we, thankfully, we have our pre-1993 wide tires back. Also in 2017 we finally have our pre-1998 car widths back (more or less).
Please FIA, in 2018 lets have our pre-1994 flat bottom back. The rigidity of the suspension, with the cars ride height measured in single digit millimeters made for awesome (authentic, not "manufactured") sparking and wild on boards. Why do you think onboards back then show that level of violence with the steering almost ripped from the drivers hands.
Senna's death (rest his soul) caused all this. Although I lost a good deal of interest in F1 after seeing the slow and methodical "castration" of the cars after 1994, I have always wondered what type of car we would have had today in a parallel universe had Senna and Ratzenberger not died and had the Weickershof protocol not been implemented in 1994 to slow the cars down over the subsequent decades.
I think longer wheelbases are more about the need to package a growing list of ancillary components as tightly as possible.gold333 wrote:The way I see it that stepped floor is causing these long cars. I say get rid of it and give us a flat bottomed car again.
You don't think that it is driven by an aero benefit?bhall II wrote:I think longer wheelbases are more about the need to package a growing list of ancillary components as tightly as possible.gold333 wrote:The way I see it that stepped floor is causing these long cars. I say get rid of it and give us a flat bottomed car again.
Why else would you need tighter packaging?mrluke wrote:You don't think that it is driven by an aero benefit?bhall II wrote:I think longer wheelbases are more about the need to package a growing list of ancillary components as tightly as possible.
I think you are missing the point a little bit. More ancellaries mean more aerodynamic blockage on the track axis if left unmanaged. To reduce said blockage on the track axis, teams make the car longer on the wheelbase axis where it is less of a hindrance.mrluke wrote:You don't think that it is driven by an aero benefit?bhall II wrote:I think longer wheelbases are more about the need to package a growing list of ancillary components as tightly as possible.gold333 wrote:The way I see it that stepped floor is causing these long cars. I say get rid of it and give us a flat bottomed car again.
) don't agree that an ever growing list of ancillary components is the reason for the expected increase in wheelbase. What ancillaries specifically will be introduced this year which weren't present in 2016? I can't think of any. On the contrary, through year-on-year development or, as indicated by Wazari, revised architecture, the PU's are expected to actually shrink in volume. Not only for "slowing down". Full width flat floor is notoriously sensitive to ground clearance. A bump, colder tyres, slight change in car attitude is enough for catastrophic a loss of downforce. Stepped floor was carried over from IndyCar (as some other safety features) and is much less sensitive.gold333 wrote:Wasn't the stepped floor introduced haphazardly mid way through 1994 (in the form of a thin wooden plank) and formally in 1995 (in the form of a molded stepped floor) to slow the cars down post the accidents in the first part of 1994? If so, this "slowing down" measure of a stepped bottom has no place in 2017 quest for speed.
Well this year provides a different oppertunity. You need to have certain wheelbase to trackbase ratio else you'll eventually end up with too much under- or too much oversteer. So there are limits to using your wheelbase as a way to smooth out the blockage. This year's increase in trackbase effectively allows an increase in wheelbase.ME4ME wrote:I (never fail to miss an opportunity to disagree
You could argue that the cars will likely carry 5 kg more fuel. But while true, that's not that much of an increase.
I was rather under the impression that teams were likely to increase wheelbase because of the relaxation in regulations surrounding the splitter and plank area under the tub. Because there will be greater scope for airflow management structures, it makes sense to increase the lenght of the area to have more volume to play with.
You argued for aerodynamic blockage first, as the reason for a longer wheelbase. Has your opinion changed, or is this in addition to it?turbof1 wrote:Well this year provides a different oppertunity. You need to have certain wheelbase to trackbase ratio else you'll eventually end up with too much under- or too much oversteer. So there are limits to using your wheelbase as a way to smooth out the blockage. This year's increase in trackbase effectively allows an increase in wheelbase.
In addition. Know that every solution nowadays has diminishing returns and solutions often come with negatives as well. You want to have increased wheelbase to a thinner coke bottles/rear to allow more and better airflow over the floor and diffuser, but you do not want to increase the wheelbase to the point you have massive understeer.ME4ME wrote:You argued for aerodynamic blockage first, as the reason for a longer wheelbase. Has your opinion changed, or is this in addition to it?turbof1 wrote:Well this year provides a different oppertunity. You need to have certain wheelbase to trackbase ratio else you'll eventually end up with too much under- or too much oversteer. So there are limits to using your wheelbase as a way to smooth out the blockage. This year's increase in trackbase effectively allows an increase in wheelbase.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the discussion, but I find it slightly weird that you quoted me while neither providing evidence for the case you arguent which I questioned, nor did you relate to my opinion on the reason for a longer wheelbase.
I think there is some truth to your suggestion that there is a optimal range for the track- to wheelbase ratio, but I lack the knowledge to judge the imporance of it. It could well be a factor, but I don't it's the main reason for the additional wheelbase lenght.
.I didn't say it's the reason.ME4ME wrote:I (never fail to miss an opportunity to disagree
You could argue that the cars will likely carry 5 kg more fuel. But while true, that's not that much of an increase.
I was rather under the impression that teams were likely to increase wheelbase because of the relaxation in regulations surrounding the splitter and plank area under the tub. Because there will be greater scope for airflow management structures, it makes sense to increase the lenght of the area to have more volume to play with.
...and it will always behoove designers to keep weight both low and centered. Combine all of the above with an aerodynamic need to minimize frontal area wherever practicable, and you end up with race limousines.4.2 Weight distribution :
The weight applied on the front and rear wheels must not be less than 328kg and 387kg respectively at all times during the qualifying practice session.
If, when required for checking, a car is not already fitted with dry-weather tyres, it will be weighed on a set of dry-weather tyres selected by the FIA technical delegate.
Thanks for your opinion.timbo wrote:Not only for "slowing down". Full width flat floor is notoriously sensitive to ground clearance. A bump, colder tyres, slight change in car attitude is enough for catastrophic a loss of downforce. Stepped floor was carried over from IndyCar (as some other safety features) and is much less sensitive.gold333 wrote:Wasn't the stepped floor introduced haphazardly mid way through 1994 (in the form of a thin wooden plank) and formally in 1995 (in the form of a molded stepped floor) to slow the cars down post the accidents in the first part of 1994? If so, this "slowing down" measure of a stepped bottom has no place in 2017 quest for speed.
