Why open-wheel racing?

[donskar]

We know that there was a time that F1 cars could run fully enveloping bodies. Help me out here Ciro / Carlos/ A.N. Other -- was it not around 1954 that Mercedes-Benz ran a full-bodied F1 car? (With mixed results I hazily recall.) Then we have the semi-bodied Ferrari-Lancia of the mid-1950s, and in the 70's several cars with full-width noses.

When were the rules changed to
1) Ban full bodies
2) Ban full width noses
3) Any reason given?

Thanks!

As to why we now have open wheels:
1) Tradition of course, which despite the KER/fixed HP/fixed/torque hobby-horse riders in this forum, does have a lot of value.
2) Public perception that open wheels = fast. That perception is strengthened by the worldwide image of the Indy 500 and all F1 races in general.
3) (Tangentially) the archetypal Ameican "hot rod" is usually a fender-less Ford Model T, A or B.

[Belatti]

cars are only quick as the regulations allow. just because f1 cars are the quickest doesn't mean open wheel cars are superior to closed ones.

A wise asnwer that resumes all.

[jamsbong]

I suppose if you have a close body, the aero will be more efficient and easier to design. a close body will definitely work better at high speed track, not so sure about twisties though.

Open wheels are definitely superior in direction changing.

So if there are no rules, open wheels will be great for suzuka or Monaco track while Hockenheim or Monza will suit better for close body car.

[DaveKillens]

Technically, it would be easier to find speed with an enclosed body.
But why do all the guys want to date the hot chicks? Because they are perceived to be sexy and desirable. Racing also captures to emotions, and open-wheel racing appears more interesting, exciting, and just plain sexy.
Face it, a sedan looks like .. a sedan. An LMP is exotic, but noting says dedicated purebreed racer like an open-wheeler.

[Ciro Pabón]

Yes, donskar, surely Mercedes ran a closed body in the 1954 Mercedes W196, as shown here in F1Technical car database.

I'm surprised why nobody has mentioned the reason given by Tomba on the article about that car.

You can position the car very precisely in corners

That's why most racing cars, once upon a time, since 1905 or so, used open wheels.

There were no other reasons that I know, as aerodynamic science was in its infancy. Weight transfer, stiffness, all the rest, was secondary (if ever someone thought about them in 1905): if the driver withstood the lack of comfort in the rain (or in dirt tracks) was just because he wanted to watch the wheels.

As a side bonus, you can check the colour of the wheels when turning (they darken when heated/scrubbed) and you can also check the wear (more or less).

Finally, it's not only "tradition" what has kept the rules in the book against closed wheels: it's for people not using the entire nose (or even the entire body) as a wing. Some other cars (besides the Mercedes) tried to do the same: to use the body as a wing. That's why we have rules against it, downforce levels are high enough.

And I think that's the answer to your friend's question, xpensive.

BTW, donskar, even in 1954 there were rules against closed wheelers in F1. Mercedes exploited a loophole in the rules.

I think, btw, that McLaren is trying to do the same thing in 2009, extending the wheel fairings toward the front of the wheel. I support that, because I think that the only real danger left in F1 is the "flying cars", something that happens when rear/front wheels touch.

[Vitesse]

Half right, Ciro. Enclosed bodies were not banned in F1 and F2 until 1959.

Streamlining dates back to the beginnings of the sport, with early examples including record cars like "La Jamais Contente" and the Baker Torpedo. But it was the 20s before serious thought was given to streamlining Formula cars. Some chose covered wheels - the Bugatti 'Tanks' for example - others streamlined open-wheelers like the Benz 'Tropfenwagen'. In the 30s, Mercedes and Auto Union produced streamliners with all-enveloping bodies, which they used at super-fast tracks like AVUS, Reims and Tripoli, but the incomplete understanding of aerodynamics meant that these usually very light vehicles were prone to handling problems. Maserati ran a streamlined voiturette at Tripoli in 1939 and it proved very fast before retiring on lap 2 ....

Mercedes returned to the theme in the 1950s with their W196s: aerodynamics were better understood by now, but - as pointed out above and demonstrated by pictures of Fangio's car at Aintree in 1954 - the drivers found it difficult to judge where to position the car for corners. Bugatti's T251 and Gordini's T32 were other semi-enclosed designs, but neither was exactly "cutting-edge". Other 50s streamliners included a Frank Costin-designed Vanwall and a Cooper, but the extra bodyweight on both these seems to have negated any aerodynamic advantage.

[Carlos]

Donskar - I don't remember the rule changes very well but I remember the cars. Full width nose designs were used from 1971 to 1976. I noticed a couple of things back then. The teams divided into 3 aero design philosophies. Streamlined full fairing noses, reducing drag or using downforce producing front wings. Radiator placement was part of the continuing development in aero. Lotus introduced hip radiators and used downforce wings on each side of the wedge nose, McLaren and others followed. Ferrari went their own way. Sort of the best of both worlds. Ferrari used a full width wing on the 312 with front mounted water rads and small side mount rear rads and an unusual full body which suited the flat 12 engine profile. centering the mass within the 4 wheels was the idea, the Ferrari gearbox was also a transverse design. A very nimble car. Tyrrell and Brabham were the leaders of the full nose designs and others followed their lead. Those were the 3 directions in aero thinking.

[Ciro Pabón]

Vitesse: thank you very much. I had no idea about the rules changing in 1959 (and I looked everywhere as Google is my witness): I simply followed Tomba article on the W196, where he mentions the "loophole" thing. BTW, I wish you posted more here, you managed to give us a very interesting summary.

You mention the "Jamais Contente" (Never Happy). Thanks, again. I really have a fondness for that vehicle: this was the first Revell model of a car that I build (I've already built some planes and ships before it). I also remember well that I built it when I was becoming a very serious Verne fan (with all the seriousness of my eight or nine years) and I've just read "Robur the Conquerer". Somehow both things became locked together in my mind. I was fascinated by the rear wheel mechanism and the electric motor, which took me a while to glue. I know you know, but, for the record, it was also an open wheeler.

The closed Mercedes of the 30's was the very first picture I posted here: I choose a picture of Rudolf Caracciola giving the nazi salute and I made some sarcastic comments about the Silver Arrows history. I think Principessa hasn't yet forgiven me...

[modbaraban]

The public perception is that a Formula racecar means it has open wheels. If I'm not mistaken F1 means 'formula one'?

I'm very surprised that this thread became a multi-page discussion at all. It's like asking 'why closed wheels and only 2 doors?' in rellation to GT cars.

[Conceptual]

The public perception is that a Formula racecar means it has open wheels. If I'm not mistaken F1 means 'formula one'?

I'm very surprised that this thread became a multi-page discussion at all. It's like asking 'why closed wheels and only 2 doors?' in rellation to GT cars.

I think it was a good question, since history proves that they were not always open wheelers. That would have ended it on post 2, but with the inclusion of covered wheels in F1 history, I believe it was a relevant question, and one that led to a better understanding of F1 history for me.

So to the OP, THANKS FOR ASKIN'!!!

[modbaraban]

Point taken. There were exceptions indeed and exceptions prove (i.e. test) the rule. And both exceptions that I remember took part in the 1st decade of F1 Grand Prix history.

[G-Rock]

I think that open wheel racing lends itself to a more civilized, purist type racing because of the consequences associated with bumping into another car like you see in Nascar. It forces the driver to make a fair, safe pass and not take any chances. A poorly excecuted pass can end up in climbing over another car's tires, suspension damage, wing damage etc. Only a talented driver can force a pass by touching sidewall to sidewall but it's still a huge risk.
If you watch an open wheel race vs a full body race, it becomes very clear that open wheel is in another class. Indycar vs Nascar is a perfect example. In Nascar the fans like the bump and grind type of racing while in Indycar, it's all about racing lines, braking and drafting.

[Conceptual]

I think that open wheel racing lends itself to a more civilized, purist type racing because of the consequences associated with bumping into another car like you see in Nascar. It forces the driver to make a fair, safe pass and not take any chances. A poorly excecuted pass can end up in climbing over another car's tires, suspension damage, wing damage etc. Only a talented driver can force a pass by touching sidewall to sidewall but it's still a huge risk.
If you watch an open wheel race vs a full body race, it becomes very clear that open wheel is in another class. Indycar vs Nascar is a perfect example. In Nascar the fans like the bump and grind type of racing while in Indycar, it's all about racing lines, braking and drafting.

Brute vs. Finesse racing?

[jamsbong]

I just remembered. I'm sure you all watch Top Gear, so you'll know that the Veyron is Slower than the tiny Caterham which happens to be open-wheeled.

a tiny 4cyl car faster than a 16cyl 4 turbo $1million car? That to me is the ultimate argument for open wheel.

[superstring]

I just remembered. I'm sure you all watch Top Gear, so you'll know that the Veyron is Slower than the tiny Caterham which happens to be open-wheeled.

a tiny 4cyl car faster than a 16cyl 4 turbo $1million car? That to me is the ultimate argument for open wheel.

I think that's more down to the power to (light) weight and superb handling of the Caterham than the fact it's an open wheeler. As you said it (just) "happens to be open-wheeled".