Smaller cars without length restrictions

[trinidefender]

My theory, posted in other threads, is that the cars got longer because the minimum weight got higher to allow the poorer teams to compete. The richer teams used the extra minimum weight to make longer cars, which forced the poorer teams to make longer cars, which then were overweight. This made the regulators increase the minimum weight, which the richer teams used to make their car longer... repeat every 3-4 years.
So, since we no longer will have rich and poor teams, reduce the minimum weight!

That's it. Simply put.

The minimum weight should be something to strive towards and not the figure that allows the largest aero floor.

The amount of free floor space is crazy.

Shorten the cars. They could be asked to shrink them by 10% and they'd look very cool and perform still!

I definitely agree with reducing the minimum weight of the cars. To be honest I should have put that in the original post as part of the topic.

Reducing the minimum weight will give teams some incentive to design smaller cars and sacrifice some aero for mechanical advantages. I too miss the way the old lighter cars look so nimble.

[AngusF1]

Yes, get rid of the minimum weight restriction or even better, put in a maximum weight restriction. The current cars are obese with slow transient response and too little weight transfer, which makes them too forgiving to drive. Drop the weight, the cars get shorter and lighter with greater weight transfer and become more difficult to drive. The whole point of them ought to be that only the most talented (or lunatic) drivers are able to control them.

[Stu]

My shot at reducing car length would simply be to reduce the minimum weight. I've said this before, but the circumstances have not changed: minimum car weight was there to prevent rich teams from outspending poorer teams on lighter materials. Well, now all teams will have similar budgets, so there is a clear chance there.

Alternatively, just ban the "free floor" from the rules. Car length is there largely to create free, exposed floor. But one could extend the sidepod rules with minimum radius and such to include the floor. If you could only have floor where there is bodywork directly above and connected to it, I think we'd see much shorter cars.

But then, as long as the rules are the same for everyone, I am happy with a maximum length. They do specify a maximum width, why would this be different?

I’m pretty certain that the rules used to only allow the floor to shadow the upper bodywork (certainly mid-eighties-late nineties), now the floor is not a floor, it is the bodywork.
Another solution would be to limit the length of the power-train (front of engine to rear of transmission); engines are already regulated dimensionally (bore centres, etc).
Who actually ‘needs’ a 1 metre long bell-housing? Imagine how ridiculous any Audi or Porsche 911 would look with the same (or any fwd car for that matter).
From a packaging perspective an F1 car need not have a wheelbase any longer than 2.5-3m.
F1 cars always had relatively short cars, then when the narrow track cars came in wheelbase really helped, that has then been simply scaled up when they went back to wider track again.
Think of the weight savings! Time again for nimble cars? I would hope so, but the new regs missed the chance. Shame.

[CMSMJ1]

On this topic, it seems most of us can agree

So, I wonder why the working groups and the focus groups seem to miss the obvious? Does anyone ever asnwer the polls to state that the current obese hybrids are exciting? They are fast - but get driven slowly as the tyres and fuel regs don't allow for flat out.

if we had cars 5secs per lap slower, outright, but they were driven closer to the limit more of the time - that would be a better spectacle.

Perhaps, when E racing does actually provide some speed, it will be the rebound from that which allows F1 to stop trying to be all things to all men.

It is a formula for a fixed distance race with safety rules and a cost cap to allow for engineering outcomes to be the driving force.

[Jolle]

I remember lengthy discussions I had with my dad during the eighties that those monstrosities were to big, had nothing to do with engineering due to wings, wide tires and that the real F1 were the lotus cigars from the sixties.

[jjn9128]

My theory, posted in other threads, is that the cars got longer because the minimum weight got higher to allow the poorer teams to compete. The richer teams used the extra minimum weight to make longer cars, which forced the poorer teams to make longer cars, which then were overweight. This made the regulators increase the minimum weight, which the richer teams used to make their car longer... repeat every 3-4 years.
So, since we no longer will have rich and poor teams, reduce the minimum weight!

I don't know whether that is true - look at the graph I posted, between 1995 and 2009 the minimum weight was basically static but the wheelbase grew by >200mm.

[Big Tea]

My theory, posted in other threads, is that the cars got longer because the minimum weight got higher to allow the poorer teams to compete. The richer teams used the extra minimum weight to make longer cars, which forced the poorer teams to make longer cars, which then were overweight. This made the regulators increase the minimum weight, which the richer teams used to make their car longer... repeat every 3-4 years.
So, since we no longer will have rich and poor teams, reduce the minimum weight!

I don't know whether that is true - look at the graph I posted, between 1995 and 2009 the minimum weight was basically static but the wheelbase grew by >200mm.

Would this have been (partly) due to the cockpit rules brought in for egress? a bigger hole needed as the driver is flatter etc? Or was that before this time?

[jjn9128]

Would this have been (partly) due to the cockpit rules brought in for egress? a bigger hole needed as the driver is flatter etc? Or was that before this time?

The rule forcing the drivers feet to be behind the front axle line was introduced in 1988. The rule was then improved to include a 300mm buffer between the front of the survival cell and the drivers feet in 1995, in reality this just made the nose cones overhang a little more.

From 1995 the front face of the cockpit opening had to be at least 750mm behind the front axle, the opening itself was 650mm long, so the safety cell was a minimum of 1400mm from front axle line to rear of cockpit opening. By 2000 the axle line to cockpit opening length had reduced to 625mm but with a 850mm opening, so a minimum of 1475mm from axle line to rear of cockpit.

The minimum cockpit (front bulkhead to rear of entry template) length of 1800mm was added in 2001, so say the drivers feet were placed 100mm behind the axle line, that makes the cockpit 1600mm from the axle line to the rear of cockpit opening. But using the BAR team as a guide the wheelbase only increased from 3108mm to 3183mm between '00 and '01, so either they must have had a longer cockpit than the minimum possible in 2000 (likely to minimize cross section for aero gains) or they absorbed some of that length elsewhere.

[PlatinumZealot]

As we all know next season onwards there will be maximum imposed length restrictions and it seems that the current thought process here is that most cars will go to the maximum imposed wheel base/car length which isn't even much smaller than the current cars. Larger cars means less overtaking on many tracks especially ones like Monaco.

So I'm proposing a hypothetical question to the forum at large. In the future how can F1 reduce the overall size of cars without use of length restrictions so every car ends up being more of the same (myself and others enjoy cars having more variety) and other serious adverse affects such as reducing safety or a large increase in cost?

P.s. I placed this here but it can also fit into the PU section of the forum so all answers welcome.
P.P.s. please don't let this topic devolve into a senseless argument.

I beileive you are focusing on a problem that has not revealed itself.

I would ask this question... Did you see more than one car jambing into a turn in Monaco?

Are the drivers really that afraid of banging wheels?

I think not.

What was heard over the team radios were cries of "I can't get close!"

Meaning the size of the cars have not come into the equation of passing yet. And are not the limiting factor. Even on big open tracks passing is still few and far between.

I wont bring the topic into disrepute. I figure if you want smaller cars good for you. I like the Idea as well. But I never believed that these wide cars are the cause of the lack of passing.

I will continue watching for for two or three cars log-jambed into a turn before I call for smaller cars! The good thing is, by that point it would mean that following cars in dirty has been solved! And the size of the cars would then be the limiting factor.

But before then, overtaking working groups has to address the true route cause of why the cars wont get close in the first place.

My two cents.

[marcush]

car length is dictated by hard points set in the rules (crash specifications, mandatory Foot position , engine dimension , tank position , mandatory wing position etc etc .
Then you have technical requirements to accomodate : the current crop of cars are complicated with lots of adfitional systems need to accomodate ,some of them have to be in specific places by regulations ,again adding volume.
It seems , for most of the teams weight
limits are easily met , so they use the available freedom to increase bottom surface area , thus downforce .They seem to prefer this over ballasting the car to lower CofG .

[michl420]

I also would like smaller cars and I think lower min weight is now a possibility with the budget cap. But currently everyone ( race and civil cars) bolt on bigger tires to make this big cars look smaller. A reason why NOW this cars are so long could be that a little longer car bring maybe 5% more aero downforce. And 5% of a lot is more than 5% of less downforce. The logic answer would be, less overal downforce would reduce the gains of a longer car.