Is Formula 1 becoming too slow?

[SectorOne]

6g turns are simply too much. Aircraft pilots can take around 10-12g, but that´s completely different because they only suffer vertical forces,

Exactly. It´s not anywhere near the dangers of getting a blackout of redout so increasing the G should be no problems considering the only banking we have in F1 is negligible.

but F1 drivers have to hold their head (and helmet) sideways, and at 6g turns that´s a lot of kg to hold with your neck, specially for 2 continuous hours

They lean on the headrest even now so any higher effect would only cause a bit earlier leaning during the race.
Although i think today not all drivers relax the neck during the race. Vettel i´ve seen do it.

Also 6G sounds a bit much. I doubt we see 6G in braking even.

I think I read some years ago a driver faint may be possible due to the fatigue and that obviously can´t be a possibility, so from that point cars simply can´t be faster... at least while a driver is inside

As long as the driver has water i can´t see that happening.

[Juzh]

This is how fast real F1 should be

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLHI0wid3wo[/youtube]

[beelsebob]

I agree the problem started when F1 cars were too powerful and too fast, but not only for any circuit, but also for the drivers. F1 not only reached track limits, also human limits. 6g turns are simply too much. Aircraft pilots can take around 10-12g, but that´s completely different because they only suffer vertical forces, they can´t "turn" sideways like a car, so they don´t have to hold their body and head.

Actually, the Aircraft pilots have it worse here. 6g is right on the border line of blacking/redding out under a vertical load. To get to 8-10g they need a g suit, and a lot of training. By comparison, a human is capable of withstanding about 30-35g side to side. The limit of what you can take front to back is thought to be the same point at which you basically collapse into mush under your own weight. This is why astronauts lie on their back during a launch, to make sure the bulk of the force is being perceived front/back for them.

[beelsebob]

They lean on the headrest even now so any higher effect would only cause a bit earlier leaning during the race.
Although i think today not all drivers relax the neck during the race. Vettel i´ve seen do it.

Also 6G sounds a bit much. I doubt we see 6G in braking even.

According to McLaren engineers we're approaching 7g under breaks now. Apparently Martin Whitmarsh had been telling some visitors about the car in the garage, saying it could turn and break at 5g, and an engineer piped up and corrected him to turning at 6g and breaking at 7.

[Ogami musashi]

Recent telemetry seems to say the opposite. The actual F1 cars corner and brake at lower rates than before.

In addition telemetry is often difficult to interpret and forces seen by tyres are lower.

Example: in 2006 you could see 5,5 G in turns and 6g in braking. But according to a michelin engineer i knew that worked in F1 this is overestimated and real steady cornering force were more around 3,5G. I asked a pirelli engineer this year and he said it depends but general yes this is the real values you have.

[hollus]

Maybe F1 is not right at the limit now, those 6-7g would be instantaneous and not sustained, but they are close(ish).

From the Wikipedia:

Firestone Firehawk 600

The Firestone Firehawk 600, a CART race, was to be held on April 29, 2001. During practice and qualifying, however, 21 of 25 drivers[5] complained of dizziness and disorientation during two days of practice. Drivers experienced sustained G forces over 5 Gs, more than the typical human tolerance. With their powerful turbocharged engines and superspeedway downforce packages, the Champ Cars were averaging speeds well in excess of 230 mph (The track record, set by Paul Tracy, was 239.552 mph). This was much faster than IRL machinery of the time, and faster still than the speeds seen regularly by Sprint Cup cars.

With the possibility of drivers blacking out on the track, CART cancelled the race two hours before the scheduled start.

[SectorOne]

According to McLaren engineers we're approaching 7g under breaks now. Apparently Martin Whitmarsh had been telling some visitors about the car in the garage, saying it could turn and break at 5g, and an engineer piped up and corrected him to turning at 6g and breaking at 7.

I find that very hard to believe, even on low fuel with the softest compounds Pirelli has.
7G in braking sounds way too much.

Maybe F1 is not right at the limit now, those 6-7g would be instantaneous and not sustained, but they are close(ish).

From the Wikipedia:

Firestone Firehawk 600

The Firestone Firehawk 600, a CART race, was to be held on April 29, 2001. During practice and qualifying, however, 21 of 25 drivers[5] complained of dizziness and disorientation during two days of practice. Drivers experienced sustained G forces over 5 Gs, more than the typical human tolerance. With their powerful turbocharged engines and superspeedway downforce packages, the Champ Cars were averaging speeds well in excess of 230 mph (The track record, set by Paul Tracy, was 239.552 mph). This was much faster than IRL machinery of the time, and faster still than the speeds seen regularly by Sprint Cup cars.

With the possibility of drivers blacking out on the track, CART cancelled the race two hours before the scheduled start.

Keep in mind that´s banked corners they are talking about.

[Juzh]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_BUIEhvmPg[/youtube]

Peak cornering forces for Ham in macca are 4.9G. According to Webber himself and onboard telemetry he took turn 8 flat, so it's reasonable to assume he achieved even greater G. 5+
In 2011 vettel had to lift considerably trough turn 8. I think 2010 cars had the most DF of this current aero rules.

[FoxHound]

Like hollus said, sustained g force and instantaneous are day and night.
6g for 2 seconds is no problem. 6g prolonged will lead to some issues.

[Tommy Cookers]

@ juzh
your peak g is the highest 'sample and hold' instantaneous vector sum signal from a 3 component accelerometer array
not corrected for dynamic overshoot, geometry, sampling factors eg aliasing , etc, etc
or worse if GPS derived
they are shopping for a 'mine's bigger than yours' attention-grabbing number

p.s Foxhound and Hollus are exactly right
blackout etc comes from oxygen depletion in the brain
this is not instantaneous

[Tommy Cookers]

..... F1 not only reached track limits, also human limits. 6g turns are simply too much. Aircraft pilots can take around 10-12g, but that´s completely different because they only suffer vertical forces, they can´t "turn" sideways like a car, so they don´t have to hold their body and head.

Actually, the Aircraft pilots have it worse here. 6g is right on the border line of blacking/redding out under a vertical load. To get to 8-10g they need a g suit, and a lot of training. By comparison, a human is capable of withstanding about 30-35g side to side. The limit of what you can take front to back is thought to be the same point at which you basically collapse into mush under your own weight. This is why astronauts lie on their back during a launch, to make sure the bulk of the force is being perceived front/back for them.

FWIW I'm not confident in the 30-35 lateral g
given that blackout and redout start as reduction-of-vision issues, wouldn't such great lateral g give some similar vision issue ?
and aiming the eyeball in the required direction is surely impossible at far less than 30 g laterally
..... speaking as one who advocated combat pilots 'active seating' to reduce 'vertical' g by accepting 'lateral' g

Stapp showed that 45 g pure deceleration was the threshold for permanent blindness from retinal detachment
various temporary blindness states are available at lower g decelerations AFAIK

isn't astronaut g 'only' about 5 ?
being short and skinny I have flown an Extra at about 8 g in a pull-up (no g suit)
I can't remember whether aiming the eyeball was an issue, tunnelling makes it difficult to tell (flying by g meter more than feel)
the Red Bull 'air race' people wear g suits and typically take about 10 g
AFAIK no combat aircraft goes beyond 9 g
Israel tried a very reclined seating position, this gave neck injuries when looking behind

[beelsebob]

..... F1 not only reached track limits, also human limits. 6g turns are simply too much. Aircraft pilots can take around 10-12g, but that´s completely different because they only suffer vertical forces, they can´t "turn" sideways like a car, so they don´t have to hold their body and head.

Actually, the Aircraft pilots have it worse here. 6g is right on the border line of blacking/redding out under a vertical load. To get to 8-10g they need a g suit, and a lot of training. By comparison, a human is capable of withstanding about 30-35g side to side. The limit of what you can take front to back is thought to be the same point at which you basically collapse into mush under your own weight. This is why astronauts lie on their back during a launch, to make sure the bulk of the force is being perceived front/back for them.

FWIW I'm not confident in the 30-35 lateral g
given that blackout and redout start as reduction-of-vision issues, wouldn't such great lateral g give some similar vision issue ?

No, because the force is not directing blood either away from or to your brain. The loss of vision is caused exactly because of loss of blood flow to the brain.

and aiming the eyeball in the required direction is surely impossible at far less than 30 g laterally
..... speaking as one who advocated combat pilots 'active seating' to reduce 'vertical' g by accepting 'lateral' g

Certainly I can believe that you wouldn't be able to look where you need to, which probably occurs significantly earlier than 30g. The other significant problem, which the drivers are already hitting is that breathing becomes extremely difficult around 3g lateral, which means that the drivers can only breath for sub-parts of the lap. Increasing the amount of lap they're at that kind of g-force probably isn't a good plan.

[MOWOG]

Agree with the reasoning, but disagree with the conclusion

@ Andres. No worries mate. My wife usually disagrees with my conclusions AND my reasoning!

[Agerasia]

It would be sad if some of the old lap records were not broken.
I don't think having 10 year old lap records is advancement, no matter what the guise.

[beelsebob]

It would be sad if some of the old lap records were not broken.
I don't think having 10 year old lap records is advancement, no matter what the guise.

Why do they need to be broken? And of course it's advancement – it's keeping the same despite tighter rules – in order to do that you have to get more advanced.