Are F1 cars just too big?

[ISLAMATRON]

I agree that the length of over 5m is too much.

And we're basing this on what? What logic?

Bear in mind, F1 cars have to sustain 5G's of forward load transfer under the brakes. Long wheelbases help distribute that. Short wheelbase = off throttle and trailbrake oversteer, and generally poorer braking performance.

The Veyron..
(a) Isn't a track car.
(b) Doesn't have anywhere near the braking capacity.

They were fully capable of handling the 5G's of load transfer under braking before the ban on refueling when the cars were quite a bit shorter but still somewhat longish. The main reason why the cars are so long are twofold, 1 for aero reasons and 2 because of the refueling ban.

Yes the cars are too long... but they were too long(and too wide) back in the eighties when refueling was also not allowed... and that was with 1.5L 4 cylinder engines...just look...



Gotta love that megatron engine

Another thing that makes the cars extra long is the laid back almost lugelike posture the designers have placed the drivers in because of the advantages of the raised nose and the regulation that stipulates that the drivers feet must be behind the front wheel centerline.

hopefully the cars will get shorter(and thus more proportioned) when the new smaller turbo engine formula comes in... those engines will require less fuel, smaller gearboxes, and by the DDD's will be gone

[andrew]

The cars were wider before and worked so why not again? I really don't like the look of the narrower cars and much preferred the wider ones.

[ISLAMATRON]

they were unnecesarily wide and it hinders passing

[Just_a_fan]

So it would be good overall. Braking performance would decrease leading to more driver errors under braking and more outbraking manoeuvres, hotting up the show.

Can you explain the logic in that? How does a reduced braking performance lead to more driver errors / overtaking?

Do you think that a driver who can currently brake from 180mph to 80mph in a couple of seconds whilst down-shifting, balancing the car and possibly attacking / defending will be less able to do all of these things under less g loading and with the benefit of more time to do it all?

Doesn't stack up at all.

Indeed, if you want to increase errors you should perhaps look at increasing braking performance or, perhaps, giving the driver more to do in the braking zone. We could, of course, prevent / limit the driver's ability to alter the brake balance as that would make the car more difficult to drive but as driver adjustable brake balance is common in all forms of motorsport I don't see it being likely.

[Just_a_fan]

they were unnecesarily wide and it hinders passing

Evidence?

[ISLAMATRON]

pauli exclusion principle

Ever seen two fat guys trying to go thru a door entry at the same time? And two skinny ones? what would be the differences?

If the race track is the same width(yes I acknowledge that they are wider now) AND THE RACE CAR is thinner would it not follow that you could more easily fit more racecar onto the racing line?

Ever heard the term "making your racecar wider" as a term to describe defensive driving techniques? Don't you think it would be easier to do with a car that was already wider?

Ever seen a motorcycle race? Those things are not very wide are they?

Take any combonation of those examples that you wish.

[Jersey Tom]

So much handwaving and BS in this thread it boggles my mind.

[creedbratton]

I'd like to see the shorter wheelbase cars, if the cars were more unstable under braking then this would lead to more mistakes and put drivers in positions to overtake.

[marcush.]

f1 cars too big?
I´d say the next step in package density is a solid block ...I don´t think there is much in it to make these things much smaller under the current regs.
I ´m absolutely sure they would not deliberately build a longer car....it´s just stacking up as it is ..the differences are how much in Wheelbase? 150mm? you have to add crossection somewhere to make up for a shorter tub(to accomodate fuelvolume) or you are lucky and your driver is not Webber...

[piast9]

Can you explain the logic in that? How does a reduced braking performance lead to more driver errors / overtaking?

It's just my conclusion from watching the F1 races from 70's and 80's.

Now the braking zones are extremely short, braking before most corners takes less than a second. I think it's too short to use it as a potential overtaking opportunity. Just compare the outbraking manoeuvres in modern F1 during the dry and wet races. In wet there's plenty of them just because of less grip and longer braking times. They're long enough to show that you have bigger balls and risk braking a little bit later.

[andrew]

they were unnecesarily wide and it hinders passing

Aero and the speed of the cars hinders passing. Get rid of the fancy diffusers and slow the cars down, and the passing will return, even with wider cars.

[marcush.]

tbh ,I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions about braking.

If my braking distance is halved in distance and time ,the room for error will sudenly shrink to almost zero .
Go 5m too deep still you will miss the apex by 5 m ,braking distance 100 m or 200 m .
so I don´t see braking performance as an enhancer or hinderance to overtaking ,only if your brakes fail or loose performance for whatever reason compared to others ,overtaking -outbraking is on the cards.

[Richard]

tbh ,I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions about braking.

If my braking distance is halved in distance and time ,the room for error will sudenly shrink to almost zero .
Go 5m too deep still you will miss the apex by 5 m ,braking distance 100 m or 200 m .
so I don´t see braking performance as an enhancer or hinderance to overtaking ,only if your brakes fail or loose performance for whatever reason compared to others ,overtaking -outbraking is on the cards.

The other problem is the greatly increased certainty of mecahnical performance. In olden days, drivers had doubts in their mind and had to rely on subjective assessment of the car's performance during the race, attritiona rates were over 50%. So they left bigger margins for error. Hence more variablity.

None of which has anyhting to do with car length or width.

I'll get my coat

[gibells]

I think the conclusion that cars are too wide is not correct. Predominantly I Blame marbles as it is this that makes the racing lines much narrower. There are certain tracks, Jerez is one, where overtaking even on a motorcycle is difficult.

Why, I suppose it's down to a number of factors, track design being one, marbling another, but I'm not sure width is really a trade off worth making.

Anyway, I think we should be looking for more design freedom, not less.

[RH1300S]

A simple answer to a simple question without starting an argument over whether or not the size affects the racing.

I would say that to carry one man and enough fuel to race for a couple of hours - yes the cars are too big (wide and long). Perhaps they need to think about that for future regulations if they mandate differnt engines/fuel requirements.

However - looking at the way an F1 car is packaged starting with keeping the driver's feet behind the axle line and keeping him in a survival cell. Then it's hard to imagine how you could make the current cars much more compact given the need to package fuel safely, cool the mechanicals and still have room for an engine & gearbox.

It's not really an option to change the size of the human, fuel takes a reasonably fixed volume and an IC engine with cylinders needs a certain length just to fit the cylinders in. There's probably only one gearbox we know about that would save much length and it's been discussed in it's own thread.