2014 Design

[variante]

In my view a lighter car would be safer, it has to conform to the same rules, but in a crash less weight is involved, my knowledge tells me that less weight=less force in a collision.

In some situations a lighter car is safer, in others it isn't.
If the weight reduction is directly proportional to materials strenght reduction, then we would have no real benefit from a lighter car.
A couple of examples:
-collision with a solid wall: we would tend to think that the lighter car would win this one because it would exert less force on the impact-absorbing structure, wich would have less chances to fail. However we should notice that the "strenght" of the absorbing structure is calibrated on the weight of the car...so it's a draw.
-collision with another car: if you have an heavier car and you collide with a lighter one, your acceleration will be less intense than the one suffered by the other guy; the heavier car wins. Anyway, during a race all cars are supposed to weigh the same, so it's a draw again.

[turbof1]

Except that a minimal strength is always ensured by the crash tests, no matter how light the car is.

[Blanchimont]

However we should notice that the "strenght" of the absorbing structure is calibrated on the weight of the car

That's the important thing to look at! A crash element that is to stiff/soft for a given weight of the car can increase the accelerations felt by the driver and cause injuries.

[Huntresa]

I agree modern racing cars (F-1, LMP1, WRC) are too heavy and we can say the same for road cars (too much gimmicks).

In case of crash there's less energy involved without compromising the safety. A lighter racing car is better in all conditions (accelerating, braking, cornering) than a heavier one. The reason Chapman’s motto is “add lightness” and not “cut weight” is because making a lighter car adds so much more to the car.

Chapman... Yeah cause his lightweight cars didnt kill people...

[Tim.Wright]

Why do they keep making the cars heavier?

ERS makes the cars heavier, and so to keep things even for the heavier and more sensible sized drivers as to keep things decent for them as teams would hire shirt guys who weigh almost nothing. Also the new safety improvements also weigh a fair bit more.

And it's stupid. I hope we'll get rid of that minimum weight rule one day or reduce the minimum weight a lot. We can help the heavy drivers by making all the drivers weight virtualy the same with 'bespoke' ballast for each one... F1 cars must be light. lightness brings many advantages to F1 and no/few disadvantages.

One thing I've always wondered. If there was no minimum weight, would you still see:
Hydraulic gearboxes
Hydraulic steering
Hydraulically actuated brake balance control
Electrohydraulic throttle actuation
Electrohydraulic clutch actuation
KERs or ERS or whatever its called now
DRS
Enough real time aquisition equipment to send the car to the moon
Telemetery radios
Driver communication radios
Interconnected suspension
3 Dampers per axle
etc...

I'd guess that a lot of these things are on the car because with the minimum weight rules so high, there is no weight penalty. But in reality, I think many of these systems would slow the car down when you consider the weight. A big one would be the hydraulic systems. Deleting all the crap accosiated with that means you also dont need the hydraulic supply which consists of a pump, an accumulator, pressure relief valves, oil cooler and all the servo valves.

At the end of the day, its all political reasoning as to why the mimimum weight is as it is. F1 wants to appear green and technologically advanced.

[WhiteBlue]

One thing I've always wondered. If there was no minimum weight, would you still see:
Hydraulic gearboxes
Hydraulic steering
Hydraulically actuated brake balance control
Electrohydraulic throttle actuation
Electrohydraulic clutch actuation
KERs or ERS or whatever its called now
DRS
Enough real time aquisition equipment to send the car to the moon
Telemetery radios
Driver communication radios
Interconnected suspension
3 Dampers per axle
etc...

I'd guess that a lot of these things are on the car because with the minimum weight rules so high, there is no weight penalty. But in reality, I think many of these systems would slow the car down when you consider the weight. A big one would be the hydraulic systems. Deleting all the crap accosiated with that means you also dont need the hydraulic supply which consists of a pump, an accumulator, pressure relief valves, oil cooler and all the servo valves.

If you delete ERS from the list you will probably find that all those things are pretty essential for performance. Since the introduction of semi auto sequential gearboxes 24 years ago no team has opted to do without them and that speaks a very clear message. The hydraulics are absolutely essential. Same is true for power steering if you ask people like Kimi. He is absolutely lost in a car that does not match his preferences for power steering. The F1 hydraulics btw. are unbelievably light weight.

[wesley123]

I agree modern racing cars (F-1, LMP1, WRC) are too heavy and we can say the same for road cars (too much gimmicks).

In case of crash there's less energy involved without compromising the safety. A lighter racing car is better in all conditions (accelerating, braking, cornering) than a heavier one. The reason Chapman’s motto is “add lightness” and not “cut weight” is because making a lighter car adds so much more to the car.

Chapman... Yeah cause his lightweight cars didnt kill people...

Yeah and nothing has changed in safety since then

[Tim.Wright]

One thing I've always wondered. If there was no minimum weight, would you still see:
Hydraulic gearboxes
Hydraulic steering
Hydraulically actuated brake balance control
Electrohydraulic throttle actuation
Electrohydraulic clutch actuation
KERs or ERS or whatever its called now
DRS
Enough real time aquisition equipment to send the car to the moon
Telemetery radios
Driver communication radios
Interconnected suspension
3 Dampers per axle
etc...

I'd guess that a lot of these things are on the car because with the minimum weight rules so high, there is no weight penalty. But in reality, I think many of these systems would slow the car down when you consider the weight. A big one would be the hydraulic systems. Deleting all the crap accosiated with that means you also dont need the hydraulic supply which consists of a pump, an accumulator, pressure relief valves, oil cooler and all the servo valves.

If you delete ERS from the list you will probably find that all those things are pretty essential for performance. Since the introduction of semi auto sequential gearboxes 24 years ago no team has opted to do without them and that speaks a very clear message. The hydraulics are absolutely essential. Same is true for power steering if you ask people like Kimi. He is absolutely lost in a car that does not match his preferences for power steering. The F1 hydraulics btw. are unbelievably light weight.

I don't know if I'd agree with that. The performance return for reducing mass is massive, but its never seen beyond the realms of simulation because every racing series have a minimum weight which means all of the cars weigh the same. Remember back in the days of refuelling and more stable tyres there were several seconds a lap difference between an empty and a full tank.

Semi automatic gearbox for me would be the first to go. They are there now because they give a small performance advantage with no weight penalty.

If you look to Formula Student/SAE ther is no minimum weight, and before the electric vehicles came in, a lot of the leading cars were light weight single cylinder cars which were actually BELOW the maximum capacity allowed by the rules but the reduction in weight made the loss of engine performance worth it. Granted these cars are for a very different type of course, but still it shows how important mass actually is.

Also, I just had a look at the laptime list on the Top Gear track. Have a look in 3rd and 24th place, there are the 2 Ariel Atoms (500Hp and 300Hp respetively). They dont have massive power, massive tyres, hydraulic transmissions, diffs or steeing. They are just light weight. For this reason they are beating Ferrari, Lamborghini and Bugatti around the track.

[Blackout]

@Tim.Wright
Yes, but 2009 cars had all those components and didnt weight 700 kilos. same as 2010 cars... What would a modern technologically advanced f1 car weight without ballast ? some people say 500 kg and even less (a V8 F1)... so there is plenty of room... we can lower the minimum weight a lot even after adding 80 kilos for the V6 components and give, let's say, 20 kilos for the teams to play with for ballast or for future developpments...

@Smirkoff
Nice work mate. you should post some other view angels of your car... a side view and a rear view for example ; )

EDIT: ah, here they are
http://imageshack.us/user/msmirk

[bhall]

Just look at the RB5. It never ran with KERS, because Newey chose to forgo the additional (intermittent) 60hp in favor of better weight distribution, and it was arguably the fastest car at the end of the 2009 season.

[hollus]

A current spec F1 car reduced to 500kg would be pulling above 5G in too many places as the downforce is the same. Not gonna happen because it can't!

[Kolin68]

https://imageshack.com/i/fkpj4kj

[smirkoff]

Did you clip the 150mm from the front wing width?

Yes. As you can see, the visual impact of the change is very small.

[wesley123]

A current spec F1 car reduced to 500kg would be pulling above 5G in too many places as the downforce is the same. Not gonna happen because it can't!

Maybe, but it neither was a problem in the 2004/2005 era for example, cars back then were much quicker than they are now. But still, even if a 500kg limit might be a little low, 600kg might be a better choice, still 84kg's off.

[WhiteBlue]

The whole speculation about minimum weights is pointless in my view. If the federation wanted turbo engines without energy recovery they would have taken that approach and the minimum weight would have well been below 600 kg for a simple I4 turbo engined car.

But the point is the energy recovery is a corner stone of the fuel saving strategy. F1 needed a hybrid power train to fall in line with the trends in the automotive industry and to demonstrate the support for sustainability in motor sport. You have just the same pressure as you have in Le Mans prototypes. It is the visibility of F1 that drives the FiA to such decisions.

The consequences of the hybrid design are massive if you listen to Adrian Newey.Source All the recovery technology is fluid cooled. The biggest challenge in his opinion is to package all these additional cooling systems.

Q:
Will the regulation changes for next year have a drastic effect on technical and design side of the cars?

Adrian Newey:
Yes, next year is a big change in particular for the packaging of the car. The new engines need a lot of cooling, because not only have you got the combustion engine, but the turbo charged parts too. With the electrical side, what we call KERS and that also needs a lot of cooling. The cooling is a big challenge