2025 ... 4 wheel driven cars

[Zynerji]

This would allow the drivers to take a dozen different lines through a corner....

Ever driven a race car? There's (usually) only one quick way through a corner which is why you see all the cars taking the same line. The apex is critical; too early or too late and you either have to keep turning the car or just back out to make the corner. Having all the wheels driven independently. which is what you are suggesting, won't open up more fast lines through the corner. Corner exit is critical to being able to set the car in the right place for the next corner; apex too early and you'll find yourself pushed all the way to the outside when you might really like to be on the other side of the track setting up for the next corner..... Rinse and repeat.

For a normal racing car with traditional drive to the rear wheels, indeed. But if one has each wheel driven independently, it is possible to speed up and slow down wheels increase turn in e.g. increase the speed of the outside wheels, slow down the inside wheels, so one could take a later apex line or an earlier apex line and still make a similar position at the exit of the corner. Whether that would be quicker than the traditional line would be interesting to see.

The on-track duels could be epic... I think certain complexes would become crazy fast tho. The Lesmos, Maggots/Becketts, and lots more of Monaco would be able to be taken flat out...

[henry]

I wonder how much of the track would be available for these alternative lines. “Rubbering in” and Marbles tend to reduce the width of the tracks available for max performance. Any alternative racing lines are likely to be slower, but there may be some benefit in being able to block or force others into less than optimal lines.

[Zynerji]

I wonder how much of the track would be available for these alternative lines. “Rubbering in” and Marbles tend to reduce the width of the tracks available for max performance. Any alternative racing lines are likely to be slower, but there may be some benefit in being able to block or force others into less than optimal lines.

The alternate lines will self-clean/rubber in if there are passing attempts due to having alternative lines.

[Tommy Cookers]

For a normal racing car with traditional drive to the rear wheels, indeed. But if one has each wheel driven independently, it is possible to speed up and slow down wheels increase turn in e.g. increase the speed of the outside wheels, slow down the inside wheels, so one could take a later apex line or an earlier apex line and still make a similar position at the exit of the corner. Whether that would be quicker than the traditional line would be interesting to see.

aren't you and the OP implying that the laws of physics are changed by the car design ?

the work to yaw the car (small or tiny relative to the 'centripetal' work) hasn't been changed

[Zynerji]

For a normal racing car with traditional drive to the rear wheels, indeed. But if one has each wheel driven independently, it is possible to speed up and slow down wheels increase turn in e.g. increase the speed of the outside wheels, slow down the inside wheels, so one could take a later apex line or an earlier apex line and still make a similar position at the exit of the corner. Whether that would be quicker than the traditional line would be interesting to see.

aren't you and the OP implying that the laws of physics are changed by the car design ?

the work to yaw the car (small or tiny relative to the 'centripetal' work) hasn't been changed

It is a form of manual vector steering. Are you saying that concept is antithetical to the laws of physics?

[Tommy Cookers]

It is a form of manual vector steering. Are you saying that concept is antithetical to the laws of physics? :?:

right now I'm thinking - what's steering got to do with it ?
steering is what I do when trying to put my car centrally in a parking bay

some think that unstable aircraft modify the laws of physics

[henry]

I wonder how much of the track would be available for these alternative lines. “Rubbering in” and Marbles tend to reduce the width of the tracks available for max performance. Any alternative racing lines are likely to be slower, but there may be some benefit in being able to block or force others into less than optimal lines.

The alternate lines will self-clean/rubber in if there are passing attempts due to having alternative lines.

They will need to practise these alternate lines during Free practise to make the lines available early in the race. Likewise if a driver wants to use a unique line later in the race the track might well be dirty and less grippy for that line.

As an aside I’ve never understood why they don’t use multiple lines over the start grid during FP. For most, almost all, drivers the side of the grid they start on is a coin toss. And yet they are happy to start on the dirty side 50% of the time. I guess they don’t want to do anything that might benefit a competitor.

[Zynerji]

It is a form of manual vector steering. Are you saying that concept is antithetical to the laws of physics?

right now I'm thinking - what's steering got to do with it ?
steering is what I do when trying to put my car centrally in a parking bay

Can you explain why steering wouldn't have everything to do with this topic? Creating, maintaining, and exiting of yaw conditions would seem to contradict your current (lack of) explanations.

[Zynerji]

I wonder how much of the track would be available for these alternative lines. “Rubbering in” and Marbles tend to reduce the width of the tracks available for max performance. Any alternative racing lines are likely to be slower, but there may be some benefit in being able to block or force others into less than optimal lines.

The alternate lines will self-clean/rubber in if there are passing attempts due to having alternative lines.

They will need to practise these alternate lines during Free practise to make the lines available early in the race. Likewise if a driver wants to use a unique line later in the race the track might well be dirty and less grippy for that line.

As an aside I’ve never understood why they don’t use multiple lines over the start grid during FP. For most, almost all, drivers the side of the grid they start on is a coin toss. And yet they are happy to start on the dirty side 50% of the time. I guess they don’t want to do anything that might benefit a competitor.

Sure. Just like they practice varying lines in mixed conditions.

Good call on the S/F straight tho... You would think they would try to rubber both sides during FP's at least.

[Just_a_fan]

Ever driven a race car? There's (usually) only one quick way through a corner which is why you see all the cars taking the same line. The apex is critical; too early or too late and you either have to keep turning the car or just back out to make the corner. Having all the wheels driven independently. which is what you are suggesting, won't open up more fast lines through the corner. Corner exit is critical to being able to set the car in the right place for the next corner; apex too early and you'll find yourself pushed all the way to the outside when you might really like to be on the other side of the track setting up for the next corner..... Rinse and repeat.

For a normal racing car with traditional drive to the rear wheels, indeed. But if one has each wheel driven independently, it is possible to speed up and slow down wheels increase turn in e.g. increase the speed of the outside wheels, slow down the inside wheels, so one could take a later apex line or an earlier apex line and still make a similar position at the exit of the corner. Whether that would be quicker than the traditional line would be interesting to see.

The on-track duels could be epic... I think certain complexes would become crazy fast tho. The Lesmos, Maggots/Becketts, and lots more of Monaco would be able to be taken flat out...

It would be the equivalent of traction control back in the day only more so. I think you'd get to the point of the cars being "too fast for humans to drive safely". Not that they'd be inherently dangerous, just that the direction change the lateral acceleration would be "extremely interesting".

[Just_a_fan]

For a normal racing car with traditional drive to the rear wheels, indeed. But if one has each wheel driven independently, it is possible to speed up and slow down wheels increase turn in e.g. increase the speed of the outside wheels, slow down the inside wheels, so one could take a later apex line or an earlier apex line and still make a similar position at the exit of the corner. Whether that would be quicker than the traditional line would be interesting to see.

aren't you and the OP implying that the laws of physics are changed by the car design ?

the work to yaw the car (small or tiny relative to the 'centripetal' work) hasn't been changed

The laws of physics haven't changed. What would change is the distribution of work load across the four contact patches.

Think about ABS - does ABS make the tyres work better? No. It ensures that each tyre is working at its maximum. That's why an ABS equipped car will, ceteris paribus, stop quicker and is less distance than a non-ABS car can. I know lots of old blokes reckon they can beat ABS, but except in some very particular situations e.g. snow, they can't.

Traction control allows faster acceleration - it doesn't break the laws of physics. ABS allows faster negative acceleration - it doesn't break the laws of physics. Independent control of torque at each wheel will change the dynamic ability of the car - it doesn't break the laws of physics.

[Just_a_fan]

some think that unstable aircraft modify the laws of physics

Only those looking for a straw man argument.

[Rodak]

The on-track duels could be epic... I think certain complexes would become crazy fast tho. The Lesmos, Maggots/Becketts, and lots more of Monaco would be able to be taken flat out...

No matter how you slice and dice it, the fastest way through a corner is the straightest path. When racing you have to prioritize corners and sometimes give up speed to set up the next corner. The most important corner is a corner that leads onto a straight; a corner that leads to another corner that leads to a straight might not be taken by the fastest line, since the exit would not set you up for the corner leading to the straight, if you get my drift. Having four corner control of power to wheels would not change this at all; it might make it easier to turn the car on entry, but the fact is there is only so much grip available and to go off line and take some path that makes you keep turning the car when another line allows acceleration is going to be the slower line.

Imagine this: the fastest way through corner A means you end up on the left hand side of the track at exit, but the next corner, corner B that leads onto the long straight, is best done by entering the corner from the right hand edge of the track to achieve the least turning radius and hence higher speed. If you are to the left you have to keep turning the car instead of accelerating. Look at some basic driving books for more examples; it's pretty simple. There is a fastest way around the track.....and that's the straightest way.

[Zynerji]

The on-track duels could be epic... I think certain complexes would become crazy fast tho. The Lesmos, Maggots/Becketts, and lots more of Monaco would be able to be taken flat out...

No matter how you slice and dice it, the fastest way through a corner is the straightest path. When racing you have to prioritize corners and sometimes give up speed to set up the next corner. The most important corner is a corner that leads onto a straight; a corner that leads to another corner that leads to a straight might not be taken by the fastest line, since the exit would not set you up for the corner leading to the straight, if you get my drift. Having four corner control of power to wheels would not change this at all; it might make it easier to turn the car on entry, but the fact is there is only so much grip available and to go off line and take some path that makes you keep turning the car when another line allows acceleration is going to be the slower line.

Imagine this: the fastest way through corner A means you end up on the left hand side of the track at exit, but the next corner, corner B that leads onto the long straight, is best done by entering the corner from the right hand edge of the track to achieve the least turning radius and hence higher speed. If you are to the left you have to keep turning the car instead of accelerating. Look at some basic driving books for more examples; it's pretty simple. There is a fastest way around the track.....and that's the straightest way.

Yet, where this would actually matter, the "blocking" line is slower than the fastest line. So being able to option-apex during a fight would lead to following drivers "getting a run" against a blocking driver, which I would expect most fans to prefer over DRS.

[Rodak]

Drivers already do this. How do you think you keep a faster car behind you? Where is the extra grip coming from? Magic? Physically there is only so much grip available then you go off the road. Having four wheels independently applying traction will not change the physics. Tires are tires and they generate cornering loads by interacting with the road surface. How will this 'system' generate new grip? The most frustrating thing as a driver is having an understeering car and having to wait to get on the throttle. I speak from experience, not video games.