Are F1 cars just too big?

[Just_a_fan]

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.

They already do that elsewhere. Here you go:
http://www.renaultsport.co.uk/champions ... fault.aspx
Standard front wing, rear wing and rear floor section. Low power too so not too quick.

[Just_a_fan]

[...]
Take any combonation of those examples that you wish.

As the cars are currently much less than half the width of the track, the width of the cars doesn't prevent passing. Taking 100mm or 200mm off the width won't make the slightest bit of difference. I doubt taking 500mm off the width would change things either.

The real issue is that the cars are pretty similar in performance and the drivers are also pretty similar in performance (to within a couple of a percent for most of them). The cars rarely suffer issues that slow them appreciably (they usually either work properly or break totally) and the drivers rarely make mistakes even under pressure.

Junior formulae have lots of overtaking because there is a big margin in ability in the grid even in relatively high-performance formulae like GP2.

As an aside, looking at how diGrassi held up Alonso for a while at Monaco in what would usually be considered a mule of a car is a great example of why tracks like Monaco have no place in modern F1 (or racing in general in my view). A great stage but almost always a poor play, if you'll excuse the strained metaphor.

[marcush.]

The real issue is that the cars are pretty similar in performance and the drivers are also pretty similar in performance (to within a couple of a percent for most of them). The cars rarely suffer issues that slow them appreciably (they usually either work properly or break totally) and the drivers rarely make mistakes even under pressure.

Junior formulae have lots of overtaking because there is a big margin in ability in the grid even in relatively high-performance formulae like GP2.

here we are.change as you like but in GT3 you see how you mix up the field.. put in drivers of all capabilities is more a differentiator there as the strength of the machine ,and all gets a thorough mix with the teams not at all times really on top of their game ,be it race strategy ,organisation or engineering.
In F1 one you miss the boat by two sausages of aero and your driver just can´t figure out how to get the most out of a two lap old set of supersofts and you are done..drying too hard at a pace these tyres will not handle given the abuse or wrong use before its P18 instead of P9 and a very long sunday evening is looming...there are no real loosers in F1 .
I remember B.Senna in Ferrari Challenge in 2007 ,my driver was Roland Asch and the son of a business man .Grandpa Asch ,first time in that kind of car(!)and in silverstone (!) wiped the floor with my little hero ...and if I remember correctly was almost a second quicker in Q1 than no1 driver ..But Senna was another second in front of him..he had tested we had not, ok...but it remained like that the whole weekend....in identical equipment....1 second per lap... astonishing.

[Richard]

It's not really an option to change the size of the human.

Surprised we haven't seen an Eclestone breeding programme to create appropriate sized short drivers !

[Blackout]

http://i69.servimg.com/u/f69/14/79/55/26/f5f10.jpg

[Pandamasque]

[WhiteBlue]

I thought the cars of the eighties and early nineties were beautifully proportioned for open wheel formula race cars. They had long wishbones, wide tracks, fat tyres and generally straightforward aerodynamic contours.

The 2009 rules brought a relief regarding the sprouting aero appendices, but to my aesthetic feeling the proportions of the body, the wheels and the track are still wrong!

Most important is the track width. It aught to go back to 2000 mm. It was reduced to cut performance but in my view it was cutting at the wrong side. We need aero performance cuts and not cuts of stability and grip. A wider car is intrinsically more stable and generates more slow to medium cornering grip. This will generally help position fights through corners as drivers will be retaining similar stability compared to straights. Wider cars are less affected by balance issues because they operate on higher stability. Wider tracks will also help with the turbulences from the wheels. The wheel turbulences will occur farer away from the body of the car allowing for front wings that have cleaner air flow behind another car. It will also allow for wider wheels that can generate more mechanical grip which again is something that would be useful for passing. I see no point to have narrower cars if tracks are 16-25 m wide nowadays. In the old times 2000 mm track width was no problem, why should it be now.

I have no strong opinion on car length. The current cars look a bit longer but it isn't extreme. There are issues that bug me more. Excessive influence of aerodynamic on performance is one thing. The other thing is the difference of the grip level between the racing line and off the line. If possible tyres should actually have less plasticiser oils to make them grippier. If that means a little less grip so be it but the difference between the two sides of the track is too big as it is now. Today on many tracks you get a better run to the first corner from 3rd place than you get from second which is nonsense.

[manchild]

They are too long, but also too narrow.

Since safety regs have extended the nose and the chassis' over the years, I think that 2m width must come back asap. Also, add to that V6 or 4 inline 1.5 liter turbos as planned, and they'll lower length width ratio.

So, cut 200mm in length, add it to width and that's it.

quick doodle:

[Belatti]

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...

If you rule a 5m max. lenght with current rules then teams would have to design wider draggier chasis to package all.

Today cars are as slim as they can be. Well, maybe not all F1 cars, maybe only Red Bull...

[lebesset]

how long are current cars without their fancy front wings ? probably under 5 metres already
one of the things that prevents better racing is those damned front wings , one touch and you are uncompetitive

with a shorter engine you could get under 5 metres with the existing chassis !

[marcush.]

how long are current cars without their fancy front wings ? probably under 5 metres already
one of the things that prevents better racing is those damned front wings , one touch and you are uncompetitive

with a shorter engine you could get under 5 metres with the existing chassis !

A 4 cylinder inline engine would not be a lot shorter than a V8...so you fancy a V4?

[WhiteBlue]

A 4 cylinder inline engine would not be a lot shorter than a V8...so you fancy a V4?

How about a transversal four inline with the pistons running in the horizontal plane?

[lebesset]

boxer engine?

[WhiteBlue]

boxer engine?

Not very good in terms of packaging and manufacturing cost. Why having two cylinder blocks if you can go with one? From a packaging point V4 is better. From a cost point in line is the way to go as the rally engine and the GRE show.

[lebesset]

lower c of g