Is Formula 1 becoming too slow?

[SectorOne]

They relax on some corners.... to relax, but they have to hold their head on every single corner. You´re talking about some scence we´ve seen where drivers put his hand between the helmet and the cockpit to support the helmet and relax the neck... That actually is the proof they´re on the limit. They couldn´t hold their head/helmet for a whole race and needed to relax from time to time

No they just lean their head on the headrest, both hands are on the wheel or one is fiddling with the brake bias.

Some drivers lean their heads in one or two corners if it´s a long one. Some don´t.
Not because they get dizzy, not because it´s a black out,
it´s because it takes a toll on the neck in those particular corners like the massive Turn 8 of Turkey.

F1 drivers are not near any human limits when it comes to Formula 1 cars.
Jet planes are though as they can do more then what the human body can do.
Humans can still do more then what F1 cars can do.

Also the CART thing, wrong, it´s the banking that caused problems. It´s superspeedway tracks.



That´s the problem. The banking. Not the G force.

Horizontal axis g-force[edit]
The human body is better at surviving g-forces that are perpendicular to the spine. In general when the acceleration is forwards (subject essentially lying on their back, colloquially known as "eyeballs in"[13]) a much higher tolerance is shown than when the acceleration is backwards (lying on their front, "eyeballs out") since blood vessels in the retina appear more sensitive in the latter direction[citation needed].
Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate a range of accelerations depending on the time of exposure. This ranged from as much as 20 g for less than 10 seconds, to 10 g for 1 minute, and 6 g for 10 minutes for both eyeballs in and out.[14] These forces were endured with cognitive facilities intact, as subjects were able to perform simple physical and communication tasks. The tests were determined to not cause long or short term harm although tolerance was quite subjective, with only the most motivated non-pilots capable of completing tests.

Turkey Turn 8 you probably experience 5G for 5 seconds at most. So there´s plenty of scope left before we are starting to reach any limits on non-banked circuits.

Then we can also look at the fact that today´s cars are slower then some older cars so it´s physically impossible to be at the limit if you have slower cars today.

[SectorOne]

that the banking is what makes the G force dangerous. It´s not horizontal G´s anymore and this is why they reported problems.

So the banking is key here as to why they had to cancel the race. It had nothing to do with the actual amount of G but rather in the direction of it (caused by the banking).


Banked circuit will drain blood from your brain. A flat circuit will not drain blood from your brain.
And that´s why they reported dizziness.

Two circuits, one banked the other flat.
Drivers pull 5G in a corner on both of them,

One track is fine, the other you´d have to cancel the race.
Why is that? What´s the difference between the two? Is it the G force? Nope that is the same.
What can it be? Hmm...maybe it´s the banking after all.

[turbof1]

It is still G forces that apply. The road angle though defines in which direction relative to the drivers body they apply. Imagine a visible arrow being the G forces above the drivers head. In a normal corner there is an angle of 90 degrees, but in a banking that can quickly become more then 150 degrees. The more degrees (towards 180 degrees) there are between the force and head, the more the g forces apply a downwards pressure on the blood stream.

In short you are both right and actually both saying the exact same thing, but from a different starting point. So instead of calling eachother rediculous, realise that the discussion itself really is rediculous. I am sure this phenomenon has an official psychologic name, but I don't know it. Does somebody?

[Tommy Cookers]

what matters is two things

the state of operating ability - this depends on vision and possibly 'balance' cues
the physical body state - is low-level/temporary damage acceptable ?

substantial g regardless of direction contributes in a simple way a substantial modification to blood pressure
the heart can adjust quite well to this to maintain circulation, and retain operating ability
from experience I feel that the brain also adjusts its (important) internal circulation quite well

it is the anatomy that determines what is a good direction for g and what is not a good direction
the eye will trap blood in the forward or upward direction, in these directions the eye starts being damaged over 6 g
this is why aviation doesn't do much negative g
with 6g downward or rearward increased pressure does not obtain in the eye because the eye drains freely in this direction
surely the eye will also trap blood with lateral g ?
so more than 6g laterally would seem to be unviable
(unless we want to see driver's eyes bleeding as has happened in aerobatics)

there's also the so-called balance cells to consider
without unambiguous visual references the balance sense will attempt re-reference itself after 4 seconds, what we call dizziness

also the angular velocity of the car will affect of the brain's sensing controlling its circulation
6g laterally cornering at eg a 10m radius is not the same as 6g laterally cornering at a 100m or at a 1000m radius
what we could call a Coriolis effect of the cars angular velocity an ongoing angular velocities in circulation eg in brain

btw .... a free formula fan car could develop continuously 6 lateral g
.... as could any car run suitably tethered

and .... aircraft catapult launches from carriers are 4.5 g, the same as a dragster

[Andres125sx]

In my book CART races and F1 races last a lot more than 10 minutes

And in the very same book do they run around in a circle with a constant speed and G force?
In reality you have maybe 10% of the F1 tracks with one or two corners that has any prolonged G force.

I´m sure you know these limits depend on the duration, but also on the number of repetitions.

It´s not the same supporting 6 Gs for 3 seconds, than supporting 6 Gs for 3 seconds, then 4 for 1 second, then 5 for 2 seconds, then 4,5 for 1 second, and repeat all the process again 70 times without any rest in between

That´s what F1 drivers do, they don´t support 6 Gs on every corner, but they support more than 4 G´s on any medium or high speed corner, around 5 Gs on most brakings, and repeat it continuously for 2 hours. That lowers the limit they can support in a good ammount, so the limit of 6 Gs for 10 minutes is not aplicable here, but works as a reference to know they can´t support 6 G´s on a race because of the number of repetitions.


No, if they support 5 G´s on a flat corner, they will support more than 5 G´s on any banked corner. That´s the point of banking, to increase the cornering speed. Otherwise bankings would not exist.

And that´s the problem, they´re around the limit on flat tracks, both on the ammount of G force and on the time human body can take it, so if you go to a banking where the cornering speed and G force are increased, and the corner is longer than usual (more time supporting the G forces), then you´re over the limit.


Anycase both options prove my point correct, it doesn´t matter if it´s the direction or the duration or the G force, anycase the limit is the driver and we will never see huge improvements because of this, wich is my point here.

F1 is not becoming too slow, F1 has reached human limits and that´s the reason it can´t improve anymore.

[turbof1]

F1 is not becoming too slow, F1 has reached human limits and that´s the reason it can´t improve anymore.

I don't agree. The limit opposed now isn't one from human limitations, rather one from the FIA rather mindlessly clawing away cornering speed. Teams can't recuperate the speed as easily anymore. The past years I've never heard a single driver complain about too many G forces.

The real limit was reached early in the 80's, when ground effect produced terrifying cornering speeds, much higher then today, and drivers after the race collapsed out of exhaustion. Still, that limit would nowadays infact be very feasible by technology standards of fitness, racing suits (turned into G suits) and nutrition.

[Andres125sx]

I´m trying to say, it´s the human inside who put the limit, the rules only try to keep the potential of the cars within this limit

[Richard]

Andres & SectorOne - As turbo said you're saying the same thing but for some reason misunderstanding each other.

The direction of the g force is important, a flat track results in lateral forces. On a banked track the driver feels combined vector of lateral and vertical forces relative to their body.

The banked track also results in much higher car speeds. This leads to higher g forces. Those higher g forces are made worse because they have a vertical component relative to the driver.

Can you agree on the explanation above?

ps - Removed the more personal comments from the posts above.

[turbof1]

it´s the human inside who put the limit, the rules only try to keep the potential of the cars within this limit

No, the rules aren't there because the human body can't take more, it is about the risk. The FIA reasons that higher cornering speeds create more dangerous situations when a car gets out of control. The risk that something goes wrong doesn't necessarily increase with higher cornering speeds, but the risks rises when something does go wrong.

Like I said earlier, we've had much higher cornering speed during the ground effect era. When they abolished it, the reasoning behind it wasn't that the human body couldn't take it, but because when it goes wrong the risk of ending up with dead people was high.

And yeah, Like Richard said. I think there's too much ego between you 2 at the moment concerning banking; what you both say boils down to the same.

[Juzh]

Like I said earlier, we've had much higher cornering speed during the ground effect era.

Links to proof, analysis or any kind of information please. Otherwise I don't believe this one bit.

1982 hockenheimring pole position: 1:47.947
2001 hockenheimring pole position: 1:38:117
After that year there is no circuit left to compare lap times.
2001 cars had nowhere near downforce levels of 2008 and then double diffuser cars of 2009/2010. Brawn and RB especially.
Brawn said in some old documentary (I forgot its name) how they were able to claw back DF lost with the ban on ground effect over the years at expense of aero efficiency, which they were compensating for with more power.

Drivers in the 80s were not exactly as fit as they are today and had compared to today zero neck or fitness training. And even today there are differences. Just look at pre-podium shots, some drivers are visibly exhausted much more than others. Alonso even stated in a SKY pre-race show interview how he was not optimally fit during 2011 season and had problems with left leg during races.

[Andres125sx]

it´s the human inside who put the limit, the rules only try to keep the potential of the cars within this limit

No, the rules aren't there because the human body can't take more, it is about the risk. The FIA reasons that higher cornering speeds create more dangerous situations when a car gets out of control. The risk that something goes wrong doesn't necessarily increase with higher cornering speeds, but the risks rises when something does go wrong.

Like I said earlier, we've had much higher cornering speed during the ground effect era. When they abolished it, the reasoning behind it wasn't that the human body couldn't take it, but because when it goes wrong the risk of ending up with dead people was high.

I know that was the main reason to limit downforce, tracks are not ready for cornering speeds F1 has achieved and an accident would mean the exit of most tracks would be too small and the cars would hit the barriers/wall too fast.

But I heard/read somewhere they also were reaching human limits and some drivers were suffering problems at the final part of some races. I´ve spent some time searching some link but can´t find it but I assure you I read/hear it. When you hear something you didn´t expect and find it shocking you just can´t forget it, this is the case here, I know I read it, but can´t provide a link

[turbof1]

Like I said earlier, we've had much higher cornering speed during the ground effect era.

Links to proof, analysis or any kind of information please. Otherwise I don't believe this one bit.

1982 hockenheimring pole position: 1:47.947
2001 hockenheimring pole position: 1:38:117
After that year there is no circuit left to compare lap times.
2001 cars had nowhere near downforce levels of 2008 and then double diffuser cars of 2009/2010. Brawn and RB especially.
Brawn said in some old documentary (I forgot its name) how they were able to claw back DF lost with the ban on ground effect over the years at expense of aero efficiency, which they were compensating for with more power.

Drivers in the 80s were not exactly as fit as they are today and had compared to today zero neck or fitness training. And even today there are differences. Just look at pre-podium shots, some drivers are visibly exhausted much more than others. Alonso even stated in a SKY pre-race show interview how he was not optimally fit during 2011 season and had problems with left leg during races.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/06/07/b ... d-effects/

[Juzh]

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/06/07/b ... d-effects/

Yes, those cars were fast... at the time. This however means little. The following article only describes how thing unfolded during those days, but gives little in form of actual data.

[turbof1]

Raw data from that age is hard to come by. You can't just compare lap times either; different engines, different cars, etc. The only thing reliable you can go from is written text unfortunaly. You'll just have to take my word for it... or not, up to you.

[SectorOne]

And usability. turbo lag, manual gearbox, no power steering etc. seconds per lap thrown away in that.