Ways to go..........Wurz
But I talk of way faster, because we can make cars which go 450 [km/h] and have way more downforce.
From my point of view, it was through a relentless push for higher and higher speeds that F1 made a name for itself. At its zenith, it wasn't just the quickest series on the planet, it was the quickest series on the planet by a country mile. I'd love to see that spirit revived.Motorsport.com, Dec 29, 2016 wrote:"If I am a visionary for F1, I would make the cars ever safer, but I would than make them way faster," Wurz told Motorsport.com.
"But I talk of way faster, because we can make cars which go 450 [km/h] and have way more downforce. We can then, when the cars are safer, race on the most extreme race tracks, city tracks."
Wurz, who this year lobbied for the 2017 introduction of the Halo cockpit protection before it was ultimately delayed to 2018, believes that a further safety push could allow F1 to do away with a number of current rules and features that make the championship less exciting for its fans.
"We wouldn't need miles of run-off areas, so we wouldn't have the infringements which nobody understands anymore," he continued.
"The sole underlying aspect is that the fan at home needs to sit and think: 'I could never do that. Only the most courageous, talented drivers can do that.'
I am against wheel fairings, closed or partial closed cockpit is ok.bhall II wrote:It's not quite mindless - though OP should have at least posted a link to the relevant article.
From my point of view, it was through a relentless push for higher and higher speeds that F1 made a name for itself. At its zenith, it wasn't just the quickest series on the planet, it was the quickest series on the planet by a country mile. I'd love to see that spirit revived.Motorsport.com, Dec 29, 2016 wrote:"If I am a visionary for F1, I would make the cars ever safer, but I would than make them way faster," Wurz told Motorsport.com.
"But I talk of way faster, because we can make cars which go 450 [km/h] and have way more downforce. We can then, when the cars are safer, race on the most extreme race tracks, city tracks."
Wurz, who this year lobbied for the 2017 introduction of the Halo cockpit protection before it was ultimately delayed to 2018, believes that a further safety push could allow F1 to do away with a number of current rules and features that make the championship less exciting for its fans.
"We wouldn't need miles of run-off areas, so we wouldn't have the infringements which nobody understands anymore," he continued.
"The sole underlying aspect is that the fan at home needs to sit and think: 'I could never do that. Only the most courageous, talented drivers can do that.'
Venturi floors for "cheap" downforce, active aero for intelligent downforce, wheel fairings and closed cockpits to reduce drag and bolster safety, reduced weight (including refueling), proper tires, automated electronics and/or two-way telemetry to simplify the non-essential aspects of driving...make F1 exotic again!
Well this car did 413 kphbhall II wrote:That pretty much makes you against the idea.
Drag is proportional to the square of speed, and the power needed to overcome drag is proportional to the cube of speed. That means you'd need an entirely unreasonable amount of power to push F1-like, open-wheel drag though the air at 450kph. (Think: horsepower in the thousands.)
Here's Gordon Murray's idea of extreme...
http://i.imgur.com/TiKtxxC.jpg
(Click to enlarge)
...with no downforce and a cooling layout that would roast an engine in a matter of minutes.FW17 wrote:Well this car did 413 kph
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-en ... =1&q=brawn"F1 has to take a hard look at what it wants from an engine," Brawn said in an interview with the FIA's AUTO magazine.
"What we've done in the last few years is align ourselves with road cars. We've got this revolution going on, and the road cars we'll have in five to 10 years' time are going to be very different.
"Can we maintain the technological marvel of F1 but acknowledge that perhaps now is the time to start diverging from where road cars are going? If we don't, logic says we should have electric or fuel-cell F1 cars in a few years' time.
"We have Formula E and that's establishing its place, but for me F1 isn't just a technological demonstration, it's a whole circus, and what's the best way of maintaining that?
"It might be time to say, 'We've had this technological marvel, but we're going to step back and think about what F1 ideally wants from an engine, which may have to contain some technologies that are relevant.'"
That´s first thing wich came to my mind too, but then I realiced about a simple solution. Same as they do in Red Bull Air Race, limit max G.Pingguest wrote:With top speeds reaching 450 kilometres per hour and with even more downforce, it is rather questionable whether any human being could cope with the g-forces.
Wait, what?Greg Locock wrote:This is called the f1 technical forum. Not f1 mindless wanking forum.
Greg just got lost and thought he was somewhere else. Of course this is the mindless wanking forum. I mean, we're all here aren't we?Tim.Wright wrote:Wait, what?Greg Locock wrote:This is called the f1 technical forum. Not f1 mindless wanking forum.
The problem is though, that the G-force measurement could be quite difficult when it comes to accuracy. Or at least, that is as far as I know.Andres125sx wrote:That´s first thing wich came to my mind too, but then I realiced about a simple solution. Same as they do in Red Bull Air Race, limit max G.Pingguest wrote:With top speeds reaching 450 kilometres per hour and with even more downforce, it is rather questionable whether any human being could cope with the g-forces.
Their problem is the same, planes can produce a lot more Gs than any human can sustain, so they´ve limited G forces to 12 and anyone going further will receive a penalty. For F1 that limit should be around 5-6G, but then they could use active aero wich allow high DF on the corners but also low DF and drag at the straights for blistering top speeds
