Unrestricted Designing of a F1 Car Question

[ESPImperium]

I’m new here, and have been enlightened by all the helpful threads on F1 and everything technical relating to the sport, I hope to contribute a small amount with some small things I’ve noticed in some hi-res pics I’ve downloaded from various sources.

But have come across one question in my mind though:

"What if a F1 car designer could design a car without regulations?"

Of course I have thought of it, but can’t help to think what a car would look like, within a safe environment for the driver and within the current "box" of a F1 car in terms of length, breadth and height.

Could it and is it posible???

[bhall]

Modern technology being what it is, I think a Can-Am style F1 would be interesting for a few years. Teams would develop wildly different designs in their search for more speed and better cornering and braking. We'd probably see cars on the track that bear little to no resemblance to what we see now. But I don't think it would take too long for engineers to create a car that no human being could drive to its limit; the forces involved would simply be too great to withstand. At that point, F1 would become pretty stagnant, as there would be nowhere else to go. But that would be ok because the entire exercise would be prohibitively expensive in the long term.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, you could use robotic drivers to avoid stagnation. That'll kill the sport, unless you root for a robot.

Actually, there is an inverse relationship (I think) between the mechanical and financial "freedom" and the ability of the winners.

Simple: spec series are for drivers, free specs series are for mechanics (and rich team owners). The "middle way" is, as usual, an art, or so said Buddha.

Please, don't think I'm a Buddhist, but if you watch the symbol of the "eightfold path" you can conclude the inverse: Buddha was a fan of racing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dharma_wheel.svg

[Conceptual]

Well, you could use robotic drivers to avoid stagnation. That'll kill the sport, unless you root for a robot.

Actually, there is an inverse relationship (I think) between the mechanical and financial "freedom" and the ability of the winners.

Simple: spec series are for drivers, free specs series are for mechanics (and rich team owners). The "middle way" is, as usual, an art, or so said Buddha.

Please, don't think I'm a Buddhist, but if you watch the symbol of the "eightfold path" you can conclude the inverse: Buddha was a fan of racing.

Isn't the Dharma wheel what some scientists are using to try and prove the 12/21/12 "end of the world" date that the Mayan Calendar and the I-Ching both predict? I am very sure that I have seen that symbol used to represent celestial orbit planes that all intersect on that exact date. And I believe that the center of the wheel is used to represent the black hole at the center of our galaxy.

Anyways, Master level Buhddism is a sham, as is most religion. The moment that you realize that YOU are the ultimate authority in your own life, they make you a teacher.

But, whatever.

F1 is not a sport, it is a marketing exercize. Everything is set to attract the most eyeballs so the sponsors can validate their contributions. It isnt about man and machine, it is about people buying products.

Chris

[freedom_honda]

well i once watched a video saying that Formula one can double or even triple the current downforce level in a few months.

[Steven]

There is an article covering your question:
http://www.f1technical.net/articles/20

Anyway, if you'd remove the regs as they are now but keep the dimension requirements of the car itself, it would be pretty easy to again add multiple panels to the rear wing, lower the front wing and increase the size of the diffuser dramatically.

In the end with only these modifications I am sure double of the current downforce levels will be reached. There would also be the chance to make better use of the area under the nose cone with elements closer to the ground than what is allowed now.

[Jersey Tom]

well i once watched a video saying that Formula one can double or even triple the current downforce level in a few months.

You could double the downforce level without too much difficulty by running a wing adjustment, or different wing profile. It's not super difficult. But you won't get it at zero expense.

A new "Can Am" type deal would be interesting. 1500 HP cars, move-able aerodynamics, outrageous amounts of computer control..

But why? The cost would be astronomical. He who spends the most would win, by a lot. Cars would be very difficult or impossible to really drive at the limit as well.

What would be much cooler I think would be to have a much less restricted series, except your budget is set at say $100 million for the year. Open up the box a bit, say "here's your check.. now see what you can do with it." Just so it isn't completely limitless insane spending.

[Iciano]

I remember reading an article a couple of years ago about this in F1 Racing. They interviewed soemone from Williams. I cant remember exact details (ill try dig out the issue when i get a chance) but basically the whole car was a wing, had ground effect, active suspension, traction control and all the other driver aids and 6 wheels. The limiting factor, as ever, was the forces the driver could sustain.

[connollyg]

Getting rid of the plank and allowing ground effect, would be an easy and probably low-cost way of adding lots of extra downforce.

G

[Jersey Tom]

Sure but then you have the issue of.. if you bottom that car momentarily (for whatever reason) there goes gobs of downforce and you will fly violently off the track.

[Ciro Pabón]

Not to mention the rumours of Patrick Depallier being killed because he blacked out at Hockenheim Ostkurve. For example, http://www.racing-database.com/PDBio9.htm (denying it) or http://cars.uk.msn.com/News/Top_ten_art ... tid=580071 (affirming it, under "Lotus Twin Chassis").

I agree with Jersey Tom: a cap on investment could open the rulebook a lot, but I don't think aerodynamic efficiency it's a goal in itself: actually, it's aerodynamic inefficiency what you get, as the drag and the downforce go together. I believe there is a growing "chorus" that asks for money and fuel caps.

Martin Brundle adds two interesting cents:

Talking to some of the other drivers and engineers, it’s clear the way the cars have evolved has resulted in aerodynamic and tyre characteristics that suddenly fall off a cliff face once the vehicle gets beyond a certain angle of slide, leaving drivers looking silly.

The teams are generating huge amounts of downforce as the designers search for ways to improve their cars. The various bodywork blades and curves twist and turn the vortices to reattach the air back on to and underneath the car to generate what is referred to as negative lift, or downforce, which is why an F1 car can corner five times harder than the very best road car, but if the airflow stalls from one area, the rest tend to follow at a critical point.

This is having an impact on the racing, too. In Malaysia, Hamilton was on Mark Webber’s gearbox for most of the race despite being seconds faster in free air. Salvation is on the horizon with new, cleaner aerodynamics for 2009, with less downforce but more mechanical grip from slick racing tyres. That is how a proper racing car should look anyway.

[fastback33]

I really like that idea of having a developement cap on the teams and unleashing new ideas for just about everything. However a bit off the subject of a price cap is; howcome we don't see cars that make the air going over the body cleaner? In essence they could generate the same downforce yet keep the air clean after leaving the surfaces of the car. Actually is that even possible? I have yet to take any aerodynamics class, so i am just throwing this idea out there.

[ESPImperium]

The idea of having the development budget capped is a good one, but with a open rule book, as long as they cars were a certain weight and size, and kept certain scrutineering things like the plank of wood under the car.

It would be definetly be a good thing, one other thing i have thought of is say by a point mid way into the season, say between the 8th and 12th race of the season the teams cars could not be changed at all.

Althogh keeping the same regs on the Engines and electronics would be a good thing, but no KERS as i personally think thats a bad technology for the sport.

[Belatti]

Unrestricted F1 car was something I (and maybe every F1 fan) have in their imagination. Afterall we all love speed.
I think that and unrestricted car would be very very dangerous to race, so first of all we would have to clone several Gilles Villeneuves, cause nowadays chicken-drivers would refuse.

Well, you could use robotic drivers to avoid stagnation. That'll kill the sport, unless you root for a robot...

Human tolerance to g-force
Human tolerances depend on the magnitude of g-force, the length of time it is applied, the direction it acts, the location of application, and the posture of the body.

The human body is flexible and deformable, particularly the softer tissues. A hard slap on the face may impose hundreds of g-s locally but not produce any real damage: a constant 15 g-s for a minute, however, may be deadly. When vibration is experienced, relatively low peak g levels can be severely damaging if they are at the resonance frequency of organs and connective tissues.

To some degree, g-tolerance can be trainable; and there is also considerable variation in innate ability between individuals. As well, some illnesses reduce g-tolerance, particularly cardiovascular problems.

Vertical axis g-force
Aircraft in particular exert g-force on the axis aligned with the spine. This causes significant variation in blood pressure along the length of the subject's body, which limits the maximum g-forces that can be tolerated.

In aircraft in particular, g-forces are often towards the feet, which forces blood away from the head; this causes problems with the eyes and brain in particular. As g-forces increase Brownout/greyout can occur, where the vision loses hue. If g-force is increased further tunnel vision will appear, and then at still higher g, loss of vision, while consciousness is maintained, this is termed "blacking out". Beyond this point losing consciousness will occur, also sometimes known as g-loc (loc stands for loss of consciousness). While tolerance varies, a typical person can handle about 5 g (49m/s²) before g-loc'ing, but through the combination of special g-suits and efforts to strain muscles—both of which act to force blood back into the brain—modern pilots can typically handle 9 g (88 m/s²) sustained (for a period of time) or more (see High-G training).

Resistance to "negative" or upward gees, which drive blood to the head, is much less. This limit is typically in the -2 to -3 g (-20 m/s² to -30 m/s²) range. The vision goes red and is also referred to as a red out. This is probably because capillaries in the eyes swell or burst under the increased blood pressure.

Humans can survive about 20 to 35 g instantaneously (for a very short period of time). Any exposure to around 100 g or more, even if momentary, is likely to be lethal, although the record is 179 g.

Horizontal axis g-force
The human body is considerably more able to survive g-forces that are perpendicular to the spine. In general when the g-force pushes the body backwards (colloquially known as 'eyeballs in'[3]) a much higher tolerance is shown than when g-force is pushing the body forwards ('eyeballs out') since blood vessels in the retina appear more sensitive to that direction.

Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate 17 g eyeballs-in (compared to 12 g eyeballs-out) for several minutes without loss of consciousness or apparent long-term harm.

Some examples:
* Pilots in the Red Bull Air Race commonly exceed 10 g for seconds during turns, occasionally surpassing 12 g.
* Formula One drivers usually experience 5 g while braking, 2 g while accelerating, and 4 to 6 g while cornering. Every Formula One car has an ADR (Accident Data Recovery) device installed, which records speed and g-force. According to the FIA Robert Kubica of BMW Sauber experienced 75 g during his 2007 Montreal GP crash.

So, avoiding robots, definitively drivers would need anti-G suitsfor driving Unrestricted Designed F1 Cars.

...Please, don't think I'm a Buddhist, but if you watch the symbol of the "eightfold path" you can conclude the inverse: Buddha was a fan of racing.

To be more precise, I think Buddha was fan of snow racing, if you look close that type of wheel seems to have nails

[Conceptual]

I think that the drivers would cause a natural limit to how far the car goes, no matter HOW FAST it is built to go.

Like Pat Symonds said in a podcast I listenend to. "To bring back overtaking, we need to give the car more power than the chassis can handle, and we can make a pretty damn GOOD chassis."

More power than the chassis can handle? Doesnt that mean that the driver himself becomes the point of integration? OMG! I think there may be something TO THAT!

Chris