119 replies to this topic

[chaide]

to make overtaking easier just like in the past. what do you thing would be both effective and possible:

ground effects, less aerodinamical downforce, back to slicks tyres, no refueling, more points for the winner or less to the second one, new engine for a new gp,push to pass, discounting worse 5 results,the same chasis for all teams, eliminating circuits where overtaking is difficult...anything else?

[Stub-o-matic]

1) I would not want "push to pass."
2) I think ground effects would be the best solution and would allow for excellent races.
3) Eliminating circuits where overtaking is difficult?  Name a circuit where it's NOT difficult to pass.

[2//horns]

I was actually discussing this last night. I would propose the re-introduction ground effects but I think that has very long odds. I'd like slicks back regardless, but there again I see long odds.

[Lure]

Bring back slicks

[Jez]

Lure, on Aug 28 2007, 04:31 PM, said:

Bring back slicks

+1

[c21]

Slicks, wider track on the cars, NO ****ING GREEBLIES!!!, steel brakes.......


Not going to happen, but in the short term I suggest putting a Hanford style rear wing on the cars.

That should open a nice big hole in the air for the cars behind.

[DOF_power]

I have a blog on this:


1. Put the them damn front wing down again.

[ thus making the front (wheels) more stable in front of turbulence/dirty air ]


2. Bring back widetrack car.


3. Bring back slick tires.


4. Bring back active suspensions (good for so make reasons).

[ * And upgrade then to incorporate active camber, active castor and active toe.
* To cut the costs, outsource their production to a set of technology partners to make them for everyone (and a real deal, NOT like this McLaren + M$ standard ECU crap). ]


5. Clean up the aerodynamics.

[ * Ban winglets, barges, chimneys, ears and so on.
* 2011 propositions are a move in the right direction, but the movable aero will generate only 50% of today's downforce.
* So also USE (limited) GROUND-EFFECTS to get the other 50% back (like Champ Car). ]


6. Free the engines, more power.

[* 1.4 ltr. I4/V6 turbos or 3.5 NA V10s unrestricted ]


7. Fans, make up your damn minds:
standard ECU/spec engines vs. illegal-hidden TC vs. legal TC

[* I'll take the later, because with the slicks + widetrack + active suspensions
formula the cars will actually have mecanical grip on slow corners/(exit) and over bumps so not much need for TC. ]

[mikathegreat2]

What would make it interesting? Easy, bring back slick tyres & V10's. V12's would be a 1st, maybe W12's which will attract a few German manufacturers, particularly Volkswagen, but then again it'll create ridiculous amounts of torque. Also, iif the engines are gonna stay as V8's they should still make them bigger, lets say 3-3.5 litre engines to give it more power & maybe make the thing a little more dangerous!

[DOF_power]

Power would still not help the issues of turbulence created by winglets and the lifting of the front wheels it encounters it due to the lift up front wing.
Mecanical grip on slow zones would still be poor thus the teams with th best TC software would be favored.


W12 wouldn't help bring VW as their engines would be to big and heavy and underpowered, and would not be any match for the V10s (nor the V8 or V12s be due to their inherited flaws witch the V10 does not posses)

[FUschumi]

1) turbo engine
2) slick tyre
3) no team order
4) no traction control
5) no launch start device
6) no mafiarrari

[V12]

excuse me, i would like to ask the question because i am not very technically minded.
what was the massive advantage of the ground effect cars? and how did the ground effects work exactly?
Also Mika the great 2, you metioned the W12 engine, what is the difference from a V8, a V10 or a V12 engine?
because to tell you the honest truth I have never heard of a W12 engine

[mikathegreat2]

V12, on Aug 29 2007, 11:05 AM, said:

excuse me, i would like to ask the question because i am not very technically minded.
what was the massive advantage of the ground effect cars? and how did the ground effects work exactly?
Also Mika the great 2, you metioned the W12 engine, what is the difference from a V8, a V10 or a V12 engine?
because to tell you the honest truth I have never heard of a W12 engine

VW use it in their 6litre Phaeton which is tgeir version of a BMW 7 Series & in their supercar concept the W12 Coupe & Roadster. I think it's also in the Bentley Continenal GT aswell & I also read some magazine about a VW Golf containing a W12 engine which is ridiculous!

[chaide]

V12, on Aug 29 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

excuse me, i would like to ask the question because i am not very technically minded.
what was the massive advantage of the ground effect cars? and how did the ground effects work exactly?
Also Mika the great 2, you metioned the W12 engine, what is the difference from a V8, a V10 or a V12 engine?
because to tell you the honest truth I have never heard of a W12 engine

The key is to allow cars stay closer in the fast curves to allow then to overtake in the next straigh, thequestion is nowdays stability of the cars depends completely on the downforce generated by the car wings. And it depends on the air. As the car ahead make a vacuun the car behind suffers a lack of air so a lack of downforce as closer to the car ahead less air and less downforce.

But if downforce is generated by the vacunn created under the car  this problem disapear and cars can be  closer each other making overtakin easier.

Sorry if my english or my explanations arent very good. But this is the key of the matter

Edited by chaide, 29 August 2007 - 11:35 AM.

[DOF_power]

FUschumi, on Aug 29 2007, 04:52 AM, said:

1) turbo engine

Superstressed turbos would be inferior to NA 3.0/3.5 V10s.
Because they'd burn more fuel and due to huge intercoolers would be a lot heavier.
The BMW turbo I4 had a mass of 170 kilos vs. just 90/95 kilos to the V10s witch in late 2005 race-trim has 100 hp extra.
Had they would not been banned, acording to Max Mosley, today's V10s would rev to 22000+ rpms and produce 1100+ hp in race-trim.
As if that's not enough, the massive torque of the turbos would rip to pieces the new seamless carbon semi-automatics.

Quote

2) slick tyre

Wouldn't be enough to improve mecanical grip.
As the track of today is too narrow (1.8 m vs. the 2.0 m old widetrack) and the current suspensions absorb shocks sideways not verticaly (like the old ones be it passive or active) and thus aren't really good over bumps or at following the road surface properly (that's why the need for TC and aero-winglets on today's cars). They (the suspensions of today) also need to be redesigned for every racetrack.

Quote

3) no team order

They're banned, but it's impossible to enforce such a silly rule. They're part of GP/F1 racing, always were always will be.

Quote

4) no traction control

Impossible to police it.
The teams are already working at cracking the standard ECU and/or finding other ways to implement it. The big team will always get it back/have it somehow.

Quote

5) no launch start device

It's banned for a couple of years now. But how effective this ban is I don't know. The big teams as in the case of TC will
always benefit from such bans.

Quote

6) no mafiarrari

Dream on.

[DOF_power]

V12, on Aug 29 2007, 01:05 PM, said:

excuse me, i would like to ask the question because i am not very technically minded.
what was the massive advantage of the ground effect cars? and how did the ground effects work exactly?

They suck air /generate downforce thru underneath. So no need for winglets, ears, horns, barges, chimneys witch cause turbulence.


There are basically 2 ways.
skirts + tunnels discovered by Auto Union:


(Auto Union C type streamilner of 1938, the first downforce/ground-effect car)

copied by Lotus on the 78/79 models (in 1977/1978)


now used in Champ Car


and

fan car solution discovered by Chapparal


and copied by Brabham

Edited by DOF_Renault_BMW, 29 August 2007 - 03:28 PM.

[chaide]

DOF_Renault_BMW, on Aug 29 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

They suck air /generate downforce thru underneath. So no need for winglets, ears, horns, barges, chimneys witch cause turbulence.
There are basically 2 ways.
skirts + tunnels discovered by Auto Union:


(Auto Union C type streamilner of 1938, the first downforce/ground-effect car)

copied by Lotus on the 78/79 models (in 1977/1978)


now used in Champ Car
and

fan car solution discovered by Chapparal


and copied by Brabham

cant go to that blog

[mikathegreat2]

That Auto Union Streamline has a V16 in it   ! I know that because it's in GT4 aswell as the Chapparal 2J Shoebox as I call it!
BTW- I was looking on YouTube to try & find the 1st episode of the new Top Gear & CLarkson was talking about F1 (this was way back in 2002) & he said it would be better to take all the technology out of them & have proper races instead of geeks pressing buttons & making the things go faster & he did make a really good point! F1 cars are as complicated as trying to find a piece of plankton underwater with no goggles!

Edited by mikathegreat2, 30 August 2007 - 12:06 PM.

[Max Mosley]

I'd like to see that episode too, Danny.  And good, informative posts from DOF too.  Personally I want to get rid of the teams altogether.  I think that would make for the most interesting show possible.  But perhaps that's not what you had in mind in this thread...  Well then, I would like the technical regulations to be as close as possible to that ideal.  Therefore I would more of less copy Max Moseley and the FIA's recent proposals.  Basically I would tighten the regulations to reduce scope for the teams to improve their cars.  I would preferably have a standardised chassis, but failing that I would just make it very hard to improve one's car within new, more restrictive regulations.  Likewise for everything else on the cars.

[Chris Strange]

I always thought it was funny that for now what seems a long time, most of he races are decided 90% either relative to the grid position or in the pits. No real idea about techical issues,  but working on the ground effect looks interesting. Anyway whatever solution allowing  more overtakings.

[Giorgio]

F1 will be more interesting if more gorgeous hot pit-babes come to the sport that's the only viable solution!

[Jean Todt]

ask them to give me the super lisence and the best f1 car

[DOF_power]

mikathegreat2, on Aug 30 2007, 03:03 PM, said:

That Auto Union Streamline has a V16 in it   ! I know that because it's in GT4 aswell as the Chapparal 2J Shoebox as I call it!
BTW- I was looking on YouTube to try & find the 1st episode of the new Top Gear & CLarkson was talking about F1 (this was way back in 2002) & he said it would be better to take all the technology out of them & have proper races instead of geeks pressing buttons & making the things go faster & he did make a really good point! F1 cars are as complicated as trying to find a piece of plankton underwater with no goggles!

He's wrong.

Part of the reason F1 is boring is actually the lack/ban/restrictions of/on technology.

Active suspensions would increase mecanical grip, and (more) ground-effects and/or movable aero (favoured by 2011 proposals) would clean up the aero as well as reduce/eliminate the need to modify/redesign suspensions and aero and weight distribution and TC software for every track.

[DOF_power]

>



^ Forgot to mention that was a modified C type streamliner not the standard AVUS one.

The was an even more powerful AVUS streamliner, the MB W25K DAB special.
The special record DAB engine was a V12 twin supercharged run on alcohol fuels 750+ hp monster.
And the MB W125 had 646 hp vs. 520hp V16 for the AU.

Can you truly imagine driving a 646hp or 756 hp Grand Prix car from 1937 ?!
Those were real men that would have made every F1 driver minus Gilles Villeneuve look like scared little children.

Edited by DOF_Renault_BMW, 31 August 2007 - 11:12 AM.

[mikathegreat2]

DOF_Renault_BMW, on Aug 31 2007, 12:00 PM, said:

>
^ Forgot to mention that was a modified C type streamliner not the standard AVUS one.

The was an even more powerful AVUS streamliner, the MB W25K DAB special.
The special record DAB engine was a V12 twin supercharged run on alcohol fuels 750+ hp monster.
And the MB W125 had 646 hp vs. 520hp V16 for the AU.

Can you truly imagine driving a 646hp or 756 hp Grand Prix car from 1937 ?!
Those were real men that would have made every F1 driver minus Gilles Villeneuve look like scared little children.

You can only win it as an unlockable in 1 of the endurance races! Reached 190mph before if went waay over the red line!

[DOF_power]

>



^ The car should be able to go to 235/240 mph, or if tis the special one, way over 250 mph.
Those streamliner were the fastest by top speed GP single seaters ever made.



By the way more info/corrections/details on the ground effects topic.

a] A (inverted-)wing ground-effects car (Lotus 78) is one where the sidepods (of a single seater) or the undertray (of a sportscar) is shaped as an inverted wing. Distance of wing section from ground is not critical for generation of downforce. The first generation of "wing car/ground effect" cars were wing cars, as the Lotus 78 (note the "brushes" that Colin Chapman used to keep the fast, low speed air under the car).

b] A "ground effect" skirt car (or wingless car; Lotus 80) is one where the profile of the sidepod or of the undertray is not the one of an inverted wing, but it operates accelerating the air under the car and then extracting at its rear as fastly as possible. In this case, the distance (low height) from ground is very important to generate downforce.
(these were the ones causing the big problems, due to their ride height and dependence on the fragile mini-skirts)

(The Lotus 79 was sort of hybrid between a/Lotus 78 and b/Lotus 80)

c] Today's flat bottom F1 single seaters of today are also partially ground-effects cars. As the combination of flat-bottom + rear diffuser (introduced in 87 I belive) achieves the trick to a limited extent.

[mikathegreat2]

DOF_Renault_BMW, on Sep 1 2007, 11:29 AM, said:

>
^ The car should be able to go to 235/240 mph, or if tis the special one, way over 250 mph.
Those streamliner were the fastest by top speed GP single seaters ever made.

That's videogames for ya, even thouggh they're supposed to be quicker than real life cars! BTW, if I kept the Streamline, I could've upgraded the transmission as most fast unlockables come with fully customisable transmission which would give it less chance of going over the red line & reaching 200+mph!

[Lalindra]

3.5litre v10's , slick tyres, flexi wings n more tracks.

Bring back a1 ring, n imola. Eliminate twisty circuits.

May be 6.0litre v12 is a good idea. hehe

[Lalindra]

Giorgio, on Aug 31 2007, 05:00 AM, said:

F1 will be more interesting if more gorgeous hot pit-babes come to the sport that's the only viable solution!

Nice one...hehe
A few rounds from tamara, kylie n danny wouldn't do any harm i guess

[FUschumi]

Lalindra, on Sep 2 2007, 06:48 AM, said:

3.5litre v10's , slick tyres, flexi wings n more tracks.

Bring back a1 ring, n imola. Eliminate twisty circuits.

May be 6.0litre v12 is a good idea. hehe

No Imola please. An ultra boring track.

[Shooting Star]

Let Hermann Tilke not design a racetrack again. Not only do his designs leave no opportunities for overtaking, he goes ahead and modifies existing tracks rendering them impotent.

Am I the only one who feels that safety is given wayyyyy too much importance? Everyone in the sport knows that there is an element of risk and I don't want to see anyone get killed. But safety is inversely proportional to performance and the performance keeps dipping each year. F1 cars should be the fastest in the world. Instead they keep getting slower.