How much is possible?

[Giblet]

A lot of people, usually without much knowledge of Formula 1 ask "Why don't they just let the designers make the cars as fast as they can?".

We all know the myriad of reasons, and we all know that it's not feasible. It's also not a numbers game, as they there are no actual boundaries to play within. 6 wheels? Why not 8? Why not 3? etc.

What I wonder, and I think this could be a good lighthearted topic, is how quick could a current F1 car be made to go under these constraints.

1 - The current car "virtual box" of bodywork and such regulations

2 - Engine size and configuration the same, with all restraints on engine speed, refinement, and gadgetry allowed (within the normally aspirated scope of things)

3 - Any electronics and wizardry allowed that alter the cars suspension geometry, tire pressures, etc etc (keeping in mind weight)

4 - could a human still drive it?

A discussion like this for a lot of people would be random and useless pub talk, but with the minds we have on here, it should at least be well informed, random useless talk.

How fast could it get on a straight? 400km? like the Honda Bonneville car? Drivers wearing G-suits and pulling 7 in the corners?

[paused]

Not that I contrinute with a great deal of credibility I would assume that the limitation would be lateral grip provided by the tyres. A hum body can sustain 7-9G or so and F1 already approaches 4-5G laterally. But if you double that wouldn't the car just slide off the road?

[ISLAMATRON]

So aero rules the same as now, as are the engines rules... the only thing that can change is active suspension and possibly remote controlled?

[paused]

Also, the other point to consider would be durability. Would it be required to do a current GP distance? Naturally it easier to design a car that could do 1 lap at and average speed of 300Kms than one that could sustain that for more than 10 mins.

[Giblet]

well, only the dimensions, so anything is allowed within them.

movable aero is allowed everywhere you want.

at some point there will be a weight penalty for all the systems...

2.4 l v8, any kind of valve config, variable trumpets, any trick you want. 25,000 rpm.

I wonder what load would the tires be unusable? Or when they would destroy themselves?

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, I think that the main problem is how long can a human endure, not how much Gs he can resist. You can resist 30 Gs, but nobody wants to repeat the experience.

This kind of formula, I think, will take away all joy for drivers, they will be chosen among people with thick necks and able to breath in a controlled way.

Is that driving? Airplane fighters do it because they are trying to survive... I cannot imagine that "survivalist" style as part of racing. Or better yet, I can but I don't like it.

As for 400 kph or 500 khp, well... what if you put a wheel outside the "extra flat" surface? Will you break a teeth? How can you control a car that (with current track technology) is essentially uncontrollable outside the track at those speeds?

There will be other problems, I imagine. In my field I find a few.

Pomona is an example of an hyperflat track, because when you try to put down real power into the earth, like an NHRA dragster does, regular suspensions are not enough: track surface has to be improved. The straight at Pomona costs an eye. I quote, from the work at Brainerd track:

Laser equipment was used throughout the process to create an ultra-flat surface... After the concrete was adequately cured, its flatness was measured and found to have an average flatness factor of 98. To our knowledge, the only drag strip flatter than BIR (NOTE: Brainerd Intnl. Raceway) is the National Hot Rod Association’s Pomona Raceway in Pomona, Calif., which has a flatness factor of 104. But Pomona has transverse joints, which can create a rough ride at 200 mph-plus speeds. Instead of transverse joints, BIR’s concrete slab is anchored in the ground at half track and allowed to expand at the starting line end with the help of an expansion joint. The entire slab, constructed as one continuous concrete pour, expands and contracts toward and away from the starting line.

http://aggmanatlas.com/articles/oldarti ... eting.html

Forget about asphalt if you allow unlimited acceleration and braking: probably you'll have to move to concrete. It's not only the human body which complains, tracks also will...

Accidents will increase their destructive power. Energy is proportional to the square of speed, so the increment in chassis weight... you know the rest. Braking distance must be considered with the same approach: how far from the track should the stands be?

However, I think we should: a) give a chance to this kind of ideas and,
b) learn from other unlimited series in the past (CanAm? Or F1 in the 80's? Maybe GP cars in the 30's? What about "Old" LeMans?)

For the b) part, I think more experienced members can give you an idea of what happens when you take that approach. (Chap, donskar, Dave, we need a professional historian here... ).

[Callum]

On the human is the weakest link point - i think that the Acura drivers in the LMS are finding it quite tough as the lateral loads they pull are massive. That means that the drivers would probably have to be even fitter than they are today..

I like the idea though. This kind of thing would keep the brilliant designers like Newey in the sport.

[gibells]

I think you just have to release the limits. I think i'd like to see the ideas that were banned all those years ago: (fan car), (twin tubs), etc. explored a bit more. And also see what they could come up with if they enclosed the wheels, but kept the size/weight the same. Like a superlight LMP if you must.

[TheMinister]

I'd imagine you'd end up with some absurd fan car, as large as the regs allow for maximum ground effect, that would be so light it could take all the corners at flat-out. No driver could stand the G's so computer driven (too quick for human reaction). It'd cease to be a car, more a sort of ground-based flying saucer with wheels. ^^

Of course it would certainly make for interesting spectating...

[Scotracer]

Here's just a hypothetical version of F1 pace:

Engine improvements

- Revving to 21,000rpm with current technologies (22,000rpm in the future) producing 850BHP
- KERS capacity increased from 80BHP to 320BHP (quadrupled)
- Engine lightened by 5-10kg
- Electronic Engine Braking, Launch Control and TCS reintroduced

Time gain: -2 seconds laptime.

Chassis improvements

- Active Suspension to regulate ride height allowing very complex under-floor aerodynamics
- More exotic materials allowed removing 15kg from chassis weight
- ABS allowed

Time gain: -1 second laptime.

Aero improvements

-With extra power, run high downforce configuration at all tracks (except Monza)

Time gain: -0.5 seconds laptime.

Since you kept within the current bodywork regulations, you will see a 3-4 second improvement in lap time. If aero regulations were opened up again, to say 2004 levels we'd see a good 5-7 second improvement. The maximum lateral G-force will be at 130R and Copse corners; 5.5-6G.

[PlatinumZealot]

Put some Turbos on, Increase displacement to 3.5 liters...

Wall up the sides of the car, Fans, Put on some Fenders to shield the wheels.

(Hey Did anyone watch "Speed Racer" the movie? That is my ultimate racing series, Just train some Death row prisoners to drive so the driver death's wont matter.. Immoral? yes.. but it will be the pinnacle of motorsport and maximum entertainment! that should be another topic!! )

[pjobmathew]

When i was young i used to go for some abacus classes (helps to do speedy math calculations ans stuff). I was told there that ordinary human beings use only 2-3% of their brain's potential ( For questioning minds : How did they measure that ?????? Ans. I don't know ) . It was found out that Albert Einstein used around 4-5% of his brain . How ????? Well I've read somewhere that when Einstein died they took out his brain without the knowledge of his family for "study" .His family was informed only after the cremation . After this "Study" it was photographed and cut into pieces . It was later assembled back together again around 2003 if i am correct .

So if we can figure out a way to utilize the rest of our brain which is lying dormant, there would be such a leap in our performance .

Then i see Kung Fu and all that cool stuff which gives glimpses into human physical capabilities .

Combine the mental and physical aspects , what do u get ????????????????

[pjobmathew]

Quote:n smikle
Just train some Death row prisoners to drive so the driver death's wont matter.. Immoral? yes.. but it will be the pinnacle of motorsport and maximum entertainment! that should be another topic!! )

Reminds me of Death Race

[jon-mullen]

Bring back the powered ground effect.

[noname]

Well, I think that the main problem is how long can a human endure, not how much Gs he can resist. You can resist 30 Gs, but nobody wants to repeat the experience.

This kind of formula, I think, will take away all joy for drivers, they will be chosen among people with thick necks and able to breath in a controlled way.

Is that driving? Airplane fighters do it because they are trying to survive... I cannot imagine that "survivalist" style as part of racing. Or better yet, I can but I don't like it.(...)

In 2001 one of the CART race was canceled due high G-force on one of the banked curve causing vision and hearing problems amongst drivers.

I know F1 is a place where the best of the best (that includes fitness level also) drivers are competing but some common sense should remain.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/motors ... cancel_ap/