Where does 46kg come from?!

[jjn9128]

Gary Anderson weighs in ( ) but makes a fundamental error in that cars in 2000 were 600kg not 625kg. In fact the only time they were around 625kg was 2010 and 2011 when they were 620kg

[Airshifter]

What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?

Teams/manufacturers were taking the piss with fuel (type/volume) & boost levels.
Attempts were made at equivalence with 3.0l NA ....

the FIA always attempted equivalence from 1938
eventually handicapping the supercharged (boosted) engine to death eg 1954 2500cc NA vs 750cc supercharged
but opened the door again by allowing boosted engines (so turbo) 70% of NA capacity in touring cars and endurance
and 50% for convenience in 1966 F1 3000cc NA 1500cc boosted (1961-5 was 1500cc NA 500cc boosted)
opened the door

F1 fuel capacity was then limited to .....
250 litres as part of 1973 crash-safety mandates
220 litres and refuelling ban in 1984
195 litres in 1985 - apparently for both NA and boosted
(presumably both at this point on the road to higher fuel density ie toluene etc)

then 1987 4 bar MAP limit
1988 2.5 bar MAP and 150 litres fuel limit (boosted only)

how could the FIA 'experts' be so useless ?
proudly limiting RON was laughable - even MON would have been better
eg for 1958 F1 switched to 'road fuel' aka 'pump fuel'
allowed Avgas (we're now always told 100/130)
but these numbers are minima - typically 100/130 tests at c.110/130
and somewhere in primotipo it even says they used Avgas 108/135
aromatics (toluene/benzene/xylenes) have always been the enabling ingredients in this (1938-invention) Avgas
detonation-resistance is poor at high flame temperatures but outstanding at low flame temperatures ie rich mixtures

the 100 or whatever is the RON - in effect a lean mixture test
the 130 or 135 is the supercharge performance number - in effect a rich mixture test
what did the FIA think those numbers were there for ?
on high-aromatic fuel the boosted engine makes much better use of rich mixture than does the NA engine

A lot of good scoop on fuels in that post that I was never aware of.

In the interest of getting back towards the topic more though, all fuels used in F1 through the years have weight.


It does seem that the weight increase was fairly large, but even without exacts when done for safety reasons it's all justified. Granted some of the weight gains aren't safety related, but things like the wheels/tires bring the cars more up to "standard" with modern road cars.

[Stu]

With regards to weight (and in the interests of showing how efficient they are - all part of the hybrid concept); it would have been a fairly easy call to go back to 100kg for the fuel mass. When originally launched there was a tendency to ‘underfill’ the cars to gain lap time, but now we hear nothing.

[vorticism]

[Stu]

Just needs a Ford F-150 in the lineup for scale ; but seriously, how did the FIA let them get so big!!!

[JordanMugen]

Just needs a Ford F-150 in the lineup for scale ; but seriously, how did the FIA let them get so big!!!

The Alpine A110 is a really small road car, and the LMP1 class was reduced in width from 2.0m to 1.9m in 2014 (not entirely sure why).

I don't agree about the FIA letting them get big, the FIA slashed the width of Grand Prix cars in 1993 and has never restored it back to the original maximum width regulation from 1972. (Width being free choice until 1972, just like total height being free choice until 1976 and the total length being free choice until 2021.)




Bring back the full width!

[Tommy Cookers]

I don't agree about the FIA letting them get big, the FIA slashed the width of Grand Prix cars in 1993 and has never restored it back to the original maximum width regulation from 1972. :evil: (Width being free choice until 1972, just like total height being free choice until 1976 and the total length being free choice until 2021.)
Bring back the full width! =D>

length (and weight) were by 1961 not free choice
(F1/F2 min lengths earlier set ? to exclude motorcycle-powered 'F3-type' eg 1956 152 mph Davis 1150cc Cooper-Vincent)
there was a minimum NA engine size 1300cc specified for the 1961-5 1500cc NA formula 1 (to keep out F Junior/3 ?)
eg Niemann's Lotus 7 had to be lengthened c.2" (and ballasted) to make the F1 minima (1962 SA GP)
(EDIT this car and others were running in the GP in the SA championship under its 4 cyl rules
but SAC seemed to allow then or a bit later F3 cars - hence my assumed attribution of min wheelbase to F1 as above)

the 'full width' exceeds ? in length (wb) the 1100cc Cooper-JAP that Harry Schell drove in the 1950 Monaco GP (WDC)


F3 Cooper-Nortons (500cc singles) could also have been 720cc and still 500 lb
(Charlie Luck's sprint Bill Stuart 715cc 90x113 motor 1961 and Bill Boddice's, Sanby's etc Jim Smith 636cc 90x100 1966)
Norton made 17 600cc 86x103 ? bikes some dohc for the 1949/50 Sidecar GPs etc - 90 bores (86 ??) can be 95 today
Cooper-JAPs/Vincent V-twins could have been 1400 cc supercharged and c.600 lb
there was a Cooper with an NA 1130cc JAP V-twin bottom half with ohc Norton top halves claiming 125 hp
Ferrari made in 1955 a 2.5 litre twin F1 engine - presumably intending a small 'rear-engined' car
the 1969ish 2 litre Porsche hillclimb car (with Beryllium brake discs) weighed c.830 lb

[JordanMugen]

So there was a minimum car size, rather than a maximum? Very interesting.

[PlatinumZealot]

Just needs a Ford F-150 in the lineup for scale ; but seriously, how did the FIA let them get so big!!!

When I saw the Porsche 919 up close, I thought it was a giant go-kart, so what in the world would I think if I saw that Alpine?!

[RZS10]

Just needs a Ford F-150 in the lineup for scale ; but seriously, how did the FIA let them get so big!!!

Updated the F1 car to a current one and the LMP car is the TS040 Toyota, both Alpines are the same, 2011 F-150 Raptor for scale

[Stu]

And think, F1 drivers of the eighties/nineties used to say how they had to adapt their driving style to suit the big, slow-responding cars when they went sports car racing…

[vorticism]

On the plus side, Ford could make an F-150 F1 edition with relative ease. Just drop a body shell over a used Haas.

[PlatinumZealot]

Guess the length is all in the name of downforce and high speed stability.

[vorticism]

iirc the 2009 changes made the cars slightly longer with the new nosecones, the RW endplates, etc. However there were no length limits so it became advantageous to make the floor as large as possible to use as an aero element. Which led to rake and RB style narrow engine covers and rear pullrods, etc.

[JordanMugen]

iirc the 2009 changes made the cars slightly longer with the new nosecones, the RW endplates, etc. However there were no length limits so it became advantageous to make the floor as large as possible to use as an aero element.

Guess the length is all in the name of downforce and high speed stability.

Until 2016, the total length wasn't quite so outrageous and S-class-like/F150-like though.

Perhaps proportionally increasing the front tyre size in 2017 was a mistake, and they should have been left at the traditional 245mm front tyre width (which also looks less silly than 305mm fronts) rather than being scaled proportionally with the rear tyres.

Presumably setting a more rearwards tyre distribution and more rearwards weight distribution in the 2017 regulations would have encouraged shorter race cars?

I'm totally onboard with getting rid of the silly narrow rear tyres, and putting the rear tyre width back to how it was supposed to be though (or slightly more even), that was absolutely the right call. A Grand Prix car should have fat rear tyres, just as they have had since the late 60's (up until they were foolishly taken away in '94 or '98, not quite sure).

On the plus side, Ford could make an F-150 F1 edition with relative ease. Just drop a body shell over a used Haas.

Ford already made a Transit F1 edition:


None of that Americanism with pickup trucks, just a good old British white van.

[Of course anoraks will note the Ford Transit was powered by various Cosworth engines, mostly closer to Group C than F1, and in the above case it is fitted with a V6.]

Renault also produced a sensible sportsvan: