2011 F1 car concepts

[Tamburello]

I don't understand why people have a problem with the adjustable rear wing, what's the difference between it and an f duct?

Because the F-Duct is freely available to all to use however they see fit. The adjustable rear wing is only activated when a driver is within 1 second of the car in front, giving them an artificial speed boost and taking away some of the skill required to overtake.

Instead of fixing the problem of cars being unable to overtake on track (tyres that are too grippy and consistent, cars that are too stable and aero dependent making, brakes that are too powerful thus reducing braking distances, etc.) they have chosen this artificial bandage to try and cover up for the fact that the current regulations are processional racing.

Okay allow me put this question out: is restricting technology - e.g. by reducing aero dependency of cars, making tyres less grippy and consistent, banning driver aids, changing track layouts to suit a particular type of race - also not a form of artificiality?

[donskar]

I don't understand why people have a problem with the adjustable rear wing, what's the difference between it and an f duct?

Because the F-Duct is freely available to all to use however they see fit. The adjustable rear wing is only activated when a driver is within 1 second of the car in front, giving them an artificial speed boost and taking away some of the skill required to overtake.

Instead of fixing the problem of cars being unable to overtake on track (tyres that are too grippy and consistent, cars that are too stable and aero dependent making, brakes that are too powerful thus reducing braking distances, etc.) they have chosen this artificial bandage to try and cover up for the fact that the current regulations are processional racing.

Okay allow me put this question out: is restricting technology - e.g. by reducing aero dependency of cars, making tyres less grippy and consistent, banning driver aids, changing track layouts to suit a particular type of race - also not a form of artificiality?

Good point, Tumbarello. We love the sport and sometimes blind ourselves to the artificiality you mention. Take "green." If all F1 cars had wind-up rubber band motors, would the environment be measurably improved? No. Why should $15,000 production cars have LOTS of technology banned in F1? On aero, though: I'd like the F1 tech powers that be take a good look at road cars and try to set F1 aero regs that emulate what the public can buy -- underbody aero, movable rear flap, but not all the silly appendages. (I know, there are fewer now, but still too many.)

[ak07]

Personally I think the fact that "new" technologies are banned quickly after their introduction is actually beneficial to road-car technology.

The fact that new developments are banned is, in my opinion, one of the largest reasons new developments are engineered.

The rear wing flap "brace" that is now required after Ferrari was stalling their rear wing by the flex of the flap led to a larger importance to develop something new, aka the f-duct.

The fact that active-suspension was banned could be argued as a large reason why Renault and Michelin developed the mass-damper. In turn, the banning of the mass damper could be argued as a reason to develop inerters (J-Damper)

So on and so forth.

The fact is these technologies are usually already either on the drawing boards, being tested or at least being thought of by car manufacturer's. Formula One is only a place for them to be tried and the general idea be proven. After that the difference in the development if it was to be continually refined in Formula One or if it was banned wouldn't change much. Continued development in racing wouldn't benefit car manufacturer's as the engineering needed to convert a technology from F1 to the street benefits more from "proof of concept" than from the small refined and very specific engineering developments made specifically for Formula One.

[Intego]

[...]
Well, not compared to "engine mappers" at least will these guys be onboard? Maybe RB7 will be (as far as I know) the world's first F1 3-seater!

Well, not the first one ...




The last one has his own thread on f1technical!

[gridwalker]

I know all of them except this one : who made it?

[Jersey Tom]

Personally I think the fact that "new" technologies are banned quickly after their introduction is actually beneficial to road-car technology.

The fact that new developments are banned is, in my opinion, one of the largest reasons new developments are engineered.

The rear wing flap "brace" that is now required after Ferrari was stalling their rear wing by the flex of the flap led to a larger importance to develop something new, aka the f-duct.

The fact that active-suspension was banned could be argued as a large reason why Renault and Michelin developed the mass-damper. In turn, the banning of the mass damper could be argued as a reason to develop inerters (J-Damper)

So on and so forth.

The fact is these technologies are usually already either on the drawing boards, being tested or at least being thought of by car manufacturer's. Formula One is only a place for them to be tried and the general idea be proven. After that the difference in the development if it was to be continually refined in Formula One or if it was banned wouldn't change much. Continued development in racing wouldn't benefit car manufacturer's as the engineering needed to convert a technology from F1 to the street benefits more from "proof of concept" than from the small refined and very specific engineering developments made specifically for Formula One.

Eh. Don't agree. As I'm fond of saving.. lot technology is generally developed OUTSIDE of racing first. Racing doesn't exist as a proving ground.

The whole racing/road relevance line is purely PR BS. Granted there are exceptions.. but it's not typical.

[Intego]

I know all of them except this one : who made it?

Found it on a well known search engine while searching for the Ferrari and the Renault. Seems to be especially built for Dubai tourists or so.

But I als found this

http://www.adventuresportsholidays.com/ ... -17292.php

and this

[raymondu999]

Actually here's a thought. Which cars do you reckon will be most/least disadvantaged due to no ddd and f-duct next year? I'm thinking that Macca with their ginormous mammoth humongous diffuser will be suffering because of that and probably they'll have to pretty much go clean sheet. Something like the RB6 or F10 on the other hand seems to be more focused on airflow around the chassis, no?

[lotus7]

Brilliant !! then all the fan boys and did he/would he/could he/should he conspirators can ride with on qualifying/race day and give us the real reason for the crash/take out a competitor opinions that are so rife on this technical forum

On second thoughts , I suppose the same posters will still argue their opinions

[raymondu999]

ever so slightly off topic here. But a friend of mine told me that next year the sharkfin isn't allowed to attach to the rear wing. Even if there's no f-duct, kind of the early iterations of the RB5. Can anyone confirm or debunk this? I was under the impression that the major aero changes were just the two devices everyone hated - the f-duct and also the DDD. What does everyone think about these two bannings? Which cars will they hurt the most/least?

[djos]

I know I've said it many times, and I hate to repeat myself, but I still think the whole green racing concept is a crock. Race cars have never been, and will never need to be relevant to passenger cars. The whole notion of making a road-relevant single seat, open-wheel vehicle.. seems a little silly.

I'd also argue that the majority of the time, racing is not the birthplace if innovative new technologies. These technologies (fuel injection, radial tires, aerodynamics, microhydraulics, etc) are birthed in the consumer and commercial industries, and only applied in novel ways to racecars. The R&D budgets for consumer and commercial markets puts any race team to shame. As of a few years ago I want to say Ford's R&D budget was on the order of $8 billion, and that's just one OEM.

In any event, if there's a driver-controlled rear wing thing.. sounds like a gimmick to me. Trying to slap a band-aid over a severed arm.

+1 Million!

[machin]

I know I've said it many times, and I hate to repeat myself, but I still think the whole green racing concept is a crock. Race cars have never been, and will never need to be relevant to passenger cars. The whole notion of making a road-relevant single seat, open-wheel vehicle.. seems a little silly.

Its a good point, but if F1 appears to the outside, every-day-person to be a big waste of money/earth's resources/green house emissions then it WILL lose the support of the sponsors and manufacturers.... As none of them wants to be associated with wasteful-ness. No big sponsors means you can say good-bye to all of the high technology/development etc that we all love about the sport....

You can bury your head in the sand about the green-issue but the smart players are jumping on-board so that we can continue to have our fun... no matter what the reality actually is -its all about perception to the outside world.

[CMSMJ1]

@ machin - you reckon our friends in China are jumping on the green bandwagon too?

Green = BS

F1 will be cool next year and as long as people want to race fast cars there will be F1. The commercial aspect doens't go hand in hand. It might get cheaper, might get to smaller budgets...but the core of people trying to go faster than the next will still eb there.

I expect faster cars again next year, as every year..

[autogyro]

There has never been faster cars every year, just cars designed for a new set of regulations. That is not primary development, it is controlled.

[raymondu999]

@ machin - you reckon our friends in China are jumping on the green bandwagon too?

And what, pray tell, is that supposed to mean?