future F1 cars

[darksag3x]

i just read an article in popular science about 300-mph racecars of the future, and i'd like to know what u guys think the ultimate F1 car looks like, or maybe how the F1 car will evolve with today's trends and regulations. in short, a "formula none."

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurecar/ ... drcrd.html

[jaslfc]

i think the limit to the ultimate speeds of a formula one car is the human body and how much forces it can take... then comes the safety issue as well.

[White Boy]

Looking at the way the regs are headed, we're probably going to have the CDG wing at the back and the rest of the car will, in 2008 onwards atleast, be much clearner aerodynamically after they introduce the downforce limiting regulations. The cars will probably continue to get smaller and smaller too, I'd reckon.

So, how wrong does everyone think I am
White Boy.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

I doubt the CDG wing will be introduced. I think most teams will test and ten reject the idea. However i do think the cars will become less cluttered with winglets in 2008. Altho the "swooshes" or "flick-ups" in front of the rear wheels will stay.

[Tom]

I like the CDG.

I believe that the fastest cars were in 1994, before the Imola/Monaco tradgedies.

Have we peaked?

[manchild]

I like the CDG.

I believe that the fastest cars were in 1994, before the Imola/Monaco tradgedies.

Have we peaked?

Sure, 1993 was peak of F1 when it matters technology while 1986 was peak when it matters engine power. Same goes for 1990 when it matetrs number of teams and drivers with 26 cars on a race while 36 to 39 cars on pre-quaffing sessions.

[DaveKillens]

The technology is limited only by the rules and money. These days, just about everything in a Formula One car is limited by the rules.
What if we were allowed big fat slicks again? Active suspension? Engines with any configuration or aspiration. Back 15 years ago we had 1.5 liter turbos putting out almost a thousand horespower. Imagine a 6 liter H-16 with turbo. Chassis and aero.... what if they removed the bottom tray and allowed total ground effect, or suction? Why not four wheel drive, or even eight wheels. Moveable aero devices... wings that lay flat down the straights to allow 300+ MPH, yet spring up in a corner and get 5+ G's lateral acceleration. Why not hydrogen peroxide rockets to provide stoppping or cornering forces? Gas turbines with thrust vectoring like the Harrier?
All possible, and with today's technology doable.
But honestly, in the name of safety and giving the fans good competition, speeds need a limit, and rational, safe cars need to be built.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

But honestly, in the name of safety and giving the fans good competition, speeds need a limit, and rational, safe cars need to be built.

Yup, I agree again, but i do believe room for a chosen design ethos is good. The Twin Keel vs Single Keel "battle" is interesting...but wouldn't it be interesting if we could have the choice of Turbo or N/A or Supercharged. With different limitaions (as in Le Mans) to limit power on each so that all engines produce more or less similar power.

Could you imagine how some races turbos would work nicely, but then we go to the Nurburgring in the eiffel-mountains, the air is thinner and the N/A's perform better. Or how a driver in a turbo pushed it too hard and now needs to conserve fuel. It's only one example, and admittedly not very well thought out on my behalf...but it does add variety. As would, saying "Ok, only N/A engines alowed, and only upto 3litres....have any configuration you like, and number of cylinders, any V-Angle etc" Or aero reg's that allow room for a chosen design ethos to appear.

THEN try and have people say "all F1 cars look the same to me"

[Apex]

but then we go to the Nurburgring in the eiffel-mountains, the air is thinner and the N/A's perform better.

Sorry but I would just like to point out that the N/A's would perform worse in thinner air than the forced induction engines. Thats the idea of forced induction, to get as much mass of O2 in there as possible.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Turbo cars wont perform as well at High Altitude, (I cant remember exactly what year) I think maybe 1985/1986 but Gerhard Berger was driving for Benetton at the Mexico GP, he won the race as the other cars which were powered by turbo's couldn't generate as much power due to the thinner air (or maybe it was tht they had to restrict their power or boost pressure due to the thinner air meant less cooling for the engine).

Then again before reading that atricle (it was in F1 racing a long time ago) I did think tht turbo cars would perform better at high altitude...like you sed.

Maybe im just getting confused

[dumrick]

You are. Berger drove for Benetton in 1986. The engine was a turbo-4 cylinder BMW and the reason he won was because of less wearing of his Pirelli tyres. Only in 1987 have the N/A engines returned to F1.

Turbos loose less power at high-altitudes than N/A engines, that was clear in the Mexican GP in 1987 and 1988.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

So I was confused LOL. I stand corrected

Thanx for clearing tht up.

Ok to make my original post make more sence...Turbos & N/A's would be good because turbos would win at High Altitude and at some races would have to conserve fuel.

that..er...wasn't a quick botch up

[Red Five]

It would be good if they were able to give the teams the freedom to use forced induction. The trouble is getting the equivalency factor right, so that no particular type of aspiration has the advantage.
When the original 3 litre formula was introduced back in 1967, they only allowed the 1.5 litre forced induction option to be included because they were worried that there may not be enough of the new 3 litre engines to go round. I don't think they ever expected anyone to take up that option until some guy at Renault said "Now I've got a good idea".

[DaveKillens]

Turbos definitely can perfrom better at higher altitudes. That's the joy of having a compressor.

[Ciro Pabón]

I have always said in this forum that the limit of design is not only imposed through mechanical car restrictions: the layout of the track is of similar importance when you talk of maximum speed. Given enough horsepower, you can go 1.000 mph in a straight, completely flat road. The problem starts as soon as you hit the first bump or the first corner, if you disqualify robot drivers...

As for radical speed racers, I am still waiting for rocket orbital races , not too far in the future, I hope . This probably means around 30.000 kph, and also means using really cool vehicles, the ultimate track (the whole Earth) and the ultimate aerodynamic frontier (the fastest reentry you can manage). But I can imagine people complaining of too few overtakes...