Long WheelBase vs Short WheelBase

[Skelly]

Hi, Can you guys give me your views on the advantage and disadvantages oflonger and shorter wheelbases.

these are the wheelbase measurements for the F1 teams that have made that info available :-

Arrows: 3080 mm
BAR: 3050
Ferrari: 3050
Jordan: >3000
Minardi: 3097
Renault: 3100
Sauber: 3080
Toyota: 3090
Williams: 3140

So what are the advantages and disadvantages that the 3,140mm Williams should have. What inherant problem will the longer wheelbase cure and what problem could it create.

Likewise Ferrari and BAR at 3,050mm seem to have the shortest and what impacts good/bad would occur here.

Your help would be greatly and urgently appreciated for my Project.

[JGM]

There's obviously very little difference these days between the various F1 cars. Anyway a long WB gives a car greater directional stability while a short WB gives a car quick, nervous, agile handling. Supposing you had a car with a crazy WB of, say, 2 feet. If its front wheels deviated one foot to one side it would represent a dramatic change to the car's attitude and angle to the road. The same deviation on a car with a 20 foot WB would be much less significant. Dragsters and speed record cars have very long WBs at one extreme while it used to be a practice to prepare special short WB cars for Monaco. I don't know if anybody still does this. If they did they wouldn't tell anybody.

[Skelly]

Thanks - anyone else got any thoughts on this topic ?

[Lee Janotta]

Actually, I think there's quite a dramatic difference here. The long wheelbase of the Williams is quite a liability on the tight, twisty course that dominate the calendar. It's very stable, but it's hard to get good turn-in. The car pushes a lot as a result, so the drivers have to shed more speed before going into a corner, and can't get on the power as early coming out. Tracks with long, wide, fast corners suit them, like Spa and Sepang. The shorter wheelbase cars tend to be more on the loose side. They can be a bit of a handful, but a McLaren or Ferrari'll snap your neck to the side when you turn into a corner, the transition is so fast.

I think the trend is certainly going to be towards shorter wheelbase cars from now on.

As for the idea of short-wheelbase specials for Monaco, I don't think this has been a practice for a _long_ time. You can't make drastic changes to a carbon fiber monocoque, not to mention that the finely-tuned aero package would be absolute garbage if you altered the wheelbase.

[Red Dog]

Don't you need to consider the ratio between wheelbase and track also? Does anyone know the track widths of the above mentioned F1 cars?

[Jukebox]

I agree with what Lee had said because theoretically shorther wheelbase allows sharper turning radiuses and longer wheelbases makes the car go smoother and increased stability.

But there are ways of getting sharper turning radiuses although the wheelbases are long. F1 cars nowadays if you look at the designs especially at the rear wheels, it is pushed way back as to put more weight on the front axle and in line with that...the front axle are being moved forward too.

Increased yaw damping, correct wings setups according to the mass of downforce needed depending on tracks, ride heights, springs, anti roll bars and packers will compensate the theoretically less responsive turning radiuses because of the longer wheelbases.

[Lee Janotta]

Indeed. The inefficiency of the Williams aero package also deserves a lot of blame for their failure on tighter tracks. They missed the boat with twin-keel suspension, that alone has cost them a lot of front downforce compared to Ferrari and McLaren.

Of course, F1 cars are so complex that wheelbase alone can't possibly account for all the characteristics. Observe the BAR, for instance. It's short, so it should handle aggressively... But poor suspension design and a bad aero package make it nearly impossible to set good lap times. It does seem a bit better in race trim than qualifying, though.

Setting up a car to compensate for it's weak points are always going to detract from it's strong points, though. Setting up for more aggressive turn-in is going to mean softer springs and more camber... That'll hurt you in the middle and exit of low and high-speed corners, where the car'll start to push even more. It's all a matter of finding that best balance for the track. Never an easy thing, even for an F1 team.

[THR]

someone mentioned track.. that has a great deal to do with the wheelbase you would like... F1 cars all have the same track tho.
Watching legends on sunday, they change direction really fast, but aint slow cars! (have a short wheelbase).

[Skelly]

Lee, Montoya's string of pole positions for Williams - including at Monaco (the tightest circuit) does tend to contradict your point about the Williams' inefficient aero package and problems on tightt tracks ?? What do you think Lee ?
Neither Ferrari nor Williams adopted the Sauber Twin-keel. Sauber has done well out of it and to some extent so has McLaren but for Jordan and Arrows the success has to be questioned.
I think Williams are behind in aero evolutionary terms because they stayed with the flat bottomed front wing for too long. For 1 full year they did not properly investigate the Jordan/Benetton/Sauber centre step-lowered front wing or the (Ferrari) spoon curve. Everyone has gone spoon now because it is the best compromise between pitch sensitivity and downforce. If Williams had sorted out the front end downforce and better airflow last season they may now be at the same level of Ferrari.

But, back to the wheelbase issue... Red Dog said the Wheelbase/track width ratio has an impact on the whole equation... In what way please ???

[Lee Janotta]

I think Montoya's just an excellent qualifier... He had Ralf well beat in all the sessions where he took pole. He's able to push the car very hard and skillful enough to get away with it, but the Michelins will turn to total garbage after a half-dozen laps of that sort of punishment, which is why we keep seeing him pit during races with tires that are either completely bald or coming apart in chunks.

He needs a car that can put up with his aggressive style over race distance to be competitive. He needs to back off too much to keep the car in one piece, and his racecraft isn't to the point where he's capable of running at a calm, consistent clip throughout the race. Very talented, but basically driving by the seat of his pants. He gets easily frustrated if he's not leading, or at least breathing down Michael's neck.

That's my assessment, at least. Take it for whatever it's worth.

[Jukebox]

Originally posted by Skelly
Lee, Montoya's string of pole positions for Williams - including at Monaco (the tightest circuit) does tend to contradict your point about the Williams' inefficient aero package and problems on tightt tracks ??

We have covered the discussion on the speed and what setups that may give the best effect when it comes to qualifying.

CLICK HERE

[Jukebox]

Originally posted by Skelly
I think Williams are behind in aero evolutionary terms because they stayed with the flat bottomed front wing for too long. For 1 full year they did not properly investigate the Jordan/Benetton/Sauber centre step-lowered front wing or the (Ferrari) spoon curve. Everyone has gone spoon now because it is the best compromise between pitch sensitivity and downforce.

We have also covered the discussion on front wings selection. TRY GOING HERE

Originally posted by Skelly
If Williams had sorted out the front end downforce and better airflow last season they may now be at the same level of Ferrari.

I agree with the fact that Williams has one of the most unsuitable aero package in the championship. But then they are very fast on straights and one of the contributing factors was because of the long wheelbase, and they've increased the yaw damping to further get better handling but will in return affect cornering handling. That is why they seem to not get the same handling like the Macs and Ferrari when it comes to negotiating corners.

Just my opinion....

[Jukebox]

We have also covered the discussion on front wings selection. TRY GOING HERE

Oppss sorry ......HERE

[RWC]

The differences in wheelbases quoted are not really much at all-re. stabillity.There are greater effects from the mass distribution and aero efficiency that are wheelbase allows

[THR]

true WRC.. the cars have an overall length, which i think is set at 4700mm, the over hang at end end from the axles will have an effect on the amount of downforce needed to balance the car.

[Jukebox]

That's where yaw damping is needed to be done if the weight distribution is not ideal

[DavidStHubbins]

i remember McLaren changing to a SWB in 98 i think cos Mika prefered it while DC liked the LWB. Could have been 97.

[Jukebox]

In 98, FIA made the decision to limit the width of front wheels and most teams go for shorter WB instead Ferrari did the reverse boldly opting for longer WB.

If i remembered correctly, you are right about the sentiments of both drivers but because of the FIA ruling, he had to agree. But then they could each get separate settings....

[alfasud]

These numbers are all quite long compared to 1960's. In those days I think that 2400-2500mm was common, but many things have changed:

* Trend to lower polar moment of inertia (70's?) means to get the engine more central, a longer wheelbase is more desirable. But as engines and transmissions get lighter, maybe the engine doesn't need to be so far forward as in 1970's/80's?
* Ground effects (late 70's/80's) - if you are getting downforce from underbody then longer (more area) is better. But with modern rules with flat bottom/plank, does it help so much?
* Safety rules - on old days it was permitted to have the drivers feet in front on the front axle line, but no longer (when did this happen?), so if driver is sitting further back, longer w/b is needed.

I guess only one thing is certain, the optimum w/b will change as rules change and lighter components and new techniques are introduced.