How to fix F1?

[wnut]

Tyre stagger as applied to oval racing is running different diameter tyres on different sides of the car which causes the car to turn naturally left.

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Not picking on you for the Wikipedia usage. I love Wikipedia, but it occasionally the info can be questionable.


I don't disagree (i.e. underbody wing may "come on" faster than than above body). But my question is... would the driver be able to catch it in either situation? I would say that in general not and that in general I doubt ground effects are more dangerous, or if they are, it is marginally so. I think the accident was a given once the slide started to happen. I am not saying that was a freak accident, but there is no guarantee it would always play out as deadly as that example (regardless of wing type). Lastly, lets not pretend that above body wings don't loose downforce/effectiveness when the car yaws in relation to the direction of travel. Especially at Indy speeds.

I don't pretend a thing....when a tunneled gorund effect car comes back to neutral after being yawed (is that a word?), the downforce kicks back in much more violently than just a wingewd flat bottom or even an un-skirted ground effect car.

Richard

I didn't assume you were picking on me....'just advising that that was not my purpose for quoting it.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

.Hmm, the wider rear tyres match the weight distribution and aero distribution which is also rearwards, which is optimal for a rear-wheel-drive racing car. Current F1 have more weight forward by way of the regulation which mandates something like a 45:55 weight distribution (and thus wider front tyres).

Surely car constructors had good reasons to run wheels which were staggered to this level?



The stagger seems mild compared to ground effect F1 cars...

The stagger being discussed here is for ovals where the right side tires are greater in circumference than the left to aid in turning left.; not the difference 'twixt front and rear.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Note... I meant to include a positive emoticon in the bit above. So here it is!


Richard

Oh! Thank you!

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Is there anyone who has something constructive to say about the sporting side rather than the technical side? That last one has been done do death about 5 times by now.

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Is there anyone who has something constructive to say about the sporting side rather than the technical side? That last one has been done do death about 5 times by now.

Oh, okay your highness.

Heaven forbid we discuss something that interests you not.

Psssttttt. Take a hike.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Tyre stagger as applied to oval racing is running different diameter tyres on different sides of the car which causes the car to turn naturally left.

There is also the tyre camber, which has the tyres leaning to the driver’s right.

Back in the day when Colin Chapman and Jim Clark made their attempts to win the 500, the suspension was also offset.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Is there anyone who has something constructive to say about the sporting side rather than the technical side? That last one has been done do death about 5 times by now.

The technical side is very important. Aero, is constantly coming up in discussions here, on Ten Tenths.

What would you like to discuss about the sporting side? Is there a particular aspect, like track limits?

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

There is also the tyre camber, which has the tyres leaning to the driver’s right.

Back in the day when Colin Chapman and Jim Clark made their attempts to win the 500, the suspension was also offset.

Camber? Leaning to the right? Top or bottom?
Don't want positive camber when the tread will be rolling up....

Offset suspension was long before Lotus. That's staple oval setup.....

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by jimclark

Camber? Leaning to the right? Top or bottom?
Don't want positive camber when the tread will be rolling up....

Offset suspension was long before Lotus. That's staple oval setup.....

You want negative camber but I wasn't using the Lotus as an example of tyre camber, just for offset suspension, as it is more pronounced than on this Watson roadster.

[bella]

every day is a school day - didn't realise they used to make those kind of modifications to a car for an oval! both are lovely looking cars, i wonder what they'd come up with if aero wasn't really permitted to be a thing and they had to rely on other methods of making sure the car didn't hit the wall.

[wnut]

Those are amateurs. Smokey Yunnick's Capsule Car version:

http://racersreunion.com/bill-rankin...smokey-at-indy

[S griffin]

Ah yes the Indycar that looks like a sidecar

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by wnut

Those are amateurs. Smokey Yunnick's Capsule Car version:

http://racersreunion.com/bill-rankin...smokey-at-indy

Ya beat me to it.

Don't fergit this one though.....'gotta love Graham's (Hill, '61 & 62 WC for the uninitiated) opinion of the thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysGNu5BkxSI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdQE_waAvDE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV1oBpUEk2k

Of course followed by....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keadoXtDVdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeAr4oTk0P0

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Those are amateurs. Smokey Yunnick's Capsule Car version:

http://racersreunion.com/bill-rankin...smokey-at-indy

Bringing the thread back on topic, I think Smokey Yunick's Capsule Car could be the way forward.

[Peter Mallett]

Think you'll find Graham was WDC in 1962 and 1968. Phil Hill was 1961.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by jimclark

Ya beat me to it.

Don't fergit this one though.....'gotta love Graham's (Hill, '61 & 62 WC for the uninitiated) opinion of the thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysGNu5BkxSI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdQE_waAvDE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV1oBpUEk2k

Of course followed by....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keadoXtDVdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeAr4oTk0P0

It's decendant was the Lotus 56B, Which participated in the 1971 F1 season. It raced in three GPs, retiring in the Dutch and British and finishing 8th at Monza.

[wnut]

Thanks jim and BJ, great memories, had a model of the 67 turbine car as a kid!
Maybe turbines are the way forward for F1, some of the modern turbines are running compressions of 26:1, with some kind of hybrid …

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by wnut

Maybe turbines are the way forward for F1, some of the modern turbines are running compressions of 26:1, with some kind of hybrid …

Turbine hybrid with batteries and a pure electric drive would be an excellent solution. The turbine could just run constantly at peak efficiency to charge the battery, and drive would be provided electrically as required, which would solve the drivability problems (on road circuits) of earlier turbine cars.

Beats carrying 500kg+ of batteries in a pure electric racing car, anyhow! I'm sure the turbine plus fuel would weigh a lot less than that.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Turbine hybrid with batteries and a pure electric drive would be an excellent solution. The turbine could just run constantly at peak efficiency to charge the battery, and drive would be provided electrically as required, which would solve the drivability problems (on road circuits) of earlier turbine cars.

Beats carrying 500kg+ of batteries in a pure electric racing car, anyhow! I'm sure the turbine plus fuel would weigh a lot less than that.

What about including four-wheel drive? The Granatelli, STP-Paxton Turbocar and the Lotus 56 and 56B had four-wheel drive.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

What about including four-wheel drive? The Granatelli, STP-Paxton Turbocar and the Lotus 56 and 56B had four-wheel drive.

Sure, why not! You can regenerate more from the front axle, so motors on the front ala LMP1 would probably be a good idea.

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

What about including four-wheel drive? The Granatelli, STP-Paxton Turbocar and the Lotus 56 and 56B had four-wheel drive.

Don't forget, there were some 4WD Lola Champ Cars also, such as this one (reverted to 2WD): https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2018/0...70-lola-t-153/
Alas, again, progress was banned.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Now that this thread has been taken over with potential solutions from AOWR/IndyCar, isn't time F1 looked outside their box?

[RWill2073]

I've said it before, but I think the best way to "fix" f1 is to allow 2 different sets of regulations based on factory team vs customer team. Allow greater areas of development for customer teams, allowing them to do things that factory teams can't touch. Maybe this would allow for a "garagiste" type to be able to bring some wild solution that is out of the box. Meanwhile the factory teams can still spend tons of money finding the minute little advancements they do now, still with the advantages of more resources and personnel. Maybe the different solutikns lead to different ways cars interact with each other on track, allowing for more passing opportunities.

Also, finding a way to push envelopes that lead to occasional failures and dnf's by even the top teams can lead to more excitement race to race. As it is, the Mercedes and Ferrari are essentially bullet proof reliability wise, so once the first corner is done and settled, it can get fairly predictable.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Also, finding a way to push envelopes that lead to occasional failures and dnf's by even the top teams can lead to more excitement race to race. As it is, the Mercedes and Ferrari are essentially bullet proof reliability wise, so once the first corner is done and settled, it can get fairly predictable.

Simple, remove the rev and fuel flow limits, they will start blowing up again as the performance envelopes are pushed.

[wnut]

Two further interesting items I found this weekend - good for a trivia night or something.



Turbo Diesel Polesitter in a Grand Prix - well Indy 1952 which counted toward the WDC, and an oval race to boot Jim.


And this tip for the FIA (not directly) from Smokey Yunick:

"You don't race cars, you race the rule book."

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Now that this thread has been taken over with potential solutions from AOWR/IndyCar, isn't time F1 looked outside their box?

A resounding NO!!!

Seriously, then it wouldn't be Formula One anymore, as stated previously by another poster.

Originally Posted by wnut

Simple, remove the rev and fuel flow limits, they will start blowing up again as the performance envelopes are pushed.

I'd definitely go for that....it was part of the real excitement for fans, and strategy for drivers/teams, prior to supposed "cost saving" and "equalizing" in all forms of pro racing....

Originally Posted by wnut

Two further interesting items I found this weekend - good for a trivia night or something.

Turbo Diesel Polesitter in a Grand Prix - well Indy 1952 which counted toward the WDC, and an oval race to boot Jim.

Aaaaahhh....we just had a resurgence recently ('a shame they quit) by Audi and Peugeot.

No cheating.... It wasn't an F1 car and it wasn't an F1 race. Like you said, it just "counted" towards the championship...'wasn't "part" of it....

(Now, if you were talking about the first Lotus and Eagle Indy...ooopppsss....Champ Cars, you'd be partially right as they were but had to use heavier gauge tubs to meet USAC's standards... Don't even think about testing me...some specifics might be slipping away but I still remember, I was a sponge at the time. )