Just a few questions

[Jared]

1) Does the more bodywork a race car have on it promote diversity in design? Take the F1 cars and the ALMS prototypes. F1 cars all pretty much look the same. However, you can easily tell a BMW from an Audi from a Chrysler (and definately a Panoz).

2) If engine rules were opened up in F1, allowing any engine of any style, any displacement, what would be the engine of choice? Large, normally-aspirated engine? Turbo? Turbine? Rotary? (Concerning the rotary engines, I've heard they are very loud. Would a noise restriction limit the rotary's performance?)

3) What is the purpose of the minimum weight rules? Are the rules effective?

4) Active suspensions. A magazine I read stated that active suspensions were used to keep the car at the right level so the car's underbody ground effects would work. If the rules were to get rid of ground effects and mandate a flat bottom, would there be a need for active suspension?

5) What kind of fuel mileage do F1 (and other types of race cars) get? If F1 races were 500 km in distance, instead of the present 300 km, would that change pit strategy? By that, I mean would they pit more often or just go longer between stops?

Whew. Okay, any info or opinions would be appreciated.

[Jared]

C'mon, 20 people so far have looked at this, and no one has any answers? You can tell me if you think my questions are stupid. It won't hurt my feelings (much). Don't make me beg for answers here. C'mon, put your brains in gear and give me some answers.

[THR]

1. F1 has free body work, where as the touring cars have to derive from a road car.

2. i dont think the noise would matter. F1 engines are pretty noisey now! but turbos would be in i reckon.

3. min wieght ensures that fat drivers arent penilised. and resrictes the performance of the cars.

4. yup active is needed cos the ground effect cars only help the cars stick. with out the tunnels the cars are still pitch sensitive. and still produce downforce, more when its flat to the ground.

5. i guess it would be much the same as CART. ie boring.

[Jared]

On #1, I'm not talking about GT cars. I'm talking about the prototypes. They don't have to be derived from a street car. I'm just wondering if having fenders and full bodywork encourages more diversity in the looks of the cars.

[Sparky]

Hi Jared. These certainly aren't stupid questions!

Let's have a look...

1) Does the more bodywork a race car have on it promote diversity in design? Take the F1 cars and the ALMS prototypes. F1 cars all pretty much look the same. However, you can easily tell a BMW from an Audi from a Chrysler (and definately a Panoz).

I would say that the bodywork on F1 cars is significantly different between manufacturers, but I agree; the scope for individuality is removed by increasingly tighter regulations. ALMS GT-type cars are not as heavily regulated, save for overall dimensions.

2) If engine rules were opened up in F1, allowing any engine of any style, any displacement, what would be the engine of choice? Large, normally-aspirated engine? Turbo? Turbine? Rotary? (Concerning the rotary engines, I've heard they are very loud. Would a noise restriction limit the rotary's performance?)

We've talked about this before! I still think a high-revving, smaller capacity V-10, perhaps with Turbo and supercharging (to boost low and high end power), with a whiff of Nitrous Oxide for passing manouvres! Hey, I can dream!!

3) What is the purpose of the minimum weight rules? Are the rules effective?

My interpretation of minimum weight rules is to ensure teams don't engineer the safety out of the car by reducing weight to the point of collapse. Let's face it; if there was no minimum weight, any weight would be excessive! At least if there has to be a minimum weight, the chassis can be efficient while not having to be made of tissue paper to be competitive!

4) Active suspensions. A magazine I read stated that active suspensions were used to keep the car at the right level so the car's underbody ground effects would work. If the rules were to get rid of ground effects and mandate a flat bottom, would there be a need for active suspension?

My answer would be a definate 'Yes'. Active suspension allows for the car to be more stable under any cornering effort. And as THR says, the downforce achieved with the normal aero packages is more consistant with 'flat' cornering cars.

5) What kind of fuel mileage do F1 (and other types of race cars) get? If F1 races were 500 km in distance, instead of the present 300 km, would that change pit strategy? By that, I mean would they pit more often or just go longer between stops?

We had a thread in the F1 forum a while ago where Craig asked what F1 fuel consumption figures were like. I seem to remember the figure was somewhere around 3.5 to 4.0 mpg.
As for strategy, I'm not sure. Just as current length races can be a mix of short or long stops, (where either can be a winner depending on conditions) I suspect longer races would require the team statistician to call the shots on the day. Having said that, the tyres will still wear at the same rate, unless tyre manufactureres developed harder tyres to last the distance between the fuel stops.
Most cars today are designed with a particular fuel capacity. If F1 pit stops were banned tomorrow, there wouldn't be many cars out there that wouldn't require some serious modification.

How's that, Jared?

[Red]

Originally posted by Sparky
[...]
At least if there has to be a minimum weight, the chassis can be efficient while not having to be made of tissue paper to be competitive!
[...]

Don’t bet too much on that! If they could make a tissue-fiber monocoque, able to pass the front/lateral impact tests (and of course able to run 305 km), the engineers would be more than happy to add additional 50 kilo’s of ballast in more desirable places without breaking the minimum weight rule.

I agree with THR, I guess that the rule was supposed to "equalize" a little the performance of cars. Whether is effective or not.... well, a heavy car is still in great disadvantage compared with a same weight car, but with the weight more conveniently placed.

[Jared]

Hey, thanks guys. Most of the reason I'm asking these questions is that I feel Formula One has become over-regulated and that ingenuity and creativity has been banished, because of rules that say "Wings have to be this big", or "Engines have to be this big, this many cylinders, etc." I really would like to see F1 would open up its rules again, before it ends up being the world's most expensive spec series.

On the minumum weight, I assumed (but failed to type) that the cars should be as light as possible, but still be able to pass strict crash tests. That way, teams wouldn't be constructing cars made of tissue paper just to save weight.

So, would a noise restriction on the rotary engine handicap its performance?

Anyone else? I would love to get more opinions.

[yelwoci]

<So, would a noise restriction on the rotary engine handicap its performance>

Under F1 regs there are no noise regulations.
The last full race Rotaries at Le Mans were generating circa 130dBA, which is similar to a 18,000 rpm V10. the problem is the type of noise. Even the F1 V10 has a beat frequency (ie like the V8 rumble), even though its quite a high scream.
A rotary produces white noise between 0-10,000Hz with conatct noise pressure throughout the range, so that just feel louder.
Turbo charging them actually reduces the sound pressure.

Given a free hand I think that a 90kg 800hp turbo rotary is easily achievable and without the use of exotic materials.

Regards

IanC

[Marshal]

Originally posted by Jared
1) Does the more bodywork a race car have on it promote diversity in design? Take the F1 cars and the ALMS prototypes. F1 cars all pretty much look the same. However, you can easily tell a BMW from an Audi from a Chrysler (and definately a Panoz).

I agree with what's been said previously, its the tightness of the regs which promotessimilar designs.

2) If engine rules were opened up in F1, allowing any engine of any style, any displacement, what would be the engine of choice? Large, normally-aspirated engine? Turbo? Turbine? Rotary? (Concerning the rotary engines, I've heard they are very loud. Would a noise restriction limit the rotary's performance?)

I'd go for a 1000cc V6 turbo. You should easily get 1500bhp out of a very compact and light unit. Be good to watch too.

3) What is the purpose of the minimum weight rules? Are the rules effective?

I think as mentioned, they are to stop dangerously flimsy cars being produced, but with crash testing that is a lesser requirement. Maybe it would be interesting to remove the minimum weight limit, but then little drivers get an advantage.

4) Active suspensions. A magazine I read stated that active suspensions were used to keep the car at the right level so the car's underbody ground effects would work. If the rules were to get rid of ground effects and mandate a flat bottom, would there be a need for active suspension?

I think its not just underbody aerodynamics that benefit from a stable platform, other wings do too. It also keeps the tyres in optimum contact with the road all of the time.

5) What kind of fuel mileage do F1 (and other types of race cars) get? If F1 races were 500 km in distance, instead of the present 300 km, would that change pit strategy? By that, I mean would they pit more often or just go longer between stops?

I don't know what the fuael economy is (I'd guess that Spaky's figure is somewhere close) but I think they'd still sto about every 100-150Km as they do now, as the sums on tyre wear and time loss due to fuel weight would be the same. It would be much more interesting to see the cars do 500Km on one tank full, as they'd start really heavy and the handling would change dramatically during the race!

[THR]

dont agree with what you lot are saying about flimsey chassis if the wieght limit was reduced.
they would still have to conform to the impact tests.
and they stiffer the chassis the better it will go.
so they wont make it too light, there is a limit! you can make things light while still having them strong. at F1 tub wieghs 30Kg u know. thats light!