How to fix F1?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Those "cries" have been around for a long time, many of them on here (myself included) and many of them from people who have been in the racing industry for years (not just fandom).

F1 cars now are right up there with the weight of Group C cars back in the day, & have lost that darty, nervous reaction capability of F1 cars for so many years. Yes, times change but when cars get to a point of being visibly "clumsy" or unreactive (not sure that's a word) compared with their forebears, then it feels like times have changed a bit too much.

I suspect the real reason the cars have lost the darty nervous reaction is not the weight of the cars but the fact that they are so loaded with aero they can't move quickly. The cars are designed to be stable because allowing them to do quick changes means the aero does not work properly. I still think it is a trendy thing to criticise the weight but that is just me. The length of the cars is another reason that causes aero stability and the teams fought tooth and nail to prevent the cars being made substantially shorter because it would mean the aero being less effective.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Casper

I suspect the real reason the cars have lost the darty nervous reaction is not the weight of the cars but the fact that they are so loaded with aero they can't move quickly. The cars are designed to be stable because allowing them to do quick changes means the aero does not work properly. I still think it is a trendy thing to criticise the weight but that is just me. The length of the cars is another reason that causes aero stability and the teams fought tooth and nail to prevent the cars being made substantially shorter because it would mean the aero being less effective.

Wouldn't the long wheelbase also be a factor, as well as the weight?

[S griffin]

It's a good question about the wheelbase, definitely that is something I don't think many have thought about before, so it does make you wonder a bit

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Greta Thunberg and her shrill imitators agitating against all forms of internal combustion engines.

What's wrong with that? Surely internal combustion engines are awful, awful, vile things that have no place in society? No place whatsoever.

Thunberg is not interested in "blah, blah, blah", instead there needs to swift, direct and forceful action to ban the burning of fossil fuels wherever they are used, surely? [The problem being that burning fossil fuels releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, where carbon dioxide has more than doubled in atmospheric concentration in the short time since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Visible and ultraviolet light from the sun warms up the ground, but then a higher concentration of carbon dioxide prevents infrared radiation reemitted by the ground from escaping back into space, hence causing a warming of the atmosphere.]

At least that is the policy direction of the European Union -- though I am not sure why personal motor vehicles are a target above other things, be it trucking, shipping, garden equipment, bon fires, household wood fires, gas heaters, transport, coal power, gas power etc.

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I don't see the internal combustion element going away soon,but I know there will be a higher proportion of biofuel soon and wouldn't be surprised to see fully synthetic come into play.

For now, the process of manufacturing carbon-neutral aka synthetic fuel is incredibly inefficient. It's much, much, much less lossy to put the renewable electricity directly into an onboard battery pack, than use the renewable electricity to manufacture a synthetic fuel and then transport and burn the synthetic fuel.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Change is the only constant and not all change is welcomed.

There is nothing to prevent F1 from negiotiating with Formula E for them to grant permission for F1 to also run a contemporary battery electric formula. If F1 would be slower than Formula Vee, given the need to run 305km Grands Prix, then so be it!

With so little power, Casper would have their wish of little to no aero, as the F1 cars won't be powerful enough to push huge wings along.

[S griffin]

It wouldn’t be F1 if they went the FE route, for me Formula E isn’t popular enough to show it works. F1 doesn’t need to be relevant, it needs to be a spectacle. No need to justify itself, it is a sport after all. Let’s have less aero and cars that can follow easier

[Casper]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Wouldn't the long wheelbase also be a factor, as well as the weight?

The weight of the cars is fairly irrelevant because the aero loads greatly exceed the static car gross weight unloaded so making the cars lighter is not going to have an effect on the car. Get a aero dependent car sideways or out of shape in any way and all the aero is all of a sudden null and void because it ceases to operate as it is designed to.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

For now, the process of manufacturing carbon-neutral aka synthetic fuel is incredibly inefficient. It's much, much, much less lossy to put the renewable electricity directly into an onboard battery pack, than use the renewable electricity to manufacture a synthetic fuel and then transport and burn the synthetic fuel.

Bio fuels are energy intensive to make and running an ICE engine is highly inefficient as well because ice engines operate at about 40% on a good day in a road car. Bio fuels also require huge plant resources and when that starts to impact the available food stocks it will be a dead duck. The huge effort to farm, harvest and process bio fuel has been conveniently forgotten and when that starts to impact food costs the real problems will begin.

An electric drive train on the other hand is over 90% efficient, far less complex and the ongoing maintenance is way way lower. BEV's are most probably where ICE was around 1910 as a comparison with a limited support chain of refuelling so we have a long way to go yet.

[GingerPixel]

I'm probably in a minorty here but I couldn't care less about what the cars are powered by. Petrol, cow farts, electricity, whatever as long as the performance is always moving forwards, or at least gives us cars and racing that have a wow factor. One of the reasons FE isn't very dramatic to watch on TV is that the screen is scrubbing visual drama from cars that already don't look particularly fast. The result is a load of cars trundling around character deviod street circuits bumping into eachother. That's not to say I don't feel the same way about engine noises as the rest of us, but the reality is that we're just not going back there.

[steve_r]

I went to watch the tour of Britain cycling a few years ago. The crowds were huge. Some of course came by public transport (diesel) or cycles themselves. Most probably came by car (petrol / diesel)

The motorbikes (petrol) came past, the course cars (petrol) came past, the bikes themselves came past and dozens of team service cars (petrol) came past. This might have changed in recent years due to electric cars, which of course means that the pollution is less visible (but still there in some extent nevertheless)

F1 - can be as green as it wants. The crowds that attend will only be as green as their own transport systems allow. So they will be in petrol cars, diesel cars, diesel busses. The constant ferrying by helicopters and private jets as well.

Plus the transport of the teams kit to and from the track (truck, plane, sea, all fossil fuel).

Whether or not the F1 cars are green for the couple of hundred miles each one travels per weekend is dwarfed by the carbon footprint of the crowds and teams in getting to and from the track.

Heaven help us if the massively expensive and over complicated and unreliable F1 engine systems are carried over into road cars!

Perhaps I am the fossil here? We all want to save the planet, but the F1 cars themselves are a spec in the carbon footprint of an F1 event.

[Mike Harte]

And as has been reported, last year due to pandemic, the world nearly came to a stop, transport wise, with planes grounded and roads almost empty. Pretty much the only things moving were ships bringing stuff from the Far East, trucks delivering to giant warehouses and vans couriering that stuff to our homes.

Yet despite all of that, CO2 levels barely dropped. But don't tell that to the tree huggers!

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by GingerPixel

One of the reasons FE isn't very dramatic to watch on TV is that the screen is scrubbing visual drama from cars that already don't look particularly fast.

They don't look particularly fast, because they are not particularly fast.

It's possible to make a relatively light, 1000hp electric race car... Unfortunately it's not possible for it to go flat out for more than about 20km.

Originally Posted by steve_r

I went to watch the tour of Britain cycling a few years ago. The crowds were huge. Some of course came by public transport (diesel) or cycles themselves. Most probably came by car (petrol / diesel)

As Thunberg implies, all of this is unacceptable. Basically, polluting recreation is unacceptable and large events (which inevitably pollute) are unacceptable.

Shouldn't people seek to minimise their emissions by whatever means possible? Which absolutely means no Olympics, no Euro football etc. [Paying for a carbon offset to plant some trees to reclaim the CO2 later is laughable!]

Indeed (the elephant in the room), folks should perhaps consider the environmental impact of children before having a family...? Yet it seems hardly to enter their calculations.

Because when there are people (at least those living in a technological civilisation) then they want recreational activities for their mental health. But some recreational activities (e.g., cruise ships, international travel, going to a cycling race, holding a Grand Prix etc) pollute. The best solution would obviously be therefore: no humans.

Ironically humans might wipe ourselves out with our self-inflicted global warming [perhaps in less than 100,000 years?] (other species have done the same prehistorically!), which might allow more sustainable & adapted species to take over after the mass extinction events...? [There would be collateral of other, similar, mammals unfortunately.]

To be fair civilisation is not the main problem. Humans were going ok until the industrial revolution and the largescale burning of fossil fuels. Sailing ships by contrast, used previously for international travel, seem to be relatively sustainable?

Anyway, back to the topic of spending 100s of millions of Euro making a racing car slightly faster than someone else substantially similar racing cars, and then flying these racing cars, teams and equipment around the world as a public spectacle funded by sponsors and paying viewers. It does keep thousands of people employed which is good, and millions entertained (is the latter good? I'm not sure).

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Casper

The weight of the cars is fairly irrelevant because the aero loads greatly exceed the static car gross weight unloaded so making the cars lighter is not going to have an effect on the car. Get a aero dependent car sideways or out of shape in any way and all the aero is all of a sudden null and void because it ceases to operate as it is designed to.

If weight has nothing to do with it, what about the long wheelbase the cars have now?

[P38 in workshop]

Post #2212 has convinced me,we need to turn our attention to developing better sailing ships.I don't think too many of us will want to spend a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon watching them race though.The spectators can row or sail out to the shipping lanes and we will have clear consciences.All those hugely expensive wind tunnels will have a legitimate use and the experts in pitlane choreography can improve turn round times at the wharf.


It will be more appealing than watching Formula E.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Post #2212 has convinced me,we need to turn our attention to developing better sailing ships.I don't think too many of us will want to spend a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon watching them race though..

Get yourself in front of a TV screen and watch Sail GP.
Those foil cats flying round the course balanced on one wing are just as spectacular as F1 cars. Only thing missing is the noise and many of us can do without that.


Granted those spectating live can't get up close, but the teamwork of the crews is brilliant.


They are not exactly playing it as a non-contact sport either.


Of course it helps if you are a Kiwi!

[Casper]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If weight has nothing to do with it, what about the long wheelbase the cars have now?

Where do you see that as a problem, I don't but that is just me. As I said above it is the aero loads and the design requirement to keep the aero within its working envelope that makes the cars appear to be undramatic these days. Get the aero off the cars and things will change but everyone wants them to go faster because they look so boring and don't move around. Take your pick, cars going sideways with slower lap times as they once did or press on and make the boring cars faster with heaps of aero.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Casper

Where do you see that as a problem, I don't but that is just me. As I said above it is the aero loads and the design requirement to keep the aero within its working envelope that makes the cars appear to be undramatic these days. Get the aero off the cars and things will change but everyone wants them to go faster because they look so boring and don't move around. Take your pick, cars going sideways with slower lap times as they once did or press on and make the boring cars faster with heaps of aero.

I never said I saw it as a problem.

So you think neither the weight of the cars, nor the long wheelbase are contributory factors as to why the cars have lost the darty nervous reaction and that it is purely because they are so loaded with aero?

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

To be fair civilisation is not the main problem. Humans were going ok until the industrial revolution and the largescale burning of fossil fuels. Sailing ships by contrast, used previously for international travel, seem to be relatively sustainable?

Not really. Deforestation for farming and to build ships and houses was a problem hundreds or even thousands of years before industrialisation. Neolithic farmers burning forest to make farming land created much of the moorland areas of the UK, ironically destroying its suitability for farming in the process .

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

Not really. Deforestation for farming and to build ships and houses was a problem hundreds or even thousands of years before industrialisation. Neolithic farmers burning forest to make farming land created much of the moorland areas of the UK, ironically destroying its suitability for farming in the process .

I never knew deforestation was so prevalent during the neolithic period.

[Adam43]

OT. Yes, the UK is behind the rest of Europe in proportion of forest land. However, it is a pre-industrial revolution thing. Could get away with it a little bit then as it was pre-industrial revolution, after which you need more forests to compensate.

There is a bit on that in this podcast. About 5:30 minutes from the end. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000536969023

[bjohnsonsmith]

I found this article on deforestation in England, which says ''much of England had been cleared as early as 1000 BCE.''

https://aeon.co/essays/who-chopped-d...ncient-forests

Getting back on topic I suppose we won't know if F1 is on the road to being fixed, until the new car is out and the first few GPs have taken place.

[Richard C]

I think it's become clear that to fix F1, we need to create a time machine. Go back in time and fix prior mistakes. And invest much earlier in finding ways to do high density energy storage that doesn't involve non-renewable energy.

I am not sure if that message will resonate when it is delivered to our ancestors. They may be more interested in just feeding themselves and reproducing.



Richard

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

They may be more interested in just feeding themselves and reproducing.

I suspect those remain the predominant preoccupations for a large majority of people .

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

I suspect those remain the predominant preoccupations for a large majority of people .

To be honest, I enjoy both of those activities more than I enjoy F1.

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I never said I saw it as a problem.

So you think neither the weight of the cars, nor the long wheelbase are contributory factors as to why the cars have lost the darty nervous reaction and that it is purely because they are so loaded with aero?

The absolute prime engineering reason is that the engineers require the cars to be stable under all conditions for the car to remain aero loaded as designed. Any departure from that and the aero becomes less effective. It is for example why the cars have such limited suspension travel because if they had more then the air under the car becomes less effective.

When all this started back in the dark ages Alan Jones declared that the lack of suspension was one of the reasons for his retirement due to back problems brought about by rock hard suspension but things have improved and changed since those days. Pushing the front wings out so far beyond the front axle must be adding load to the front axle and to match that they have pushed the rear wing back as well. There are some comments on the spacer that is used in the rear of the car and that is there for a good reason.