All of the above, plus the burning desire to make the bodywork narrower and narrower for aerodynamic purposes.
Motorsport Off Topic Thread
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
All of the above, plus the burning desire to make the bodywork narrower and narrower for aerodynamic purposes.
Aerodynamics
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Only a little. Length was to be capped at 3600mm so cars like the Mercedes will be about 10cm shorter.
It doesn't go far enough in my opinion.
Personally, I think safety has the most to do with it, keep the driver as far away from the front as possible, that will be the main driver of the legislation setting max length of car.
Yes aerodynamics will always want a longer narrower car, but aerodynamics as such will not be the main driving force behind the rules allowing a longer car, it will be safety driven as the governing factor.
Aerodynamics etc will be developed and modified to just use as much as they can in the space allowed.
Imagine Grosjean's shunt last year in a much shorter car, I think he would have come off a lot worse.
Longer the car is the more crash structure able to distribute and deform to spread the forces involved before they get to the driver cell.
Yes aerodynamics will always want a longer narrower car, but aerodynamics as such will not be the main driving force behind the rules allowing a longer car, it will be safety driven as the governing factor.
Aerodynamics etc will be developed and modified to just use as much as they can in the space allowed.
Imagine Grosjean's shunt last year in a much shorter car, I think he would have come off a lot worse.
Longer the car is the more crash structure able to distribute and deform to spread the forces involved before they get to the driver cell.
Or a shorter car with a lower polar moment of inertia could have rotated more, putting him sideways in the barrier instead of face first.
True. But they could shorten up the rear end some rather than have the oily and sparky bits stretched out in a long line.
If they had to fatten the bodywork at the back to get everything into a shorter wheelbase that would add crash structure (safety argument). It would make the bodywork at least as wide as the floor of the car (aesthetic argument). And it would give a lower polar moment of inertia making the cars easier to rotate, and make them punch a bigger hole in the air thus increasing the effectiveness of slipstreaming and reducing dependence on DRS for overtakes (racing argument).
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,213
- Location
- Europe
They became larger due to having to carry race fuel. That's pretty much it. If you look back you'll see the jump in size at exactly that time.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,949
Making them carry all that fuel sure spiced up the racing. Another genius FIA move. We must save costs, improve the show - makes some radical change that does exactly the opposite.
It’s been great for Mercedes and Hamilton though - I look forward to reading Hamilton’s book just to understand how he would save so much fuel vs rosberg whilst still being quicker.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
With refuelling banned from 2010, the wheelbase of the Williams 2009 FW32 to the 2011 FW34 (one of the few instances I can find of reasonably comparable data) only increased by 200mm. Since 2017 the Mercedes' wheelbase is a whopping 630mm longer than the FW32.
Despite a large increase in weight, the 2014 Mercedes W05 Hybrid was actually shorter than the W04 normally aspirated car, but they gradually increased in length until 2017 when it put on a huge growth sprout adding about 700mm to the overall length of the car in one fell swoop.
That was a bit of a balancing act. The danger of carrying ~210 litres of fuel vs maybe a quarter or third of that prior to the ban. I remember some concerns at the fuel weight increase, despite the chance of a fuel fire being minimal, having not seen one for 21 years at the time (obviously Grosjean proved it's still a very real risk).
I'm not sure how much safety paid a part in removing refueling, maybe a bit but refueling incidents weren't that common from what I recall?
How often has the front jack mechanic been hit by a car failing to slow down properly? Maybe they should ban pit stops all together
Don't NASCAR make the car stop before the mechanics can cross the wall? If it was safety things like that would be considered, instead it was 90% because someone thought it would improve racing, which it hasn't, but it also hasn't made it worse so 'meh'.
Isn't a large part of the increase of the cars size down to safety, obviously aero too but I thought things like the length/size of the nose was the crash tests they need to pass these days?
How often has the front jack mechanic been hit by a car failing to slow down properly? Maybe they should ban pit stops all together
Don't NASCAR make the car stop before the mechanics can cross the wall? If it was safety things like that would be considered, instead it was 90% because someone thought it would improve racing, which it hasn't, but it also hasn't made it worse so 'meh'.
Isn't a large part of the increase of the cars size down to safety, obviously aero too but I thought things like the length/size of the nose was the crash tests they need to pass these days?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Off the top of my head I can recall five refuelling fires in the 16 years it was in F1 (ignoring the short spells and one offs before the official introduction, though I can't recall any refuelling fires at all before 1994).
Verstappen in 1994, Irvine in 1995, Michael Schumacher in 2003 (and he still won the race!), Bruni's Minardi in 2004 and Kovalainen's still attached fuel hose setting Raikkonen alight in 2009. I'm bound to have missed a couple though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Yes, in 2008. As did Alber's Spyker at Magny-cours in 2007, but neither caused a fire.
Thinking some more I have to include Pedro Diniz's fire in 1996 too (the infamous "Diniz in the oven" headline) when as he spun in turn three in Argentina on his own fuel, which was spewing from the nozzle due to a jammed valve.
In all those fires I think only three people person suffered burns, all three in Verstappen's 1994 fire - Verstappen himself and two Benetton mechanics- and that was only due to Benetton removing a filter from the hose.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Only the refueler wore a helmet (before the Verstappen fire anyway), but as far as I know all of the pit crew wore fireproof overalls. Though there's a video of Irvine in testing (on the 1994 season review) having the first apparent refuelling stop and none of his crew even wore balaclavas, though to be fair it could have just been a dry stop with no fuel pumping involved.
Benetton were acquitted of that eventually. People seem to condemn Benetton a lot over 1994 but the only penalties they received was a sporting one for Schumacher's Silverstone antics on the warm up lap and subsequent refusal to pit him for a stop-go, and a technical one for plank wear at Spa. Benetton would have absolutely walked that season had they served that stop/go penalty at Silverstone, but ultimately they nearly threw away probably the easiest title (after Senna's death) between 1993 and 2002.And did more to monitor the fuelling rigs to stop the cheating
I certainly don't believe Benetton used traction control in 1994. The only suggestion they did came from Senna staying trackside at Aida listening for it. Traction control was was never proven or even contested - even months of pouring over the software didn't show any presence of traction control, only launch control (also not proven to have been used), and the only time that was debated was at the French GP, where much of the issue was Mansell making his first standing start in two years. If Benetton had traction control Schumacher would have won the title by a lap or more at Suzuka.
That said to silence every critic it's a good thing they did walk the 1995 title with zero controversy - Hill's shocker of a season in what most consider the better car does little to take a bit of the shine off Schumacher's dominant brilliance that year.
Well.. They removed the filter, they shouldn't have, and it increase flow rate noticeably. Whether it was illegal/punished, or whether it was the cause of the fire is kind of a moot point. But on the other hand perhaps 'cheating' is the wrong word.
As for the rest of the Benetton 'fun', I kinda didn't even bring that up I will say having the code for launch control and then claiming not to use it is somewhat dubious to say the least...
As for the rest of the Benetton 'fun', I kinda didn't even bring that up
I will say having the code for launch control and then claiming not to use it is somewhat dubious to say the least...
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
They were acquitted of any wrongdoing and in any case Schumacher never benefitted from it. No fuel stops until that point had aroused any suspicions.
People usually (or choose to) forget that they weren't the only team with 'redundant' software code in their system that year (again, all acquitted).