Poll: Turkish Grand Prix 2021, Istanbul - Race 16
- Thread starter GR63
- Start date
I think I agree regarding George. I still dont think anyone can hold the radio chatter against Norris though. I've heard worse in an office, let alone when driving on the edge at 200km/h. I'm sure every driver is similar, they travel with their team for 200 odd days a year. It'd be like telling your mate to shutup, no biggy.
waaaaahh Dont diss Georgey-boy....
But seriously though Lando could become a MAJOR asset for F1 in future, as he's so personable AND he's quick and he streams too... Whole new market for F1. I hope Lando gets a better car next year too
But seriously though Lando could become a MAJOR asset for F1 in future, as he's so personable AND he's quick and he streams too... Whole new market for F1. I hope Lando gets a better car next year too
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,142
- Location
- Europe
Only problem for Lando is if Dani Ric get on with the new car is comfortable beats him. It doesn't look likely at the moment, but if it happened it would diminish his stock, whereas the same wouldn't be true if Lewis beats Russell so long as Russell looks more competitive than Bottas.
Yeah. People are far too judgey about drivers getting frustrated on the radio.
While this would rule out a return to cars as small as they were in the 70s, say, I don't see any reason to believe that these mandate cars as large as the ones we have. Most of the increase has come since 2007 which was well after we entered the modern era of car safety, in fact if you look at the development of car length over time:
Most of the increase in length has come from behind the driver, some of that is the larger fuel tank, some of it is the larger fuel tank, but a lot of it comes from packaging decisions. The cars are faster when they're longer but that comes at the cost of racing. It should be quite possible to shorten the cars without compromising safety and then the F1 mechanics can work their magic to claw the speed back. Another area where the cars have got longer is in the distance the wing extends past the front wheels. With the new aero regs the front wing is nearly optional in terms of downforce generation so why not massively reduce the amount it's allowed to extend past the front wheels? Finally note the difference between the widest point and the width of the car at the point the driver sits: the width isn't being defined by side impact protection, so why not shave a bit off it?
Again purely safety and crash structure determines how much chassis and wings extend beyond front of front axle.
Longer front end, longer wings, = more crash structure, thus exponentially more energy dissapation before far more solid safety cell centre cockput area impacts with anything sending higher forces straight into the driver
The front wing extends a long way past the crash structures. The front wing itself is an immensely light, weak structure that does not absorb any meaningful amount of energy, it's the structure that sits behind it that provides protection. Even this can be redesigned to be shorter if its length isn't defined by the need to carry a bulky front wing. In any case, that was just one of the points I raised; safety considerations still leave plenty of space to make cars that are shorter and narrower.
Would still say rule number one of safety, is keep driver and safety cell as far away as possible from any impact, and have as much deformable structure between driver and impact as possible.
That immediately mandates (within the regs) you make the longest widest car possible.
The fact the the aero team are also over joyed at having a long wide car to work with is just icing on the cake.
Personally i do not think we will ever see the main regulations mandating massively shorter or narrower cars, as the immediate and obvious reduction of safety zone to the driver will be leapt upon by everyone.
Oh and to correct you, the amount of work going into the crash protection side of front wing /nosecone design is immense.
Have seen them being tested at Cranfield University, and the amount of energy absorbed is mandated in FIA regulations.
They are anything but light and weak.
You need deformable structures, of course, but a slightly, shorter wider structure can provide comparable levels of protection. But, again, this isn't the biggest saving. The biggest increase in length comes from behind the driver and isn't filled with safety structures, the width of the F1 car isn't defined by crash structures either.
Nosecone, yes, the front wing itself: no.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
As Jack said, the front wing itself has no meaningful impact on safety - they're so flimsy they're more likely to cause the crash you need protection from. You can carry a broken off front wing in one hand easily.
The front impact structure is contained almost entirely in the nose cone the front wing hangs from.
If it was all safety related then all the cars would be the same length, which they never are, and the 2022 cars wouldn't be shorter than they are this year, which they will be.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
Rule one of safety is always "eliminate". If F1 can find a way to eliminate crashing, they'll do that.
Clearly that's not practicable but they can certainly reduce the severity/potential which is what they've historically tried to do by slowing down cornering speeds and improving the safety cell test etc. Conversely, improving racing/allowing cars to follow more closely is counterintuitive to this mantra.
Clearly that's not practicable but they can certainly reduce the severity/potential which is what they've historically tried to do by slowing down cornering speeds and improving the safety cell test etc. Conversely, improving racing/allowing cars to follow more closely is counterintuitive to this mantra.
Within a few millimetres the cars are all the same length and width, as they are all built to the same regs.
Ok there are no specific minimum or maximun lengths in the regs, but specific sizes of other parts, the wheelbase, and front rear overhangs, do in a round about way specify overall size.
Yes the Mercs are currently the longest, but they will only shrink by 98mm under next years new regs, which is nothing in the grand scheme.
Red Bull are currently shortest I believe, but will still only shrink by less than 20mm next year.
So on average on close to 5.7 meter plus overall length car the new regs on average will only chop maybe 7cm off the length, so down to 5.63 metre on average.
Nothing really.
Widths will not change at all, heights will increase, as will minimum overall weight, as many safety structures and standards have increased for next year leading to similar length, taller, heavier stronger cars.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
The car lengths are similar now, but that's due to an aerodynamic trend started by Mercedes, not a safety thing. Most of them increased the length of the car when the width was increased in 2017. Before that there was a significant different between the longest and shortest cars.
Car lengths are similar, because the regs specify it.
The wheelbase between axles is specified, and max front and rear overhangs are specified.
Designers will always use maximum allowable space, otherwise they are instantly giving other teams an advantage.
All the crash structures are specified, for loadings over duration, and deformability.
It is virtually impossible to create the necessary safety structures in a space massively smaller than the one regulated for.
If a much smaller footprint car was allowed in the rules, and it was advantageous to build it that way, don't you think they would have?
Wider longer stronger car, IS the best design.
It is no coincidence the best car on the grid over the last several years is also the longest.
Shorter is no advantage at all.
The wheelbase isn't a fixed dimension hence cars are different lengths, though there is only around 80mm between the longest and shortest cars on the grid.
The RBR does quite well for being a shorter car than the Mercedes. Shorter allows more rake for a given rear ride height, makes the car better at twisty circuits (it took Mercedes several seasons to make their car more agile) and allows the chassis to be stiffer for a given weight.
The RBR does quite well for being a shorter car than the Mercedes. Shorter allows more rake for a given rear ride height, makes the car better at twisty circuits (it took Mercedes several seasons to make their car more agile) and allows the chassis to be stiffer for a given weight.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Actually the wheelbase isn't specified in the technical regulations at all. Until next year there has been no length limit either way.
If the cars were growing for safety reasons as you alluded to then they wouldn't be decreasing for 2022 they would continue to increase.
The trend of the car length increase came from 2008 onwards (started by Ferrari), with a stark lengthening of the rear of the cars in 2009 when refuelling was banned and again with the hybrids in 2014, with the front end continuing to steadily grow year on year for largely aerodynamic purposes - more stringent safety regulations are also a factor of course, but that wasn't your argument.
Assuming all else is equal, short wheelbase cars are usually more nimble and might be quicker on slow and twisty tracks like Monaco and Singapore (indeed a team in the 90s (McLaren I think in the mid-late 90s) actually designed short wheelbase chassis just with Monaco in mind!), but over a modern calendar with the improvements in aerodynamics obviously not these days.