Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 91

Thread: F1 car vs LMP1 car - downforce levels

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    The problem in comparing flight RM, is that planes have 3 and more fail safe duplicated systems to make them "safe".

    Could you imagine the performance of an F1 car if it had to have 3 wishbones, 2 springs, etc etc etc.
    I don't see how is it different from the adjustable front flap now that they already have. Or all the pre-requisite structural testing that all the parts that have to be passed anyway.

    If there is no fail-safe for Porsche's depolyable rear spoiler, If it fails to deploy on a road car at speed, I'd think the 1st Gen Audi TT like accident is very likely for that car, especially at 170mph on Autobahn.

    In terms of safety and liability stand point, I'd much more worry about that than F1 drivers on the track when they are knowingly involved in a sports that they have high level of skill for, rather than a Joe-Schumo driving his 911 on the highway thinking his car is perfectly suitable to do that kind of speed.

    Besides, if you are worry about redundancy or that kind of issue for potentially dangerous system on the car, F1 also have throttle by wire and electronically controlled diff, what if those thing were to fail in the manner of Toyota's whole throttle thing? Thats no more or less risky or dangerous than adjustable aero.

    Out dated thinking I think....
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    IA
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    Alastor, the point of rules that caused MUCH consternation for years was the clear breakign of them.
    Well what is clear to one person, isn't always clear to another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    ANd the rules permit the driver to do anything they like.
    Of course if anyoen came up with a put your hand out to make it go FASTER i'd love to see the physics at work and more importantly the retorts on the SAFETY of such an insane decision.
    My point was that if they designed the body to deflect the air around the cockpit in such a way that the driver could stick his hand into the air-stream and manipulate downforce/drag this shouldn't be considered a movable aerodynamic device. As well, I don't see the difference if the air is going around the cockpit or through the cockpit, nor if it is the drivers hand or the drivers leg.

    Personally, I think my idea would be much more entertaining.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    Rules were never changed by "whim" and most rule changes that happen quickly are because ANOTHER designer manages to find a loop hoel of the WRITTEN regs regalrdless of the spirit of them.
    My previous post was harsh, and I don't really believe they make changes on a whim. But I don't see what the spirit of rule has to do with how it is written. It should be written well enough that everyone involved interprets it the same way or can only be interpreted in one way. Leaving part of the rules open to interpretation, limited by only spirit, is obviously going to lead to different understandings of what the spirit means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    Your "pie in the sky garbage" comment is interesting as you then proceed to disporive the point I think you try to make
    Again...I was melodramatic in my previous post, but how did I disprove my point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    BIG teams won't complain because they can afford to go design a new tub.
    BUT it will need rule changes for them to deploy it as the tub is submitted at the beginning fo the season and then can't be changed. So it's going to be interesting if they are allowed to submit another tub ... teams with money may chose to do this so they can sneak in an "illegal" tub redesign .. again breakling the spirit of the rules and regulations.
    This doesn't make any sense to me. Everyone is given the same rule book, right? Everyone has the same amount of time to develop a new chassis, right?

    So why then is it if someone comes up with a new design that is significantly faster than the rest of the field it either 1) has to be banned for not being in the spirit of the rules or 2) the rules have to be re-written to allow the other teams to take advantage of the new design.

    What about the team that spent all the resources to develop this design (which at the time of introduction was legal). Don't they deserves a chance to race and win if possible with their design?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    Just as when we last had moveable aero the problem is when it moves when not intended. SO if a driver has a differnt problem awhich knocks their knee out of position, letting low pressure air bleed adn lose of downforcem then EVERYONE will condemn it and blame the FIA for allowing it.
    What if their knee is knocked out of positions for a whole lap and the only consequence is a slower lap time? Maybe this idea isn't so bad....maybe it is...but what-ifs won't tell us that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    So I can see it staying despite the fact that it - legally - is no different to Ferrari'swing deflection. That was not "moveable", but did move affecting air flow.
    Well it probably goes without saying but I think the flexible wing design is ingenious. Understanding that nothing is perfectly rigid and using that to make the car go faster, that is IMO great engineering. Well great spiritless engineering anyway ;-)
    "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Devon, England
    Posts
    223
    I think its an innotive interpratation of the rules. There is no moving mechanical device involved, simply the position of the drivers knee. If he can still operate the controls fully that there are no grounds for safety issues. If any criticising team had thought of it themselves they would not be moaning.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    I repeat my simple premise. If it was Ferrari the cries for ban would be immediate

    Having been involved in the development of international standards and patents I had first hand experience of the problems in trying to convey a capability and getting the wording so everyine reading it understands it fully. AND in patents how to find a way around paying a royalty. It happens. The rules get modified, patents get added to for exactly that reason. I think the safety points raise enough of an issue. We REALLY think one handed driving in a car with 7g capab ility is a good idea ?

    I'll put my hand up (!) and say I'm NOT a fan of the NASCAR mentality that lots of overtakes and crashes is what makes a sport. So I understand we may be coming from different positions on the wide range of motorsport

    RM, I'd say we're discussing F1 and in it, minimum weight is BIG issue and items lasting the duration of a race is enough ( except for the parts coverd by rules ) and so comparisons on what other industries doesn't give us much insight. I gave the BT55 example as it knackered the driver much more so that ANY other car then or since. The team and designer were taking risks with the driver there and the more standardised cockpit controls are a positive I'd hate to see being taken a step back on.

    I think we can agree to disagree. I'm not a single team supporter so dont' have vested interests or pro-Ferrari

    Especially as Sepang possibly shows the point is moot and McLaren may realise that this innovation may not be returning as much benefit as the "within rules as far as we can tell so far" innovations of the other teams are giving better results -- Force India REALLY surprised me !

    The beauty of F1 is the other designers will have reviewd the math, CFD computer junk and wind tunnel. Perhaps THEY realised it has flaws and their other solutions give better results. By NOT compalining then McLaren aren't forced into changing and can't then claim a release to have a new tub design. If true ( it's pure conjecture ) then THAT would be REALLY impressive design strategy

    I was lucky to meet Harvey Postlethwaite and learn the intrigue going on in the teams when Tyrrel first put out the high wing. He said it took others 4-5 races to realise WHAT worked and it was NOT a direct act on the front wing but instead the ability to HALF the size of the side pod openings. Similarly Williams continued with the dihedral rear wing even though they KNOW it made no difference, but by continuing they knew they were tying up expensive time consuming wind tunnel testing by other teams testing it

    So until a high speed, lower temperature race in Europe I'll hold quiet and see if it gets dropped
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3

    test

    sorry. this is a test

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    136
    I think that Perhaps LMP1 vs F1 is the wrong comparison. Most LMP1 cars are designed for high speed, low downforce tracks like Monza, Spa, Silverstone and of course, La Sarthe. Therefore high downforce is not a premium. LMP2 cars probably have quite a bit more, especially ones designed for the ALMS like the Porsche RS Spyder and Acura ARX 01. Back in 2007/2008 they used to beat the R10s at some tracks, so I think this must be due to downforce. Unfortunately, Mulsannes Corner never got round to releasing downforce figures for the Porsche and Acura on "the race car aerodynamics database" but I'd expect the Acura to be well over 7000lbs.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,315
    Quote Originally Posted by group c n b man View Post
    I think that Perhaps LMP1 vs F1 is the wrong comparison. Most LMP1 cars are designed for high speed, low downforce tracks like Monza, Spa, Silverstone and of course, La Sarthe. Therefore high downforce is not a premium. LMP2 cars probably have quite a bit more, especially ones designed for the ALMS like the Porsche RS Spyder and Acura ARX 01. Back in 2007/2008 they used to beat the R10s at some tracks, so I think this must be due to downforce. Unfortunately, Mulsannes Corner never got round to releasing downforce figures for the Porsche and Acura on "the race car aerodynamics database" but I'd expect the Acura to be well over 7000lbs.
    Apart from the engine and the weight LMP1 and LMP2 cars are mostly exactly the same. One Pescarolo chassis has run both as LMP1 and LMP2. The reason that the Porsches could take the Audis at some tracks was mostly the micky mouse nature of some of those where the power difference was less of an issue.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    I think on power-to-weight ratio(and that power is engine power and cornering/grip "power), P2 car has the potential of being equal or better than P1. The LMP675 car, the forerunner of the current P2 was definitely the case. And to a lesser extent, the current 750+(or is it 780 or 800kg car now?) Can do as well. In Europe it was never that apparent since the teams tend to be the kind of the team the rules was written for, the small private team who can't afford to race the bigger car. But in ALMS the Acura and the Porsche were developed with the same level of knowhow as the big cars and were purpose built for the class(much like the MG Lola EX257/B01/60 were in LMP 675) that it was able to get really close to the weight limit and have plenty of power.

    R10 and 908 were plenty competitive to the True LMP2s in their first year until ACO clamp down their tank size. At Le Mans(and most of European tracks) the P2 won't bother the big cars. Its too much of a power track and knowing drag quadruples with speed horsepower is critical since P2 car shares much of the same aero qualities as the P1. But on shorter/slower track the 2 classes(that is, diesel P1 vs gas P2) are probably operating in very similar performance envelope, with initial rule package on diesel with the 90 liter tank giving it an edge over the P2 on range. But once the P1's tank size got down to 81 liter, and with slight power reduction and P2's engine technology caught up(RS Spyder's DI v8), they now are as fast as the P1 and have a fuel economy advantage in ALMS. So many races in 2007 were due to P1 car had to pit more times than P2 car and gave Penske the win over Audi. 2008 it was reversed because P2 cars got heavier so tipping the balance back towards the diesels.

    Its pretty clear though there is a huge difference is the purpose built P2s vs the privateer effort. The Paul Ricard race was pretty telling, and so was during RS Spyder's stint in LMS.
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5
    Hello guys, I'm a new member! Got in this forum by a chance and I really liked it.

    Regarding Formula1 downforce, in the end of 2008 where the old rules were about to change, I saw a video of the Williams team and they said that a 2008 Formula 1 front wing generated about 800kg of downforce in the end of Barcelona's circuit straight(speed between 300-320kmh something about 200mph) while the rear wing generated about 1200kg. He also said that the underbody downforce was responsible for 40% of the overall downforce despite all ground effects restrictions that F1 regulations impose.

    Doing the math, the total downforce of a 2008 F1 car was in about 3300kg at the mentioned speed range(something close to 7500lbs). It's incredibly impressive how, despite all restrictions to ground effect and movable wings, F1 cars still equals the Group C ones who had no restrictions at all as far as I'm aware.

    Fujimori said that the Eagle MKIII generated 7000lbs of downforce at 200mph and that is quite few given the area of the car, the free use of ground effects and wings. The eagle's rear wing is much wider than F12008(not to mention the nowdays ones), so the car has a lot more area of pressure and no restrictions but still is slower than a F12008 car?!!!!!!

    To show how much F1 lost with the restrictions in ground effect, grooved tyres etc..... throughout the years, here is one quick analysis I made:

    1991 was the last year where FIA still allowed substantial ground effects and in this year F1 cars had made the fastest lap ever(in that time) in Suzuka and it kept untill 2001:
    Pole laps in Suzuka
    1987 - 1:40.042
    1988 - 1:41.853
    1989 - 1:38.041
    1990 - 1:36.996
    1991 - 1:34.700
    1992 - 1:37.360
    1993 - 1:37.154
    1994 - 1:37.209
    1995 - 1:38.023
    1996 - 1:38.909
    1997 - 1:36.071
    1998 - 1:36.293
    1999 - 1:37.470
    2000 - 1:35.825
    2001 - 1:32.484

    But still this pictures taken from my personal videos archive denotes how the cars lost speed through turns.

    Senna at Degner curve in Suzuka in 1991 (210kmh)

    Schumacher at Degner curve in 1999 (125mph ~ 200kmh)

    Hakkinen at Degner in 2001 (192kmh)


    In 2006, I think the Ferraris were carrying 260kmh through Degner based on a FIA's map diagram prior to 2009 season. In this year Schumacher made the fastest lap ever in Suzuka in 1.28.9 and back then, the F1 cars still had more wing aera than what they have now since 2009, but used grooved tyres.

    Last year, the cars were going around 245kmh through Degner


    In 91 the wings were much more simpler than what they are now but ground effect restriction cost F1 more than a decade to regain and surpass it's car's speed through turns with the use of much more sophisticated wings.

    An F1 car with no restrictions, i.e, possibility of full ground effects such as skirts, venturi tunnels, fans etc.... movable wings with no area restriction, could easily achieve 15000 or 20000lbs of downforce

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Devon, England
    Posts
    223
    Interesting. I read an article a few years ago in F1Racing magazine were Williams attempted design and predict the performance of a fantasy F1 car. I believe it was 2004. They used the same 3 litre V10 as the then current car, and changed the regs to allow ground affect, slick tyres and unlimited wheels. The car ended up having six wheels (4 at rear) and an indycar style front wing and very low rear wing. I believe the car was capable of up to 14g though the corners, therefore un driveable without a modified G-suit!
    "This car is about as refined as a Glaswegian dock worker after 10 cans of special brew"

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by TheScrutineer View Post
    Interesting. I read an article a few years ago in F1Racing magazine were Williams attempted design and predict the performance of a fantasy F1 car. I believe it was 2004. They used the same 3 litre V10 as the then current car, and changed the regs to allow ground affect, slick tyres and unlimited wheels. The car ended up having six wheels (4 at rear) and an indycar style front wing and very low rear wing. I believe the car was capable of up to 14g though the corners, therefore un driveable without a modified G-suit!
    On autosport.com forums, people said similar things about articles they read in F1racing but the guy who mentioned it said it was in 99

    Do you have that article to share? I'm desperately looking for things like that. One other guy said that in an article in the official program for the 2004 British GP they said something on this same matter.

    This 14G number was said on the article or is it your guess?? Because the other people mentioned 8/9Gs or something like that.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5
    Ok, I found some scans of the french version of F1racing Magazine(which I don't undertand, if someone has it in english please post it) and it claims that the max latteral acceleration would be at 5.9 but today's cars already almost have this cornering force.

    Does anyone has any book of Peter Wright??? In the abstract of one of his books, it says that he could design a car with over 8 gs of cornering acceleration, is that correct or it can be even more???? I suppose with fans, skirts, venturi tunnels, movable wings and etc it can be much more.

    Please guys, share any material on this matter, here are the french F1racing magazine scans:
    http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8169/img04820qn.jpg
    http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4341/img04839bj.jpg
    http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2391/img04842ip.jpg
    http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6237/img04907nm.jpg

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rudolstadt/ Thuringia
    Posts
    1,055
    I believe the car was capable of up to 14g though the corners, therefore un driveable without a modified G-suit!
    This may be foolish...but isn't the maximum horizontal g a trained man could take around 40 g? Vertigal g is lower (14 g), maybe you confused that.
    FIXIE EVOLVED INTO SMALL MOTORBIKE! Now driving a Simson KR51 <3

    Dream ride: red 1971 Opel Commodore GS/E

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    The G-LOC problem maybe, but neck muscle and others might be more of a problem then...

    Besides, thats hinging on someone can actually make tires that can sustain that kind of lateral load.
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rudolstadt/ Thuringia
    Posts
    1,055
    Not to mention how ugly those high-downforce-cars would be...just think F1 a few years ago, with all those wings and wents and spoilers evreywhere... but think worse, and you may get the picture. Besides, the drivers of those ultra-grippy-cars need to be perfict because there's no room for any mistake (because of the huuuge grip, the cars would have such a nervous handling that every normal human would die at high speeds just because of the unbelievable concentration they need to keep the car in a straight line).
    FIXIE EVOLVED INTO SMALL MOTORBIKE! Now driving a Simson KR51 <3

    Dream ride: red 1971 Opel Commodore GS/E

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Favorite James Bond Automobile
    By toyota_trevor in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 02-07-2020, 12:54 AM
  2. Mercedes-Benz C111 Research Car 1969-1979
    By Matt in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-21-2015, 10:35 PM
  3. ****ing McLaren F1
    By milad_ferrari in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 01:11 AM
  4. GT4 whole car list!!!!
    By Mustang in forum Gaming
    Replies: 247
    Last Post: 07-07-2010, 08:06 AM
  5. Car of the Year Awards 2008 [PLEASE READ FIRST]
    By fisetdavid26 in forum Awards
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 02:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •