Are they actually too fast?

[browney]

With the change to 2.4 V8 upon us. I was wondering what people's opinion is, as to wether the F1 cars are actually dangerously fast? I thought they were usually at simialr speeds to the MotoGP bikes at the end of straights, and those riders are relatively unprotected.

Could the FIA have looked at other safety advances (such as in the chasis), or by signifactly reducing downforce to lower corner speeds and increase the breaking distance (so they had to brake earlier and hence didn't reach as high speeds)?

[safc_fan89]

I don't think F1 is too fast, or was too fast. The FIA are too concerned about safety. Take this year, F1 cars are at their fastest straight-line speeds ever, yet there were no real injuries, except whatever happened to Heidfeld. Reducing speeds by 20 mph or whatever is not going to prevent injuries. So no, I don't think F1 is too fast. It never can be, it's the pinnacle of motorsport, so really it should be the fastest motorsport, with the exception of oval racing.

Corner speeds were cut this year, which is why at most tracks the cars are slower than last year. And if you lower cornering speeds, there is no challenge through the better corners. If it was up to me, I'd have left it as it is, but it's not up to me!

[DSM]

It's never been anything to do with straight line speed, only cornering speeds which have relentlessly increased over the years. F1 cars today are little faster in terms of top speed than they were 20 years ago, and more.

Tracks have greatly improved in terms of safety over the period so there is, IMO, no need to reduce the cornering speeds vastly, but given that the current commercial attitude within F1 is constantly putting drivers in cars because of their money rather than their ability, perhaps it's no bad thing?

[browney]

If corner speed is the issue, wouldn't reducing downforce by a huge amount do the job far better then reducing the engine size then?

[safc_fan89]

Originally Posted by DSM

It's never been anything to do with straight line speed, only cornering speeds which have relentlessly increased over the years. F1 cars today are little faster in terms of top speed than they were 20 years ago, and more.

Tracks have greatly improved in terms of safety over the period so there is, IMO, no need to reduce the cornering speeds vastly, but given that the current commercial attitude within F1 is constantly putting drivers in cars because of their money rather than their ability, perhaps it's no bad thing?

Hopefully with more rich manufacturers in the sport, less teams will have to rely on rent-a-drivers. Midland are the only team looking for drivers with high sponsorship.

[Kicking-back]

F1 is faster over a lap than it has ever been - and it's probably necessary to peg it back a bit to prevent things getting excessive.

As for the point about lowering corner speeds making it less of a challenge - I disagree.

What's more of a challenge - so much downforce a corner is easy flat for everyone - or less downforce and the corner being flat for the most skilled and a lift for others?





As for pay drivers - not even Midland are looking for those now. The depth of talent back to front is probably better than ever.

[safc_fan89]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

F1 is faster over a lap than it has ever been - and it's probably necessary to peg it back a bit to prevent things getting excessive.

As for the point about lowering corner speeds making it less of a challenge - I disagree.

What's more of a challenge - so much downforce a corner is easy flat for everyone - or less downforce and the corner being flat for the most skilled and a lift for others?





As for pay drivers - not even Midland are looking for those now. The depth of talent back to front is probably better than ever.

Midland ARE looking for drivers that bring sponsorship. They even said that in an interview for F1 Racing.

You can have good racing at high speeds, just look at Suzuka.

I think that lowering cornering speeds isn't necessary, or straight-line speeds even. The reduction in downforce this year hasn't challenged the drivers much. The errors we were told would happen haven't.

I'd say the main issue with F1 is the inability for cars to follow each other closely. Not overall speed.

[Kicking-back]

Don't you think the inability to follow closely is in part related to the fact they're too fast...

[N I Tram]

Not as such KB - too much aero grip is what makes overtaking difficult - you could compromise it with mechanical grip, keep up the same speeds, no rise in costs (less than designing brand new V8 engines anyway.....), and no safety compromise, especially as the tracks are more and more like playgrounds than ever, with no gravel traps in anywhere remotely dangerous and few fast corners.

[Kirk]

I think F1 has reached the limit when it comes to corner speed. The human body can only stand so much. If the lap times get any faster it will likely be due to faster straight speed but I think there is a concerted effort to slow these cars down. Trouble is the engineers always seem to find a way to climb back up. That is one of the fascinations with this sport.

[chillibowl]

even the g's a driver pulls when breaking at the end of a straight is huge. could the cars be faster...probably, but as kirk said, the human body can only take so much.
for me im amazed that some of these drivers race over the weekend and then are back at testing in a few days. truley remarkable!

[DSM]

IMO if you reduce power significantly, as with 2.4 V8s or rev limited V10s, you would see downforce reduced as a consequence of getting rid of drag, in order to maintain top speeds.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by browney

If corner speed is the issue, wouldn't reducing downforce by a huge amount do the job far better then reducing the engine size then?

Reducing engine size is the first step, downforce will be cut signifcantly in 2008, maybe even 2007.

[safc_fan89]

I read somewhere that V8 engines will result in higher corner speeds.

[Adam43]

They are smaller, which may enable a better packaged car in terms of cornering speed. However there are restrictions on weight and centre of gravity which will aork against some of the improvements in packaging.

[Spudgun]

If they want to reduce speeds in F1, the place they need to start is tyres as well as aero. The current tyre war is what has really upped the lap times over the last few seasons.

The thing with aero grip is whatever regulations are brought in the aero people always claw back the losses. I think I've read somewhere that the aero deficit compared to last year was only 10% by season's end compared with the anticipated 25%.

On the other hand with tyres, if you bolt on a set of tyres with the same compound of rubber as a London bus there's not so much they can do about it.

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by Spudgun

If they want to reduce speeds in F1, the place they need to start is tyres as well as aero. The current tyre war is what has really upped the lap times over the last few seasons.

Yep... I can't remember precisely, but I'm pretty sure the Minardi's in '04 equalled the pole time, presumably set by TGF, two years previously.

This could've been a lot more impressive if I could actually find the qualifying times & the track it was done on, wouldn't it?

But I agree - you'd think you couldn't go past putting an end to the tyre war to reduce speeds... With the added bonus of potentially cutting costs due to the lessened need for gathering tyre data.

But I'm sure this has already been discussed

[johnh875]

People always complain that F1 doesn’t need to be, or shouldn’t be, slowed down. What, it is not too fast because of all the measures that have been taken up to this point to keep speeds in check? What do you think will happen if the restrictions do not keep pace with car development?

One aspect that I think needs to be addressed is the braking, not only because the short braking distances make it hard to overtake, but because under 5G braking with your legs stretched out in front of you, the drivers begin to black out due to loss of blood supply to the brain. Yep, the limits of the human body. Better racing (presumably) would be a bonus.

[1200Datto27]

Originally Posted by Halsey

Yep... I can't remember precisely, but I'm pretty sure the Minardi's in '04 equalled the pole time, presumably set by TGF, two years previously.

This could've been a lot more impressive if I could actually find the qualifying times & the track it was done on, wouldn't it?

That was the Brazillian GP last year IIRC, and the times set year after almost two season of development.

[Nintendo]

Bikes are infinetely more dangerous

[SpawnyWhippet]

I agree entirely with Spudgun, top speed is practically irrelevant in addressing safety concerns, the way to approach it is to reduce corner speeds and increase braking distances. A set of wooden tyres that must last a whole weekend (excluding punctures) would hugely reduce corner speeds which is where most accidents occur. My F3 car used to use the same tyres for 3 - 4 meetings before they were discarded (mainly due to financial reasons though).

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Andydickens

I agree entirely with Spudgun, top speed is practically irrelevant in addressing safety concerns, the way to approach it is to reduce corner speeds and increase braking distances.

I know what you are saying, but you could also argue that decreasing braking distances increases safety. In every accident other than a loss of brakes or wheels then a shorter braking distance can aid avoiding a crash or reducing the speed of impact. Of course it can also increase the difference in speed of two cars in some cases.

[dtype38]

Originally Posted by johnh875

People always complain that F1 doesn’t need to be, or shouldn’t be, slowed down. What, it is not too fast because of all the measures that have been taken up to this point to keep speeds in check? What do you think will happen if the restrictions do not keep pace with car development?

This is an excellent point which often seems to be overlooked. I was under the impression that the FIA had a target for the maximum average speed of an F1 race derived from circuit design and the strength/safety of the cars. With that in mind, isn't it simply the case that each time the engineers find a way of making their cars go faster, the FIA introduce new limits on the car to keep them to that maximum. It not a question of "slowing them down" just preventing them from going any faster. IMHO this is an excellent approach because it makes the engineers push for more and more out of less and less, thus furthering the art of race car design. The crucial issue, however, is chosing the right way to impose the "limits". Personally I think this should be done with an eye towards what will ulitimately filter down to the cars we all drive. Traction and stability control techniques, engine design and management for higher efficiency and output, high strength composites, abs,... that sort of stuff we can use..... I'm not so sure where underbody airflow management fits in.

[SpawnyWhippet]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

I know what you are saying, but you could also argue that decreasing braking distances increases safety. In every accident other than a loss of brakes or wheels then a shorter braking distance can aid avoiding a crash or reducing the speed of impact. Of course it can also increase the difference in speed of two cars in some cases.

IMHO, the longer the braking distance, the more time a driver has to react. It avoids those sorts of accidents eg when Coulthard went into the back of someone with a closing speed of about 100mph a few years back. If, for example, the cars could slow 100mph per sec (grossly oversimplifying the braking process I know) and the leading driver braked slightly sooner than the car in front (as you would expect), then the following car needs to brake immediately and extremely hard to avoid hitting him. From my experience, it was always easier to avoid these kind of accidents in eg saloon car racing which had less efficient brakes than single seaters.

[SpawnyWhippet]

Originally Posted by dtype38

Personally I think this should be done with an eye towards what will ulitimately filter down to the cars we all drive. Traction and stability control techniques, engine design and management for higher efficiency and output, high strength composites, abs,... that sort of stuff we can use..... I'm not so sure where underbody airflow management fits in.

Underbody airflow is already used in quite a few production sports cars, eg Ferrari (seen the big diffusers on the 430 model?), Porsche (911 have had flat bottoms for ages) etc. Its a good way to increase downforce without too many bolt on spoilers etc that destroy the lines of the car and can potentially injure pedestrians and so on.