Ground effect vs modern cars

[JohnnyFiama]

Given the huge advance in aerodynamics and tyres, how does the current generation of F1 cars compare to the peak of ground effect in 1982? There were stories of driving blacking out the cornering forces were so high in '82. I don't suppose anyone has any figures on downforce generated / cornering forces?

(on a side note, the cars of 82 were some of the most beautiful F1 cars of all time).

[steve_r]

I have no figures, but I have recently been wondering just how quick a modern F1 car would be these days the rules were changed to allow ground effect.

[Mr V]

Just out of interest, the 1982 Monaco pole lap time of Rene Arnoux was about 9 1/2 seconds slower than Webbers 2010 pole lap. (1.23:281 for RA 1.13:826 for MW). I think that modern day cars with ground effect would be too fast.

[herowassenna]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Just out of interest, the 1982 Monaco pole lap time of Rene Arnoux was about 9 1/2 seconds slower than Webbers 2010 pole lap. (1.23:281 for RA 1.13:826 for MW). I think that modern day cars with ground effect would be too fast.

Bearing in mind that Rascasse has been re-configured, the swimming pool section too and the chicane has been slowed down from Arnoux's day. I'd also imagine Monaco is probably not the best circuit to compare ground effects with current cars, its normally about mechanical grip.
Yes Webber was on pole there last year, but his aero advantage would have been greater in Barcelona for example.

[Wims]

I always wondered how a top team like say RBR would do if they got transported back in time to the early 80s, with their current technology. They would have been so far ahead lol.

As for drivers blacking out, the drivers werent really athletes back then, many of them smoked and I seriously doubt that they spent much time in the gym, while todays drivers are without exception in excellent physical shape.

[luke g28]

Drivers overalls could double as pressure suits for the high Gs, same as say a fighter pilot?

We're at the point now where you can buy a road car that has both a higher top speed and accelerates faster than an F1 car. Sure they are no match under braking or cornering but still..

I understand the safety concerns but are we saying that F1 cars will never get any faster than they are at the moment? Where will the sport be in 10 or 20 years time? Surely they cant just cap performance at current levels, not indefinitely.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Drivers overalls could double as pressure suits for the high Gs, same as say a fighter pilot?

We're at the point now where you can buy a road car that has both a higher top speed and accelerates faster than an F1 car. Sure they are no match under braking or cornering but still..

I understand the safety concerns but are we saying that F1 cars will never get any faster than they are at the moment? Where will the sport be in 10 or 20 years time? Surely they cant just cap performance at current levels, not indefinitely.

While that's all true going fast in a straight line is not what F1 is about. If you remove the challenge of cornering motorsport can be much faster than F1 (top fuel or funny cars anyone) it is also in my humble opinion much less interesting without corners!

Incidentally a fighter pilot's G suit works because the G is basically all in one direction (from head to feet) I can't see the same approach working in an F1 environment where G forces are constantly changing not only in magnitude but in direction.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Drivers overalls could double as pressure suits for the high Gs, same as say a fighter pilot?

We're at the point now where you can buy a road car that has both a higher top speed and accelerates faster than an F1 car. Sure they are no match under braking or cornering but still..

I understand the safety concerns but are we saying that F1 cars will never get any faster than they are at the moment? Where will the sport be in 10 or 20 years time? Surely they cant just cap performance at current levels, not indefinitely.

G-suits don't work around corners.

Yes you can buy a road car that is much faster in a straight line than an F1 car and may also be just as quick to 60 or 100 mph. But you can't use most of its performance on the road. I can also go at 500mph in a Jet aeroplane.

F1 car performance is limited on at least two fronts which include track/spectator/driver safety and a drivers physical ability to withstand G-forces.

Surely we don't want the best driver in the world being the one that can withstand the most G-forces?

To me, F1 cars were just as fast back in the 80's as they are now because they looked more difficult to drive. Today, the cars look easier to drive and don't look to be travelling as quickly. Only the stopwatch tells a different story.

[nickyf1]

Originally Posted by luke g28

Drivers overalls could double as pressure suits for the high Gs, same as say a fighter pilot?

We're at the point now where you can buy a road car that has both a higher top speed and accelerates faster than an F1 car. Sure they are no match under braking or cornering but still..

I understand the safety concerns but are we saying that F1 cars will never get any faster than they are at the moment? Where will the sport be in 10 or 20 years time? Surely they cant just cap performance at current levels, not indefinitely.

Pressure suits do nothing to help at high G's, pressure suits are only used in very high altitude flying planes where the plane does not have its own pressurised cabin and what not.

[Marbot]

A g-suit is primarily used to prevent pooling of the blood in the lower part of the body under longitudinal upward forces. They do not help during lateral (side-to-side) movement, which is what an F1 driver normally experiences when cornering. Even during longitudinal use, a g-suit only helps the pilot to cope with the forces for a longer period of time. It does not necessarily increase his normal tolerance to g-forces. Also remember that a fighter plane will corner when banked over, so the g-suit has use in all flight attitudes that a fighter plane might normally have. Jet fighter pilots do not normally experience lateral (side-to-side) forces.

The limiting factor in a modern fighter planes manoeuvring capabilities is not the plane, but the pilot.

Similarly, in an F1 car, if we ramp up the aero and tyre grip. The limiting factor will be the drivers ability to withstand lateral g-forces, and it may be that it's not the drivers that you think are the best drivers that come out on top there!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Wims

I always wondered how a top team like say RBR would do if they got transported back in time to the early 80s, with their current technology. They would have been so far ahead lol.

As for drivers blacking out, the drivers werent really athletes back then, many of them smoked and I seriously doubt that they spent much time in the gym, while todays drivers are without exception in excellent physical shape.

Interestingly Adrian Newey cut his teeth back in the early/mid '80s at March and was involved in their IndyCar project. When F1 banned ground effect cars after '82, IndyCars were still fully ground effect.

I remember seeing Keke Rosberg heaving on the Marlboros.

[JeremySmith]

I like this thread carry on!

[luke g28]

The point I was trying to make was that if f1 is limited in terms of top speed, acceleration and in cornering Gs, where does that leave room for improvement?

As we see at the moment, cornering is the hardest thing to regulate so that is where the teams are pushing no matter how hard the FIA make it.

If we are already at the "as fast as is safe" limit then what is going to happen in the future? We have seen safety increase 10 fold since the 80s but that only warranted a reduction in power.

We are currently in the situation where any successful innovation is banned.

[JamesH]

I've been trying to find out what car has the highest corner G. I'm sure I remember some specialist skid pan cars etc, and there is something called the G-kart, but that pulled less than 2G apparently.

Do F1 cars have the highest G cornering ability?

[browney]

I would have thought the improvements in tyres in 30 years would be so massive that it would make up for a lot of loss in down force from ground effect (and give grip at low speed).

Also I imagine that the cars were a lot less comfortable and had to run very close to the ground with not a lot of suspension travel to keep the 'ground effect' working.

[luke g28]

F1 cannot stay the same speed forever. If it does there will be a new "pinnacle of motorsport"

There is an overlap in this thread and the lemans thread. Where they say that the lemans cars travel further in one race than f1 does in a season have a 20mph higher average speed and use 42% less fuel. Doesn't really make f1 the pinnacle in my eyes.

[Marbot]

If you are saying that the fastest accelerating cars with the highest top speeds are the 'pinnacle of motor sport', then why aren't you watching dragster racing?

You will note that they can only do those sorts of speeds in a straight line.

[luke g28]

No im questioning why an endurance motorsport around a full circuit should have a higher average speed than the best circuit cars around a much shorter distance?

While im here though, there is speculation that the RBR qualifying advantage is because they can deploy kers much earlier through the corners. In the same way having more power available doesnt turn the series into drag racing.

Im not sure at what point you decided that I was all about top speed. I was stating that all aspects of the cars performance are controlled and my disappointment that having the same straight line performance as a road car would be too much for the worlds best drivers and that they couldn't handle it.

Yes f1 is about braking and cornering, but I would like to see these deregulated too! As an overall package though I think that F1 cars should be quicker around a circuit than any other race series to be able to claim "pinnacle" status.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by luke g28

No im questioning why an endurance motorsport around a full circuit should have a higher average speed than the best circuit cars around a much shorter distance?

While im here though, there is speculation that the RBR qualifying advantage is because they can deploy kers much earlier through the corners. In the same way having more power available doesnt turn the series into drag racing.

Im not sure at what point you decided that I was all about top speed. I was stating that all aspects of the cars performance are controlled and my disappointment that having the same straight line performance as a road car would be too much for the worlds best drivers and that they couldn't handle it.

Yes f1 is about braking and cornering, but I would like to see these deregulated too! As an overall package though I think that F1 cars should be quicker around a circuit than any other race series to be able to claim "pinnacle" status.

Problem is that different vehicles are designed to run on different types of tracks. If you race on a drag strip the dragster will be fastest by far, the Indy car would probably outpace an F1 car on a 2 mile plus oval and on a European style road course the F1 would beat the Indy car and the Dragster simply couldn't do it.

The fastest cars at Le mans (about which I confess I know very little) must be pretty close in performance to F1 and I think the gap has been shrinking over the years but on most tracks F1 runs on I suspect the F1 car would be quicker but at circuits where the premium is on aerodynamic efficiency and which have very long straights (such as Le Mans itself) the F1 cars are probably slower in overall lap time as well as top speed.

It is never as simple as which car is faster but I am quite certain that there is nothing out there that can match an F1 car for top speed, lateral G and change of direction, one of these yes but all three no. Closest thing I know is probably a hill climb car like the Gould GR55 but I don't think you'd find an example that could do 200mph.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Problem is that different vehicles are designed to run on different types of tracks. If you race on a drag strip the dragster will be fastest by far, the Indy car would probably outpace an F1 car on a 2 mile plus oval and on a European style road course the F1 would beat the Indy car and the Dragster simply couldn't do it.

The fastest cars at Le mans (about which I confess I know very little) must be pretty close in performance to F1 and I think the gap has been shrinking over the years but on most tracks F1 runs on I suspect the F1 car would be quicker but at circuits where the premium is on aerodynamic efficiency and which have very long straights (such as Le Mans itself) the F1 cars are probably slower in overall lap time as well as top speed.

It is never as simple as which car is faster but I am quite certain that there is nothing out there that can match an F1 car for top speed, lateral G and change of direction, one of these yes but all three no. Closest thing I know is probably a hill climb car like the Gould GR55 but I don't think you'd find an example that could do 200mph.

Just wanted to say I thought that was a very good post.

[Empty Box]

Tis all about the Brakes. That is the one area where F1 cars are unmatched and clearly miles ahead. While an LMP won't go as fast around a corner, it also weighs 2/3rds of another F1 car more.

Open Wheel racing and top speed do not belong in the same sentence. Same with Aerodynamic efficiency. Bet you a dollar a customer LMP is more efficient than even the most efficient F1 car.

Speaking of Sportscars and F1, was there not a time when the Porsche Group C cars were faster than F1 cars?

Le Mans is a circuit that had not one, but two chicanes add in because the straight was too long to be "safe", yet the cars still routinely hit 200 MPH in between. It's a fast circuit in every sense of the word. Only thing I could think of for F1 is Monza. LMPs are not faster, it's that their one large race is on a circuit that is faster. A/LMS/Sports Car racing in general is all about Le Mans. It's a fair comment.

Plus most sports car series don't have these gimmicky tires that last 15 laps max. lol

[JBT]

Originally Posted by Empty Box

Speaking of Sportscars and F1, was there not a time when the Porsche Group C cars were faster than F1 cars?

In terms of comparable lap times, no, but they were no less exciting to watch!

FL in the 1986 British GP at Brands was 1.09.953 by Nigel Mansell in his FW11B, FL in the 1986 Brands 1000Km was 1.18.680 by Bob Wollek in a Porsche 956, just as an example of a twistier circuit , F1 vs Gp.C Porsches.

Going to Monza, (for a faster track where the Group C cars could stretch their legs a little) in '86, FL in the GP was 1.28.099 by Teo Fabi in the Benetton-BMW. FL in the Monza 1000Km the same year was Nannini in the Lancia LC2, 1.36.960 (race won by the works Porsche team, Stuck/Bell).

So its only one year and two tracks but thats about as close as the Porsches got to F1 (i've picked '86 cos it was the last full year that Porsche entered the world championship as a works team in Gp.C). The best Group C cars had about 650-700bhp in that era, whereas the best F1 cars had at least 300bhp more in race trim, with much less weight...

Sports prototypes were nearly as fast as F1 cars in the 3.5 litre era, sometimes the Peugeot 905's would qualify with a time that would put them in the top 10 of the same years F1 race at the same track.

The Porsche 917's and Ferrari 512S/M's were sometimes faster than F1 cars at the same track in 1970/71, esp. where they could really wind them out, s.g. Spa. The book 'Porsche 917 - The undercover story' has a track map of the old Spa with maximum revs and the gear used noted down, the section before Stavelot says 8,800 rpm in 4th gear, equivalent to 218mph...

If current F1 continues to get faster, I think it will start to outgrow some of the circuits on the calendar. Only places like Bahrain would be able to accommodate them, with the huge run off required to cope with brake failure / stuck throttle type shunts. Who wants a season full of Tilkedromes?? Not me.