Discussion
the irony is the change to 50% battery 50% ICE power is being justified on the basis of sustainability, but by surrendering the heat energy recovery from the exhaust by the turbocharger they are actually decreasing efficiency as well as lugging around a load of weight (batteries) that will make the cars even more bloated.
its obvious that they are getting proportionally heavier.
the length is decreases from 3400mm by 200mm, width down from 2000mm to 1900mm. lets assume height is constant. so we've a (200*100)/(3400*2000) 10% decrease in volume of the car [(3400*2000)-(3200*1900) is the 'area' change).
But the weight limit is only coming down by 30kg to 768kg from 798kg... which is about a 4% reduction.
its obvious that they are getting proportionally heavier.
the length is decreases from 3400mm by 200mm, width down from 2000mm to 1900mm. lets assume height is constant. so we've a (200*100)/(3400*2000) 10% decrease in volume of the car [(3400*2000)-(3200*1900) is the 'area' change).
But the weight limit is only coming down by 30kg to 768kg from 798kg... which is about a 4% reduction.
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Friday 7th June 14:56
I'd love to know where the 55% reduction in drag 33% reduction in downforce comes from. I don't see it. I wonder if this is when they're in straight active aero mode?
Still wrong though. Wrong direction, wrong philosophy, wrong focus on generating downforce, wrong focus on more overtaking aids.. And so on.
The cars need to keep or even increase the focus on under car down force and reduce the over car down force. And if they keep going with batteries, the cars will never be light.
Surely 100% sustainable fuel means there is no need for any hybrid system at all? It's just virtue signalling, narrative playing again.
I've said for decades, double the power, halve the downforce, manual gears, no telemetry, no pit to car radio (except for emergencies/safety), car to pit radio only - the driver makes the call to pit.
F1 cars should be difficult to drive. It gives more scope for driving talent to make the difference. Denying the team the ability to dictate race strategies means the driver has to do that themselves. They have to think on the fly and have race awareness. Likewise with no telemetry, the driver has to work on this by talent and feel, not engineering data.
Still wrong though. Wrong direction, wrong philosophy, wrong focus on generating downforce, wrong focus on more overtaking aids.. And so on.
The cars need to keep or even increase the focus on under car down force and reduce the over car down force. And if they keep going with batteries, the cars will never be light.
Surely 100% sustainable fuel means there is no need for any hybrid system at all? It's just virtue signalling, narrative playing again.
I've said for decades, double the power, halve the downforce, manual gears, no telemetry, no pit to car radio (except for emergencies/safety), car to pit radio only - the driver makes the call to pit.
F1 cars should be difficult to drive. It gives more scope for driving talent to make the difference. Denying the team the ability to dictate race strategies means the driver has to do that themselves. They have to think on the fly and have race awareness. Likewise with no telemetry, the driver has to work on this by talent and feel, not engineering data.
PlywoodPascal said:
the irony is the change to 50% battery 50% ICE power is being justified on the basis of sustainability, but by surrendering the heat energy recovery from the exhaust by the turbocharger they are actually decreasing efficiency as well as lugging around a load of weight (batteries) that will make the cars even more bloated.
its obvious that they are getting proportionally heavier.
the length is decreases from 3400mm by 200mm, width down from 2000mm to 1900mm. lets assume height is constant. so we've a (200*100)/(3400*2000) 10% decrease in volume of the car [(3400*2000)-(3200*1900) is the 'area' change).
But the weight limit is only coming down by 30kg to 768kg from 798kg... which is about a 4% reduction.
The battery is the same size as currently.its obvious that they are getting proportionally heavier.
the length is decreases from 3400mm by 200mm, width down from 2000mm to 1900mm. lets assume height is constant. so we've a (200*100)/(3400*2000) 10% decrease in volume of the car [(3400*2000)-(3200*1900) is the 'area' change).
But the weight limit is only coming down by 30kg to 768kg from 798kg... which is about a 4% reduction.
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Friday 7th June 14:56
PlywoodPascal said:
the irony is the change to 50% battery 50% ICE power is being justified on the basis of sustainability, but by surrendering the heat energy recovery from the exhaust by the turbocharger they are actually decreasing efficiency as well as lugging around a load of weight (batteries) that will make the cars even more bloated.
its obvious that they are getting proportionally heavier.
the length is decreases from 3400mm by 200mm, width down from 2000mm to 1900mm. lets assume height is constant. so we've a (200*100)/(3400*2000) 10% decrease in volume of the car [(3400*2000)-(3200*1900) is the 'area' change).
But the weight limit is only coming down by 30kg to 768kg from 798kg... which is about a 4% reduction.
I’m not sure what length an F1 car is but it is much more than 3400mm. its obvious that they are getting proportionally heavier.
the length is decreases from 3400mm by 200mm, width down from 2000mm to 1900mm. lets assume height is constant. so we've a (200*100)/(3400*2000) 10% decrease in volume of the car [(3400*2000)-(3200*1900) is the 'area' change).
But the weight limit is only coming down by 30kg to 768kg from 798kg... which is about a 4% reduction.
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Friday 7th June 14:56
mattikake said:
I'd love to know where the 55% reduction in drag 33% reduction in downforce comes from. I don't see it. I wonder if this is when they're in straight active aero mode?
Still wrong though. Wrong direction, wrong philosophy, wrong focus on generating downforce, wrong focus on more overtaking aids.. And so on.
The cars need to keep or even increase the focus on under car down force and reduce the over car down force. And if they keep going with batteries, the cars will never be light.
Surely 100% sustainable fuel means there is no need for any hybrid system at all? It's just virtue signalling, narrative playing again.
I've said for decades, double the power, halve the downforce, manual gears, no telemetry, no pit to car radio (except for emergencies/safety), car to pit radio only - the driver makes the call to pit.
F1 cars should be difficult to drive. It gives more scope for driving talent to make the difference. Denying the team the ability to dictate race strategies means the driver has to do that themselves. They have to think on the fly and have race awareness. Likewise with no telemetry, the driver has to work on this by talent and feel, not engineering data.
I don't agree that they should focus more on GE downforce. GE is great in as much as it doesn't generate drag whilst it does generate extreme downforce, but it does in itself have the effect of making the cars far heavier, in terms of their net weight + downforce. There's still a cost to that effective extra weight.Still wrong though. Wrong direction, wrong philosophy, wrong focus on generating downforce, wrong focus on more overtaking aids.. And so on.
The cars need to keep or even increase the focus on under car down force and reduce the over car down force. And if they keep going with batteries, the cars will never be light.
Surely 100% sustainable fuel means there is no need for any hybrid system at all? It's just virtue signalling, narrative playing again.
I've said for decades, double the power, halve the downforce, manual gears, no telemetry, no pit to car radio (except for emergencies/safety), car to pit radio only - the driver makes the call to pit.
F1 cars should be difficult to drive. It gives more scope for driving talent to make the difference. Denying the team the ability to dictate race strategies means the driver has to do that themselves. They have to think on the fly and have race awareness. Likewise with no telemetry, the driver has to work on this by talent and feel, not engineering data.
Shifting to active aero is the best of both worlds as it allows the cars to generate high levels of downforce only when they actually need it - and to your initial point, yes, that will make a huge difference to drag at higher speeds. It's actually really dumb engineering to have an F1 generating the sort of downforce they do today, when traveling in a straight lone at 190-200mph. Dumb, and wasteful of energy - the latter becoming ever more important as they shift towards greater levels of electrification, as they must.
PlywoodPascal said:
Big Nanas said:
The battery is the same size as currently.
I didn’t say it wasn’t?
You are also correct that the efficiency will be reduced due to no MGU-H.
The video I linked to earlier talks about the affect of these changes on efficiency, so well worth a watch.
Big Nanas said:
PlywoodPascal said:
Big Nanas said:
The battery is the same size as currently.
I didn’t say it wasn’t?You are also correct that the efficiency will be reduced due to no MGU-H.
The video I linked to earlier talks about the affect of these changes on efficiency, so well worth a watch.
Although I expect the drivers to spend all of pre season testing complaining about how unpredictable the brakes feel due to the regen/friction split.
TheDeuce said:
Blib said:
It's obviously not a huge risk - look at how the drivers and their teams get to each race weekend.Perhaps F1 will start hiring people with aviation experience, rather than the other way round.
GlobalRacer said:
TheDeuce said:
It's obviously not a huge risk - look at how the drivers and their teams get to each race weekend.
True but there are many more critical points in a race than there in a flight not to mention redundant systems, as in aircraft, means more weight in the race car.It may be alien to the world of F1, but having vehicles change their attitude beyond the control of the driver is nothing new and can be done with an extreme level of reliability. Lets not forget how long ago it was that some of the cars were adjusting their ride height thousands of time a minute and they did that with a degree of reliability sufficient to win races if not championships. The new adaptive aero regs are not a case of F1 throwing driver safety to the wall. Decades later from the first time the cars had such systems in place, this is now child's play.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff