What if Manor/Sauber built a 'wet car'?
Discussion
Was just pondering ideas/methods of how the stragglers could get themselves some big points without relying on others to breakdown or fall into a wall.
Would it be feasible, with their more limited budgets and resources to design a car that really excels in the wet as opposed to a car that has to perform adequately in all conditions?
IE design a car that whilst capable of getting within 117% on a dry day is consistently capable of being in the front pack when conditions are wet.
Admittedly the car would only be competitive at a handful of races per year, but that's all it would take to get some high, double points finishes that would get you well clear of you peers in the constructors championship....
Thoughts?
Would it be feasible, with their more limited budgets and resources to design a car that really excels in the wet as opposed to a car that has to perform adequately in all conditions?
IE design a car that whilst capable of getting within 117% on a dry day is consistently capable of being in the front pack when conditions are wet.
Admittedly the car would only be competitive at a handful of races per year, but that's all it would take to get some high, double points finishes that would get you well clear of you peers in the constructors championship....
Thoughts?
What exactly is a wet car though ? differant susspension and areo? no need for a differant car for that, all those parts are changable so you'de just put the bits on when/if needed as they do now, if you want to gamble on a more wet biased setup you run softer suspension, add a gurney flap for more rear wing and bolt on a differant spec front wing like say the monaco wing, only used for that one race (or in the wet) and TBH i cant see why a posssable (lets say) 4 points from 1 wet race is better than 4 lots of a single point from the other 19 dry races, percentages aloan say it's a waist of money (money the smaller teams simply dont have) and as there's no such thing as a wet car it again is a waist of money, you cant spend money on something that doesn't exsist i'm afraid 
Vaud said:
What would you change? They are already running at full downforce for every race bar two, IIRC.
S0 What said:
What exactly is a wet car though ? differant susspension and areo? no need for a differant car for that, all those parts are changable
Interesting question OP.What would you change to make your car a wet specialist?
-narrower track / longer wheelbase
-reduced spring rates
-reduced roll stiffness
-reduced rake
-smaller and less draggy air intakes / cooling ducts
-optimised PU regen / deployment map for humid / low grip conditions
-softened gearchange and differential effect
-beefy rear brakes
-big mirrors
-some kind of device to improve visibility for the driver
BoRED S2upid said:
Interesting idea but I fear their drivers would still struggle. The top 6 drivers in a decent car in a wet race are still going to be faster than a monor driver even if his car is superior in the wet.
In the past when Manor drivers were Will Stevens and Max Chilton you would've had a point but I think Wehrlein and particularly Ocon are looking like the real deal.OP,
No, as others have said the idea doesn't really hold water.
What does (or did a few years back) was e.f Force India making a car that was a weapon in a line. Struggled for the twisty tracks, but was like a missile at the fast tracks like Monza. They had a design that noticably favoured 1 type of track over the other - thing is, did they aim for that, or was that just what they ended up with?
No, as others have said the idea doesn't really hold water.
What does (or did a few years back) was e.f Force India making a car that was a weapon in a line. Struggled for the twisty tracks, but was like a missile at the fast tracks like Monza. They had a design that noticably favoured 1 type of track over the other - thing is, did they aim for that, or was that just what they ended up with?
C Lee Farquar said:
I recall Brundle saying the difference between a wet and a dry set up is much closer now than in the past.
Isn't that because Parc Ferme rules mean you can't really make proper wet setup changes these days?Unless all 3 days are forecast to be monsoon conditions, you'd be well out of place on the grid if you turned up to qualifying with a wet setup on a dry or damp track.
Parc Ferme needs to be relaxed for wet races - if they're predicted to start on full wets, then teams should have a, say, 2 hour window, in which to set their cars up on a full wet setup.
This post brought back memories of Tyrrell in 1984.......
The Force India comment above is a good one. It was probably the last time (apart from the Maldonado win) we had an unlikely car in contention for the win.
One solution to shake up the grid is to only allow the teams to homologate a couple of aero packages for the season.
Then, you will find the top teams being conservative, but some divergence lower down the grid.
F1 needs this diversity. A tyre war is one (expensive) solution.
The Force India comment above is a good one. It was probably the last time (apart from the Maldonado win) we had an unlikely car in contention for the win.
One solution to shake up the grid is to only allow the teams to homologate a couple of aero packages for the season.
Then, you will find the top teams being conservative, but some divergence lower down the grid.
F1 needs this diversity. A tyre war is one (expensive) solution.
Vaud said:
What would you change? They are already running at full downforce for every race bar two, IIRC.
Nah, not really.Max downforce is Monaco spec: we don't care about drag, just all the downforce no matter how dirty it is.
The opposites are (I guess) Baku, Monza and Montreal. In between there are mid-downforce tracks.
CraigyMc said:
Nah, not really.
Max downforce is Monaco spec: we don't care about drag, just all the downforce no matter how dirty it is.
The opposites are (I guess) Baku, Monza and Montreal. In between there are mid-downforce tracks.
Really? I thought I heard on a Pat Symonds podcast that almost every circuit was now "full downforce"Max downforce is Monaco spec: we don't care about drag, just all the downforce no matter how dirty it is.
The opposites are (I guess) Baku, Monza and Montreal. In between there are mid-downforce tracks.
Vaud said:
CraigyMc said:
Nah, not really.
Max downforce is Monaco spec: we don't care about drag, just all the downforce no matter how dirty it is.
The opposites are (I guess) Baku, Monza and Montreal. In between there are mid-downforce tracks.
Really? I thought I heard on a Pat Symonds podcast that almost every circuit was now "full downforce"Max downforce is Monaco spec: we don't care about drag, just all the downforce no matter how dirty it is.
The opposites are (I guess) Baku, Monza and Montreal. In between there are mid-downforce tracks.
/joking.
There are quite a few packages through the year, but none of them are full downforce, in the sense of "everything you can bolt onto the car" except Monaco.
gl20 said:
Would you also go for a chassis with some flex in it? Just thinking of 70s RC cars that raced on low grip surfaces and chassis were made out of flexible material (lexan) to generate more grip. Not sure if that translates to big cars..
Cant tell you about the 70s (was there even an RC scene in the 70s?) but in the (late) 80s I was racing with ali chassis and into the early 90s carbon fibre although I stayed with T6 ali. 6mm IIRC. Some people ran 4 or 5mm. It was a long time ago but I cant remember anyone using lexan?Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff