
What F1 Cars Would Look Like if F1 Got Its Act Together - anigbrowl
http://www.wired.com/2015/06/f1-cars-look-like-f1-got-act-together/
======
bborud
Things are easy ... until you realize that F1 is a pretty difficult balancing
act.

It has to be exciting, but people demand safety. Cars have to be advanced, but
differences between them small enough for there to be actual competition. We
have lots of technology, but what we like to see is driver skill and not how
fast a computer can hurl 600+ kilograms of mass around a track.

As these considerations play out you end up with Formula One. Which is
compromise upon compromise. While maintaining some sort of illusion of F1
being the ultimate expression of technology and skill for the uneducated and
the ignorant masses.

Don't get me wrong. The drivers and the teams are pretty much the ultimate
performers in their respective disciplines. All of the drivers are top
athletes that can take a lot more punishment while maintaining higher levels
of concentration over longer periods of time than the vast majority of
olympians. But they are still part of something that needs to work as a show.

And it just won't pull in any money if you have one or two teams dominating
the field completely for year after year.

As any big sport, F1 is closer to pro wrestling than it is to the pure sport
we would like to tell ourselves that it is.

~~~
TheCoreh
> what we like to see is driver skill and not how fast a computer can hurl
> 600+ kilograms of mass around a track.

Speak for yourself, I'd love to see that. In fact, I'd love if they made all
the cars either remote controlled or self driving, and removed most of the
safety rules and the restrictions to keep things "competitive". I mean, it
could be another sport, with another name. But I'd love to watch that.

~~~
kamaal
Good, but without human drivers involved, emotions and then the fun is gone.

Sports are interesting to me because of demonstration of human qualities like
hard work, brilliance, endurance and even the mistakes we make. Because they
bring out the best in us.

If I have to see how well algorithms work, TopCoder or SPOJ generally does the
job, I don't see much fun in two emotionless bots flying on the track without
having the faintest clue what the whole thing is all about.

~~~
bborud
> Good, but without human drivers involved, emotions and > then the fun is
> gone.

Precisely. Ask people who Ayrton Senna is and they'll probably know he was a
F1 driver from Brazil, won championships, died in an accident and was buried
as if head of state.

Ask them about the MP4/4 Honda RA168E and even many anoraks will have some
trouble telling you what championship year it ran.

------
chroma
It's pretty clear that F1 is trying to satisfy cross-purposes. On one hand,
it's meant to subsidize experimental vehicle technologies. On the other, fans
want exciting races with lots of passing. Then you have issues such as driver
safety and team budgets. Add to that a few decades of regulation cruft, and
you have a recipe for dissatisfaction.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I've always favored erring on the side
of advancing vehicle technology. Just imagine what racing would look like if
an eccentric billionaire created a league with only the following three rules:

1\. If a human controls the vehicle, it must be by remote control. (This
eliminates driver casualties while encouraging exciting maneuvers.)

2\. There is a 10cm speed bump at both the entrance and exit of pit lane.
(This discourages technologies that are unworkable on normal roads.)

3\. At the end of every race, any team can purchase the winning vehicle for
$500,000. (This rule keeps costs low.)

I think you'd quickly get some very interesting vehicle designs. For starters,
F1-banned technologies such as 6 wheels[1] and suction devices[2] would get a
fair shot. New drivetrains would be tried, including electric motors powered
by gas turbine-cranked generators. The whole enterprise would be quite
different, but it would definitely be safer and cheaper. And to me, such free-
form innovation seems a lot more interesting.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_P34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_P34)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46)

~~~
rotten
So rather than remake a legacy business, you could start a new racing league.
Give it a new name: "Z1" racing or something. I'm pretty sure the venue owners
always appreciate new draws for crowds. You'd need to recruit a few teams
(start with engineering departments at universities?), and then do marketing
to bring the crowds in.

Does YCombinator take pitches like this?

------
5h
> Van Overbeeke makes other practical changes to his cars: They’re stripped
> down, free of many of the aerodynamic doodads that add cost and complication
> to car design.

Just because you have skills in one field, don't assume they transfer to
another.

Those "doodads" have been through a metric fuck-tonne of windtunnel testing &
modelling.

~~~
cromulent
Yeah, a ridiculous observation by Wired. I note they removed the Gurney flaps
on the McLaren rear wing. If there is one thing that reduces cost and
complication in aero, it's a Gurney flap.

------
AmVess
FIA conducted tests on cockpit canopies several years ago. They fired a tire
and wheel at it, which deflected off the canopy and into the air. It kept
going, and going, and going. It was an alarming test. The last thing you want
to do is launch car parts at the spectators.

Sometimes solving one problem causes another. This is why there isn't a
solution yet, but the FIA are still working on it.

~~~
monk_e_boy
F1 is cool because the cars are open and you can see the driver. If you want
closed cockpit racing, choose a different class, le mans is closed cockpit and
really cool.

F1 has got pretty boring, and the drivers think it could be better. I hope
they simplify the back wings so racing can get closer... at the moment most of
the overtakes are done under DRS, so driver skill isn't so much of a factor in
race position.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "F1 has got pretty boring, and the drivers think it could be better. I hope
they simplify the back wings so racing can get closer... at the moment most of
the overtakes are done under DRS, so driver skill isn't so much of a factor in
race position."

Quite subjective - a lot of people find the current format very exciting. It
seems to me a vocal minority who don't remember how boring it can really get
(i.e. the Schumacher years). As for overtakes if you watch the last couple of
races there has been some great race craft. DRS isn't perfect but when it
works right the driver is given just enough help but still has to work really
hard.

~~~
monk_e_boy
IMO the last few races have been really boring. Lewis hovered 2 - 3 seconds
behind Nico and could do nothing. Sure, both of them are 'managing' the
race... but as soon as they both left the start line and Lewis was behind, we
had to wati 33 laps before the pit stops before any action. Then when nothing
happened we had to wait for the last 5 laps to see if anything would change.

There was some mid-field fighting, but nothing too interesting.

And Monaco - OMG. Most tedious race ever. You actually start wishing someone
would crash just to make it interesting. Sure, for _the drivers_ it is 100%
concentration for the whole race.... but for us spectators? Nothing freeking
happens. Qualifying is 99.99% of the race.

Last year was really good. This year is a bit meh.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "Lewis hovered 2 - 3 seconds behind Nico and could do nothing."

I guess it depends on your perspective but THAT IS EXCITING. For me at least.
It showed Nico still has what it takes to beat Hamilton + it brings the
championship battle even closer. I agree with you that the last few races have
been slow but only compared with the last few seasons. Particularly during
Vettel's dominance we got lots of close races. But F1 is always talking about
how to make the sport more interesting and exciting - the discussions never
end.

~~~
monk_e_boy
>> I guess it depends on your perspective but THAT IS EXCITING. For me at
least.

Who is best at lift and coast. Who can manage tire temps, who can manage tire
deg, who can break the 1 sec DRS, then hover at about 2 sec infront...

On lap one, when Lewis was attacking we all knew he had one, _maybe_ two laps
to over take, otherwise his tires would be screwed. I want to see that attack
last _twice_ as long -- 4 laps! Hell, maybe 5 or even 6 laps! Out of 60.

I think we'd all like to see Lewis and Nico battle it out, balls to the wall.

And when will f1.com offer streaming? Huh?

------
SixSigma
It's called "Sports Car Racing" and takes place around the world. Le Mans 24
hour, for instance.

It's a sprint _and_ a marathon.

see also
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_SportsCar_Championship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_SportsCar_Championship)

Open cockpit racing has a history, don't blame it on F1 not having its "act
together"

~~~
michel-slm
the closed-cockpit McLaren portrayed seems to be in between a normal open-car
racer and a sports car though. Sports cars tend to have fully-covered wheels
even when they are close cockpit!

~~~
SixSigma
Because open wheels are aero inefficient.

~~~
Mikeb85
No its because of rules. F1 cars are much quicker than even LMP cars, despite
'aero inefficiencies'. What you lose in aerodynamics, you gain (lose) in
weight (and thus acceleration, braking, and handling).

~~~
invernomut0
F1 cars race for 1.5 hours, LMP1 race for 24hours, at a pace that is 5seconds
slower than an F1. They could go much faster but the race is won by the driver
which races longer, not by the fastest lap. Moreover the WEC cars integrate
different accessories (e.g. pistons to lift the cars during pits) that
increase weight. F1 will always be faster because the race has a different
target. The problem is that endurance races advance technology that gets
ported to everyday cars, F1 doesn't (but this is matter for another
discussion).

------
jdietrich
A major point is being missed here, and it is fundamental to how F1 cars
evolve - rules lawyering.

It's fairly easy to design a car that is safe, fast and looks good. It is
fiendishly difficult to create a set of rules that enforce those outcomes on
designers. Unless F1 becomes a one-design formula, it is always going to have
to deal with the cat-and-mouse game between the governing body and creative
designers.

The obvious recent example is that of the ugly noses of 2014[1]. The nose
height of F1 cars had been gradually increasing over the years, as teams
realised that there was an aerodynamic advantage in channelling air under the
nose. The FIA became concerned about the safety of these noses, and the risk
that in a side impact they might over-ride the cockpit and hit a driver in the
helmet.

The rule introduced to address this issue stated that an area of the nose no
less than 90cm² must be centred no higher than 185mm above the car floor.
Designers immediately realised that this rule could be exploited by simply
having a 90cm² protuberance hanging below the main nose, minimising the
constriction of airflow. These droopy proboscises weren't anticipated or
desired, but they were an inevitable consequence of a rule that wasn't
absolutely watertight and the competitive pressures or racing.

The modern era of F1 is practically defined by these creative interpretations
of the rules - F- and S-ducts, exhaust blown and double diffusers, blown
starter holes, tuned mass dampers. No matter what rule the FIA draws up, some
very smart people will figure out a way around it. Adrian Newey, the greatest
designer in the history of the sport, is fond of saying that "there is no such
thing as the spirit of the rules". To many, that buccaneering spirit is an
integral part of Formula 1.

[1][http://www.sanantoniof1club.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/2...](http://www.sanantoniof1club.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/2014-F1-race-car-nose-review-proboscis-ugly.jpg)

------
KaiserPro
_“There once was a time when the racing world was ruled by savage beasts[...]
"_

Yup that was the time when a crash meant death or debilitating injuries. The
whole point of F1 is that it is safe.

Yes, open cockpits mean that there is a risk of head injuries. However, closed
cockpits increase the risk of: Suffocation from engine leaks Death from fire
Injury from cockpit collapse

More importantly, they'd still need to wear a helmet, because if something
hits the windscreen, its going to shatter.

Plus they'd still have to design the screen, test it, and workout a quick
release. All of which is expensive to do safely.

basically, you any can have two of the following:

fast

cheap

safe

~~~
ars
> because if something hits the windscreen, its going to shatter.

Not according to this video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e87HIlOIYFA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e87HIlOIYFA)

~~~
monk_e_boy
Fans don't want it. Drivers don't want it. Doubt it'll happen.

If you like cool cars with cockpits, watch Le Mans. F1 is supposed to be a bit
dangerous.

------
odabaxok
Seems like all the teams have their own concept, here is Ferrari's:
[http://f1concept.ferrari.com/](http://f1concept.ferrari.com/)

------
makeitsuckless
Everybody has the answers, nobody does the actual math in terms of costs, or
the testing in terms of safety.

F1's biggest problems right now are A) costs, and B) the number of people
pissing on F1 without the slightest knowledge of or affinity with the sport.

Also, F1 cars look just fine right now. They just look too similar, but no one
has been able to solve that problem without escalating costs.

~~~
odabaxok
> F1's biggest problems right now are A) costs, and B) the number of people
> pissing on F1 without the slightest knowledge of or affinity with the sport.

A) Disagree, F1 was always expensive. F1 is about money. A bigger problem is
the distribution of the money. The bigger teams have to realize, that there
will be no show without the smaller teams.

B) Agree. The bigger problem is, that even the insiders are pissing on F1.
(e.g. at the moment, Mateschitz crying because of the Renault engine and
complaining about the rules. But he is not the only one.)

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "A) Disagree, F1 was always expensive. F1 is about money. A bigger problem
is the distribution of the money. The bigger teams have to realize, that there
will be no show without the smaller teams."

It works the other way round too, hence why the big teams get a larger share.
I think the better solution is only allowing in teams who can actually afford
to race. If you're going to run around 5 seconds off the pace or run out of
money before the end of the season you shouldn't be allowed to compete. It
makes the sport look bad when it's actually just shitty business management.

>> B) Agree. The bigger problem is, that even the insiders are pissing on F1.
(e.g. at the moment, Mateschitz crying because of the Renault engine and
complaining about the rules. But he is not the only one.)

Red Bull are certainly the worst culprit here. Not winning anymore so
complaining and threatening. They need to look at McLaren's attitude :)

~~~
odabaxok
> I think the better solution is only allowing in teams who can actually
> afford to race.

In the past, I had the same opinion. However, today as I see even the mid-pack
(Sauber, Force India...) struggles with money. There are 3-5 teams, that can
"actually afford" racing in F1. With a better distribution of the profit, even
smaller teams could spend more money on development and probably catch some
podium finishes. Like Williams, which is not a big team, but still receives a
little from the shares because of its past successes.

------
tdkl
Since when are designers F1 experts ?

------
arcanus
His point about f1 being overly restricted by rules is legitimate, but I am
neither a fan of his design, nor do I believe it is representative of a race
car truly optimized for speed.

Full disclosure: I have a Ph.d. in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), and
I've also raced open-wheel cars at several tracks, such as Laguna Seca. While
presently F1 cars are certainly arbitrarily restricted by rules, several of
his design decisions strike me as just as bad.

For instance, the open-wheel design is going to create tons of pressure drag.
If you were designing a car from the ground up for speed, I sincerely doubt
they would not have the aero kit cover the wheels.

More than that, the open-wheel design is also dangerous, because if the tyres
touch the results are often catastrophic, with the cars flying into the air
and the flailing tyres creating a tremendous hazard. So that also discourages
passing. In many motorsports, bumping into the cars nearby does not result in
both being completely disabled.

------
Already__Taken
He keeps the narrower and simple front wing stating it make the cars less
sensitive to airfow being spoiled by the car ahead but adds the low and wide
rear wing which is what actually spoils all the air in the first place.

Designers design nice things but then ruin it by overstepping what they know.
Here is some info from the FIA working group about how airflow and overtaking
actually works
[http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/overtaking.html](http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/overtaking.html)

------
rdc12
The front wing idea would be a good move, wonder what the point of the F1
overtaking group was, when they didn't pursue ideas like this and instead went
for DRS.

------
michel-slm
I've seen the Williams renderings before on F1Fanatic but not the rest...
awesome!

[http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/03/10/f1-fanatic-round-
up-10...](http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/03/10/f1-fanatic-round-up-1003/)

------
kayoone
I don't like the idea of cockpit canopies in formula motorsport, but
yesterdays accident could have easily cut Räikkönen in half.

These cars are gorgeous though!

------
bigiain
Those roofs seem quite timely given last nights first crash...

------
ykl
Wow, the McLaren with a closed cockpit is stunningly gorgeous.

