2017 F1 Constructor technical info/developmentFormula 1 

TenEightyOne
To be clear it was Porsche Sr. (aka Ferry) who did the designing... and Auto Union hadn't merged with NSU to become Audi then :)
Click to expand...

Ferdinand Porsche


Auto Union AG, Chemnitz, was an amalgamation of four German automobile manufacturers, founded in 1932 and established in 1936 in Chemnitz, Saxony, during the Great Depression. It is the immediate predecessor of Audi as it is known today.

As well as acting as an umbrella firm for its four constituent brands (Audi, Horch, DKW, Wanderer), Auto Union is widely known for its racing team (Auto Union Rennabteilung, based at Horch works in Zwickau/Saxony). The Silver Arrows of these two German teams (Mercedes-Benzand Auto Union) dominated not only GP car racing from 1934 onwards but set records that would take decades to beat, such as the fastest speed ever attained on a public road (at 432.7 km/h (268.9 mph), unbroken as of 2013).[3]

At fellow director's Adolf Rosenberger insistence, von Oertzen met with Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, who had done work for him before, and developed his own P-Wagen project racing car based on the new 750 kg (1,650 lb) formula.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Union
 
TenEightyOne
Yes, that's Ferdinand Porsche Sr., aka Ferry, like I said. "Ferdinand Porsche" more normally refers to junior.



Good point :D
Click to expand...
Ferdinand Anton Ernst Porsche (19 September 1909 – 27 March 1998), mainly known as Ferry Porsche, was an Austrian technical automobile designer and automaker-entrepreneur. He operated Porsche AG in Stuttgart, Germany. His father, Ferdinand Porsche, Sr. was also a renowned automobile engineer and founder of Volkswagen and Porsche. His nephew, Dr. Ferdinand Piëch, is the longtime chairman of Volkswagen Group, and his son, Ferdinand Alexander Porsche, was involved in the design of the 911.

Ferry Porsche's life was intimately connected with that of his father, Ferdinand Porsche, Sr., who began sharing his knowledge of mechanical engineering already in his childhood. With his father he opened a bureau of automobile design, in Stuttgart in 1931.
 
prisonermonkeys
Here's what I would do for 2021: allow the teams to have more individual engines, but treat all of the components as an integrated whole. If one component goes, the entire engine gets replaced. The technology should be so well developed by then that this is feasible without being wasteful.
Click to expand...

Was thinking the same thing individual engines that offer road relevance to that manufacture, but obviously scale back on the more expensive technology that is prone to break, with the cheaper factor being met.

Thus you can then fix or swap out an engine rather than components as you said once again hitting the cheaper factor.

I would also try to find a way to introduce fuel consumption and energy management into strategy to open up strategy options. Back when KERS was first introduced, it was suggested that drivers could have two KERS batteries (as cars were harvesting more energy than they were ultimately storing). They could use the energy from one battery lap after lap, or they could use the energy from both over the course of a lap, with a cool-down timer before they could use KERS again. Something like that might work.
Click to expand...

This is where I somewhat disagree, if you're going to make it to where engines aren't nearly as limited, and more easy to make and less to build. Why not actually allow for less fuel regulations so teams can run at higher outputs and race somewhat more. I'm not saying to have them fully on it from lights out that's not realistic nor has it been, but actually have them be more race like any time they want rather than when then when the engineer says it's okay.

I like the KERS idea as well


tribolik
Hardly the consumption of a Honda Civic.

Honda Civic - 5.5 liters/100 km.
F1 2017 - 35 liters/100 km.
Click to expand...

It was a joke...and compared to many other race cars in the world the argument could be made.
 
Better looking, than the others but as Massa said that wont get it on cars unless it provides the same level of safety. Which for tires or springs coming at a driver head on, it will, for stuff we've seen in Indy accidents like something falling on top of a driver...nope. But neither would the halo or rbr option.
 
Last edited:
They either need to do nothing, or go full WEC canopy, because nothing in between will pass in both the safety and looks criteria. With the accident we have to study - Justin Wilson, Felipe Massa, Jules Bianchi and Henry Surtees - nothing covers all bases. Admittedly, I think you can strike Bianchi's accident off the list as it was a freak accident that none of the solutions will cover, but look at the others.

Halo - Wilson: Maybe better, maybe not. Massa: Unless it hit the halo, that suspension piece was going into his face anyway. Surtees: Yes, that's where it would have worked.
Aeroscreen - Wilson: Maybe, but it still came down from above. Massa: Yes, definitely would have worked. Surtees: Maybe doing something.
Shield - The Massa accident is the only thing it helps.

A WEC canopy is the only solution that solves all the case studies where Head Protection is needed. It keeps arms inside the vehicle, and the head protected in an accident. Have a look at how close Nick Heidfeld was to having his arms crushed in the FE accident in China. Nothing changed or full cover are the only answers that will work, as none of the half-and-half solutions are solutions, and they all look terrible.
 
Jimlaad43
they all look terrible.
Click to expand...

Well, if they all look terrible, and it's needed anyway, why not large diameter steel tubing full roll cage, like we see on USAC sprint cars?

(Click to enlarge)

Edit: Note heavy mesh wire screens in front of cages above
 
Last edited:
Jimlaad43
Because that doesn't solve the small projectiles problem, like the one that nearly killed Massa.
Click to expand...
Put a heavy wire mesh or bulletproof plate glass in front opening of cage. Or both.

Or just put a plate of solid steel in front of the driver and have him see ahead through a battery of roof cams.
 
Jimlaad43
Nothing changed or full cover are the only answers that will work, as none of the half-and-half solutions are solutions, and they all look terrible.
Click to expand...
Agree with this.

It feels like they are trying to do something for the sake of doing it, or they figure getting partway there will make it easier to get all the way there.

Fully enclosed will likely put more pressure on driver comfort and cooling solutions, but I don't buy that the risks for other accident types outweigh the benefits provided.
 
Just go the Gran Turismo Red Bull X car route and make it look like a jet canopy. Close the whole damn thing with a single piece that forms to the shape of the car.

They also have to make a decision by April 30 because that's when the rules for 2018 are finalized. After that they need a unanimous vote from all teams and we know that never happens with the bigger teams being the haves and the lower teams being the have-nots.
 
DesertPenguin09
Just go the Gran Turismo Red Bull X car route and make it look like a jet canopy. Close the whole damn thing with a single piece that forms to the shape of the car.
Click to expand...

This has been explained as to why they don't want to do this. I like the canopy option but there are other ways to do it then a video game fiction. Go read why the FIA have said no to this over and over and over.
 
Because it means they have to change the aero of the entire car, yea yea yea. Well maybe they should have got it sorted before 2017 so they could incorporate those changes into the changes we were already getting. The next time we get a big car design regulation change won't be for a few years, but they need/want the canopy sooner. Ugh...
 
DesertPenguin09
Because it means they have to change the aero of the entire car, yea yea yea. Well maybe they should have got it sorted before 2017 so they could incorporate those changes into the changes we were already getting. The next time we get a big car design regulation change won't be for a few years, but they need/want the canopy sooner. Ugh...
Click to expand...

No, no, no...which is why I told you to go read it. FIA doesn't give a crap about how aero is destroyed in the name of safety, the onus on the teams to make that work. Also once again as I said, to read it, go look it up. The canopy was tested long ago, before the current solutions we've come to see. FIA did research and actual testing on a canopy solution for an F1 car. There is even video.
 
Jimlaad43
A WEC canopy is the only solution that solves all the case studies where Head Protection is needed.
Click to expand...
And is the only solution that creates additional problems. What do you do if a driver gets stuck in the car at a critical moment?

Sure, the chances of that happening are very low - but look at the Surtees and Wilson accidents. They, too, were statistically improbable, and yet they still happened and were treated seriously enough that an engineering solution was deemed necessary to prevent it from ever happening again. By that logic, a driver death from being trapped in a car by the cockpit canopy is a scenario that needs to be considered, and one that cannot be disregarded as being statistically unlikely.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
No, no, no...which is why I told you to go read it. FIA doesn't give a crap about how aero is destroyed in the name of safety, the onus on the teams to make that work. Also once again as I said, to read it, go look it up. The canopy was tested long ago, before the current solutions we've come to see. FIA did research and actual testing on a canopy solution for an F1 car. There is even video.
Click to expand...
There's this article which does a decent job of summarizing the perceived drawbacks.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-set-to-carry-out-closed-cockpit-tests/

I suppose the loose wheel argument is unique to open wheel series, but I don't understand how the other arguments would not apply to Prototype sports cars, for example.
 
The canopies can be opened from either side, there hasn't been any problems in WEC. Have alook at what happened to Luciano Burti in 2001, or Heikki Kovalainen in 2008, where the cars got buried in the tyre wall, or Sainz in 2015 where it got buried in the Tecpro, surely being trapped in a canopy where your head isn't going to be hit by Tecpro is better than being trapped in an open cockpit where a tyre is squashing you down, restricting your movement, or has pinged through the halo and slapped your helmet. All through history, drivers will get trapped after some accidents, that's a given, and you just need to hope it doesn't catch fire, as that's the only thing that will present danger. After Alonso's scary accident last year, drivers were saying they'd rather be trapped in an upside-down car than hit by flying debris.
 
EDK
There's this article which does a decent job of summarizing the perceived drawbacks.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-set-to-carry-out-closed-cockpit-tests/

I suppose the loose wheel argument is unique to open wheel series, but I don't understand how the other arguments would not apply to Prototype sports cars, for example.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that with the major tether solutions and word done that such loose wheels shouldn't happen, but it's not only an open wheel issue. I've seen improper fitted tires fly off in many series and if weren't for closed tops, the drivers coming head on to them wouldn't be driving still. Prototypes use tethers as well.
 
One thing is pretty obvious though, the current chassis designs will need to be redone completely from scratch to properly implement a closed cockpit. Basically I feel like they'll end up with a narrower greenhouse version of an LMP1 car. You can't have a "proper" head protection thing band aided onto these cars, cause it will not work as well and look like ****. If done from the ground up on a new car design, it'll work well and look good.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
It could be argued that with the major tether solutions and word done that such loose wheels shouldn't happen, but it's not only an open wheel issue. I've seen improper fitted tires fly off in many series and if weren't for closed tops, the drivers coming head on to them wouldn't be driving still. Prototypes use tethers as well.
Click to expand...
I guess my point is that they state 2 main issues with closed cockpits in the article I linked -

  1. Risk of the Poly-carbonate either shattering, or launching large debris into spectator areas
  2. Problems with extracting drivers in an accident.
And I am asking why those are not problems with Prototype sports cars. In general, I would say we see a few more flying wheels in open wheel as compared to sports cars, but that's anecdotal.

I just don't understand how the extraction argument applies here, but not there.
 
EDK
I guess my point is that they state 2 main issues with closed cockpits in the article I linked -

  1. Risk of the Poly-carbonate either shattering, or launching large debris into spectator areas
  2. Problems with extracting drivers in an accident.
And I am asking why those are not problems with Prototype sports cars. In general, I would say we see a few more flying wheels in open wheel as compared to sports cars, but that's anecdotal.

I just don't understand how the extraction argument applies here, but not there.
Click to expand...

Because a P1 isn't like that, the entire thing is more actual carbon or aluminum or something stronger. Driver extraction is easier cause doors...
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Because a P1 isn't like that, the entire thing is more actual carbon or aluminum or something stronger. Driver extraction is easier cause doors...
Click to expand...
Exactly. Those things are designed like bunkers, they are the safest race cars on the planet. Plus with the escape hatches (like GTE/GT3), there's no real way to get stuck in one.

DesertPenguin09
Ah, I see. Still horrible how long it's taking though right?
Click to expand...
Because they keep looking for a band aid to the current style car. It's going to take a chassis and bodywork overhaul and redesign to actually get a usable solution that actually works. None of these band aid solutions will do anything. Period. The halo doesn't protect against ANYTHING (massive holes for debris and comes down to the drivers head), the windscreen from Red Bull still allows garbage from above and could have wet weather problems, and this latest iteration, does nothing at all by appearances.
 
Last edited:
DesertPenguin09
Well maybe they should have got it sorted before 2017 so they could incorporate those changes into the changes we were already getting. The next time we get a big car design regulation change won't be for a few years, but they need/want the canopy sooner. Ugh...
Click to expand...

Well... no. If indeed a solution is mandated for 2018 (some days it's definite, some days it's not) then the teams will design around that. I'd call that a major regulation change.
 
Sounds to me like the only way to remove driver risk is remote piloted drone cars. They could go hog wild without humans as design limitations. With the cars and the tracks. Wouldn't everyone just love to see F1 cars racing inverted?

For crying out loud, Schumacher injured his head on a ski slope, after retiring for a second time from an endeavor that could've been fatal every moment he was persevering at it.

If the folks doing it don't want to accept the risks then stop doing it. You could always trip and fall walking out your front door and break your face on the sidewalk.

I say, unless they go the aforementioned drone route, there's just not much else to do.

On another note, can someone @LMSCorvetteGT2 , explain how F1 is able to squeeze 700hp out of these 1.6 liter motors before turbo and electric boost are added? Why not use a bigger displacement ICE. From what I've read these last few days Indycar motors are using 2.2 liter motors and are probably lucky to get 700hp after the twin turbos kick in. The RPM limits appear to be comparable between the series. I realize, in both cases, my research indicates the HP numbers are guesstimates for both. Still, the question begs an answer.

Thanks.
 
Dragonwhisky
On another note, can someone @LMSCorvetteGT2 , explain how F1 is able to squeeze 700hp out of these 1.6 liter motors before turbo and electric boost are added? Why not use a bigger displacement ICE. From what I've read these last few days Indycar motors are using 2.2 liter motors and are probably lucky to get 700hp after the twin turbos kick in. The RPM limits appear to be comparable between the series. I realize, in both cases, my research indicates the HP numbers are guesstimates for both. Still, the question begs an answer.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I don't know what type of power they're making without the Turbo, but I doubt it's close to 700 on motor alone. The V6 units they run though have a good torque curve and a decent revolution (compared to other F1 regs/engines), this all contributes to a high bhp. You also have specialized alloy parts that create less friction, lower overall reciprocating mass. Also the stroke is quite small, hence the shape of the pistons being so different to other engines. And you get a small displacement high horsepower engine.

Oh and the injection pressure is quite high which contributes to more power.

An Indycar engine manufacture doesn't go to such lengths all one has to do is compare prices and you'll see a massive difference in what is being paid for.
 
EDK
I guess my point is that they state 2 main issues with closed cockpits in the article I linked -

  1. Risk of the Poly-carbonate either shattering, or launching large debris into spectator areas
  2. Problems with extracting drivers in an accident.
And I am asking why those are not problems with Prototype sports cars. In general, I would say we see a few more flying wheels in open wheel as compared to sports cars, but that's anecdotal.

I just don't understand how the extraction argument applies here, but not there.
Click to expand...
Because prototypes have doors. That is why this idea would not work on a formula car.
 
Formula cars don't have doors because they have a hole in the top. Putting an canopy and doors on it, but keeping the open wheel aspect doesn't stop it being a Formula Car, and even if it does, you just redefine the definition. Not hard...
 
Jimlaad43
Formula cars don't have doors because they have a hole in the top. Putting an canopy and doors on it, but keeping the open wheel aspect doesn't stop it being a Formula Car, and even if it does, you just redefine the definition. Not hard...
Click to expand...

But what me and obvious @Tired Tyres is saying is that the proposed solution is an issue, cause it doesn't one offer doors, and is completely a lexan structure.
 

Latest Posts

Back