If there was no FIA, how fast do you think F1 cars would be now?

  • Thread starter Thread starter X-Othermic
  • 31 comments
  • 2,013 views
X-Othermic

X-Othermic

Messages
570
Lets have a think. If there was no technical restrictions of any kind, on anything in F1, how fast do you think that the F1 cars would be now? There was a feature in F1 racing about a year ago, which said that F1 cars would be about 12 seconds a lap faster around Silverstone, but that was using real day V10's like used in 2005. Exculding all restricions on anything, how fast do you think F1 would be today?
 
SO fast... drivers cant drive them at the limit.

Imagine all these in a car: slicks, ground effects, quad front wheels?, humungous fans behind to create downforce, lets say 3.5 litre V10, maybe cvt, all the driver aids.

I think the driver will faint from the g forces :dopey:
 
There'd be Gas Turbine engines, 6 wheels and GPS controlled steering except for overtaking.

Oh and 12 inch spikes protrueding from the wheels.
 
The cars would drive themselves, of course.
 
No driver could survive cars made with no regulations. Hell, the cars themselves probably wouldn’t be be able to handle to forces.
 
The problem with the whole idea is that without the FIA, there would be no Formula One. That being said, I'll throw my hat into the ring:
Honda and Toyota would have Quad-Turbocharged and Oct-Intercooled 2.0L Inline-4's (2.8L Inline-6 in Toyota's case) putting out 1700 BHP and revving all the way to 20,000 RPM
Red Bull Racing would have NA 4.0L V-8's with around 1650 BHP revving to 18,000 RPM
Ferrari would have NA 3.0L Flat-12's putting out 1750 BHP revving to 25,000 RPM
BMW would have Supercharged 5.0L "Torquemonster" V-10's putting out 1600 BHP and revving to "only" 15,000 RPM.
And those are the only teams that would be left. Each car has a 8-speed semi-auto three clutch transmission, except the BMW, which would have a 4-speed version to use the cars torque.
Ferrari would a have a complete ground effects package with a double-box rear spoiler ala Peugoet 905 with inlets for the liquid nitrogen cooling setup.
BMW would have a split front wing similar to the one on the GP car of a few years ago, only now it would work, with a rear wing intergrated into the engine cooling outlet.
Honda and Toyota would have fans (Toyota would have 2, Honda would have 5) pulling air out from underneath the car ala Chaparral 2J an shoving it into the intercoolers and radiators, along with a simple "wedge" spoiler on the rear of the car and a full front splitter.
All of the car's engines and transmissions would be made of titanium, and the rest would be carbon fibre.
This is all hypothetical of course. :D
 
Lmao. I could totally see them using liquid nitrogen and 6 inch thick engine blocks. A tungsten-/titanium-carbide crankcase and tranny. Lol.
 
F1Racing magazine asked Williams that a few months back, and they came up with this:

 
I wonder how much lighter the cars would/could be. Current regulations limit them to 605kg in racing trim, but I read a while back that some of the teams were using as much as 150kg of ballast to get up to 605kg. If, for example, the teams decided to use something like a 3 litre twin turbo V8, they could probably attain something in the region of 2000bhp with some semblance of reliability and driveability. Exotic fuel blends would presumably feature again as they did in the 80s). 4000+ bhp/tonne with masses of downforce (perhaps the teams would stay away from the unpredictability of ground effects at these ultra high speeds, they might rely on conventional overbody aerodynamics) and only ~450kg of mass to accelerate would be a sight to behold.

The Williams illustration is interesting in terms of tyres. I see they favour a quad rear wheel arrangement but not a quad front wheel arrangement. Perhaps 2 wheels at each corner would be a better solution in a truly ultimate solution (less drag with 2 smaller tyres than one large one, higher overall grip, larger contact patch) and they'd have to be slicks. Unlimited tyre technology alone could be worth several seconds per lap.

CVT gearboxes (as TsLeng has already mentioned) would probably be on the bill too. Relentless acceleration, not punctuated by gearshifts, would obviously decrease acceleration times and would not upset the balance of the car (moving from full acceleration to slight deceleration during normal upshifts).

Active suspension would definitely be in there. Permanently keeping the car at the ideal orientation in terms of aerodynamics and systems such as anti-dive, anti-squat, anti-roll etc would keep the driver a little more comfortable and ultimately allow the car to go faster.
 
I thought they ALL had like 6 and 8 wheels. My bad.
 
Let's not forget that many drivers actually hated driving the side-skirted-wonders they called F1 cars from 1979-1982. Some of the best even argued that talent wasn't necessary, as long as their balls were big enough to keep thier foot planted down through the corners. These cars were dangerous, and it's a good thing they went away. You haven't seen them in any form of motorsport since; save mid-1980's Can-Am, since the engines made much less much power, and couldn't take advantange of downforce in the same manner as F1 cars.

Although the Brabham BT48 "sucker-car" might-have-been a good solution. Lauda and Watson proclaimed them to be very easy to drive. Too easy.

Let's not forget that races might be a little longer (just under 200 miles, save Monaco), the 2-hour rule wouldn't apply, and fans could actually look at the cars and drivers in the paddock. Safety cars, medical experts with transport, sandtraps, and guardrail would be optional.

Teams could also paint both their cars how they wished...
 
I really don't believe Williams would produce something like that. Engineers like those should know four rear wheels is downright stupid. Sure, more grip, but when you've got super-slicks you don't need much more. Someone already tried four rear wheels and totally failed.

Four fronts is the way to go. You limit the drag and have enough space between the front and rear wheels to do something with the air that would hit the rears to limit drag. You also have improved cornering AND braking, one of the most important things in F1.

I just think Williams was afraid to say what they really thought. I would be too.

In my dream of F1 without that many limitations... the cars would have six wheels (four fronts) more wings than BAR, and CVTs. CVTs are the way to go because you can hold the engine at its maximum power...forever (well, until drag limitations, but you know what I mean)
 
CVTs?

edit: Oh, variable trannies. nevermind.
 
iceburns288
I really don't believe Williams would produce something like that. Engineers like those should know four rear wheels is downright stupid. Sure, more grip, but when you've got super-slicks you don't need much more. Someone already tried four rear wheels and totally failed.
Click to expand...
IIRC, Williams tried it and broke the lap record at the track they were testing at. The car was banned before it could race.

Remember, you would get massive traction benefits from running 4 driving wheels. :D
 
Plus, if you had like 12 hundred horses, the car would be balanced even with 4 wheels. You could power-over every turn without powering-over. lol.
 
Blake
IIRC, Williams tried it and broke the lap record at the track they were testing at. The car was banned before it could race.

Remember, you would get massive traction benefits from running 4 driving wheels. :D
Click to expand...
It was at Paul Ricard, in the winter of 1981-82.

Tyrrell worked with 4 front tires (half-sized) for the innovative P34, and it wasn't half bad, but Goodyear didn't put much innovation and testing into those smaller tires as the year wore on. In 1977, the P34 wasn't as competitive anymore.

March tried a 6-wheeler in '77 called the 2-4-0 with four large wheels, but March's F1 program was running short of cash, so there wasn't much development.

The FIA also banned rotory engines, 4WD, and turbines in the 1982-83 off-season.
 
AWD may be tried, but in the end, do F1 cars need any more front end understeer?

Four rear tires would definitely be interesting. At around 1500hp, I think driveline losses from the extra axle would be more than compensated by the extra grip. And think how many more laps they could go with more tires.

I see unrestricted F1 cars looking a lot like LeMans cars with longer tails. They'd have ground effects that would serve double duty. Two small ground effects fans would serve to cool the brakes on the faired front tires, one front-central fan would serve for ground effects and to cool off the cockpit. Two large rear fans would shoot straight through the radiators.

The body would resemble a McLaren F1, maybe, with a long boat-tail. Coefficient of drag would be around 0.27. In the corners, small canards at the front would swivel to increase downforce, small airbrakes would pop up over the front wheel-wells to help slow the car down and maximize the downforce and cooling effect of the front ground effects fans mentioned earlier.

The long boat tail would turn into a mulit-piece variable wing... the large area of the wing ensures a maximum disruption of the airflow behind the car, making it very difficult for other cars to tuck in behind it. The variable tilt would ensure maximum airflow over the wing, even if the car is cornering. Ferrari got some flak over apparently flexible wings before... this is the same concept taken further.

The front and rear wheels could be faired in. Changes over a couple of seasons could see the introduction of rear-steer on some cars, but the extra weight might not be worth it. Some cars may have AWD, some might have six wheels, with either double drive wheels or double steering wheels. Some may just possibly have eight. More than eight would be ridiculous, but who knows? With better aerodynamics, many teams may drop the fairings, as they make wheel changes difficult.

Gas turbines are too fuel-hungry. The car still needs to do between 35-70 laps. I'd bet on a turbocharged small-capacity V6 or V12, or maybe even rotaries (they don't have to last more than one race). Engine output would be around 1200-1500hp... but if the series lasts into this decade, 1700-2000hp wouldn't be so far-fetched.

Oh, cars would have traction control, ABS, EBD and everything else. Engine management programs could be programmed to adapt braking and rev-limiters to various corners and tracks (I know this has been experimented on). Plus complicated systems to control the variable tilt aerodynamics and ground effects. Pilots could have aero-switches, that would allow them to increase wing effect in corners to create enough turbulence to make things very uncomfortable for opponents behind them, or to make the car as sleek as possible in the straights, eliminating drafting.
 
zoxxy
I can't imagine what it would be like, but it's sure as hell that it would be boring to watch.
Click to expand...

I will agree that it would probably be boring to watch. Ferrari or somebody else would be running circles around the competition and eventually F1 would be no more.
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
I will agree that it would probably be boring to watch. Ferrari or somebody else would be running circles around the competition and eventually F1 would be no more.
Click to expand...

Plus, since it would be just too dangerous the drivers would stop racing. I think that the 82-83 season was as dangerous it could be without too many drivers leaving.

@ Pupik: The turbos wasn't banned until after the 1988 season.
 
i watched a TV programme and Jordan (now Midlan racing) and they said within a month they could of tripled the downforce on a car!

i think it would be kewl to have 2000bhp F1 cars, there would probobly be al lot of crashes as well, so the sport wou;d be banded if it happened.
 
joseph dobson
i watched a TV programme and Jordan (now Midlan racing) and they said within a month they could of tripled the downforce on a car!
Click to expand...
Yes, but did they mention that the extra drag would have slowed the car down more than the downforce would speed it up?
 

Latest Posts

Back