5 ms·
There are so many rules dictating the design of an F1 chassis/engine that I wonder how much faster a "anything goes" car would go.
by sanoli 13y ago
There are so many rules dictating the design of an F1 chassis/engine that I wonder how much faster a "anything goes" car would go.
- retube 13y agoYeah! I always thought it would be mint to be able to do whatever you wanted, put a saturn V engine in it you wanted. Would make great telly. Ditto the paralympics - there should be a class where they can pimp up their kit to the max.
- dagw 13y agoWhat you're describing sounds very close to F1 of the 60's, 70's and early 80's, now keep that in mind and take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_Formula_One_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_Formula_One_accid... As to the question whether or not this would make for "great telly" or not, I leave to those far more cynical than me.
- Swizec 13y agoThis video is an interesting comparison of just how fast F1 cars are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cNqaPSHv0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cNqaPSHv0 IIRC some of those GT cars that look like snails compared to F1 cars are "anything goes". However, here is a truly anything goes car (that has broken the speed barrier on land): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKQ-xj5C2m8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKQ-xj5C2m8 So yeah, an anything goes car will go much faster than an F1 car. But it's going to suck at cornering. We currently don't have anything that can hold such high average speeds as an F1 car can. Not even in any very lightly regulated sport. For interestingness' sake, modern WRC cars reach speeds of 220kph over gravel. Top speeds of F1 cars are around 360kph (the Bugatti Veyron can do 430kph), but F1 cares more about cornering speed than top speed. From Wikipedia: > The large downforce allows an F1 car to corner at amazing speeds. As an example of the extreme cornering speeds; the Blanchimont and Eau Rouge corners at Spa-Francorchamps are taken flat-out at above 300 km/h (190 mph), whereas the race-spec touring cars can only do so at 150–160 km/h (note that lateral force increases with the square of the speed). A newer and perhaps even more extreme example is the Turn 8 at the Istanbul Park circuit, a 190° relatively tight 4-apex corner, in which the cars maintain speeds between 265 and 285 km/h (165 and 177 mph) (in 2006) and experience between 4.5 g and 5.5 g for 7 seconds—the longest sustained hard cornering in Formula 1.
- marvin 13y agoThe real question is how fast an "anything goes" F1 car would go around a racetrack. Especially if you remove the human driver, or make the car remote-controlled.
- Udo 13y ago> Especially if you remove the human driver, or make the car remote-controlled. Now that's something I'd tune in for! A couple of high budget vehicles and sophisticated driver AIs slugging it out on a racetrack, that would definitely be interesting.
- knitatoms 13y agoAgreed - removing the driver would make it much more interesting. Safety regulations could then be relaxed considerably so we'd see more spectacular crashes. Also a human's inability to control a vehicle during high G force cornering severely restricts the speed you can allow the cars to go. And the driver salaries could be donated to charity ;-)
- sanoli 13y agoWhat I meant was what if an F1 team of designers didn't have to be constrained by any rules and could build their dream F1 car. For example, there was one car a couple of decades ago (I think early 80's maybe?) that used a sort of vaccum effect to keep the car sucked to the ground. It improved cornering speeds greatly, but the device was banned. I googled some and found this: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=598933&hw=++ultimate++F1&nmt=Perfect%20F1%20car http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=598933&hw... Couldn't find a link to the original article though. Pretty interesting.
- lloeki 13y ago> a sort of vaccum effect to keep the car sucked to the ground Ground effect[0], thoroughly used in LMP to gain downforce without suffering as much drag as with a wing. Here's what happens when the effect breaks down[1]. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(cars) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(cars) [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIJ4q3PD57A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIJ4q3PD57A
- nikcub 13y agoAdrian Newey (most successful F1 designer in the history of the sport) designed the Red Bull X2010 for the game Gran Turismo based on the concept of building the fastest car possible in an 'anything goes' scenario: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_X2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_X2010 The limit becomes G-forces that a driver can bear, especially over a race distance. They limited it to 6G. For an engine they interestingly picked a 3L V6, where the new F1 formula is a 1.6L V6.
- k__ 13y agoWould it get any faster if they didn't need a driver?
- tobylane 13y agoLikely, as the monocoque (safety cell) has to be fairly tall. It's said above that the limit was 6G, which F1 nearly matches [1] (that GP wasn't for the most powerful engines in ~2000). With no space for driver there could be more aero meaning it could go round a corner like that faster, causing more sideways G. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Grand_Prix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Grand_Prix
- VLM 13y agoAside from space issues I don't think you'd need to spend any weight on safety gear at all. To keep the audience alive, the track safety upgrades would be unfortunately expensive for track owners. To keep the cars on the road, I suspect expensive track modifications would eventually be required. Perfectly vertical turns, perhaps.
- martindale 13y agoLet's just have robots drive them, then.
- davej 13y agoHere's the X2014: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/03/red-bulls-gran-turismo-6-concept-x2014_n_4376333.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/03/red-bulls-gran-tu... Also here's an interesting comparison betweek the X2010 and X2011: http://xn-games.net/okra/2011/10/29/gran-turismo-5-red-bull-x2010-vs-red-bull-x2011-comparison/ http://xn-games.net/okra/2011/10/29/gran-turismo-5-red-bull-... Finally, tech specs and diagrams (indicating load & downforce) for the X2010: http://jonsibal.com/blog/2010/10/red-bull-x1/ http://jonsibal.com/blog/2010/10/red-bull-x1/
- InclinedPlane 13y agoNot much. The top speed for controllable driving in a wheeled vehicle is in the 300mph range. The power and aerodynamics requirements to step up to 400mph are severe. Specifically, the wheel-driven land-speed record is a bit over 400mph (although just last year it climbed up to 440mph) and the vehicles capable of going that fast are nearly incapable of taking turns of any significance at those speeds. Jet powered vehicles are capable of going faster, even mach 1, but they have the same controllability problems. If we were to hypothesize a future extreme sport of ultra fast racing in the 300mph or 400mph speed range then a few problems become immediately apparent. First, you'd need a specially designed course with very gradual turns. Also the roadway would have to be kept immaculately clean of debris. Second, the races would not last very long due to high rates of fuel consumption. For example, the Bluebird CN7 consumes fuel at top speed at about 260 gallons per hour (and has a 25 gallon tank), while the ThrustSSC consumes fuel at a rate of 24 gallons/mile. Third, passing would be extremely dangerous because even disrupting another vehicle's aerodynamics in any way, let alone physical contact, could cause it to become uncontrollable resulting in a very damaging and life threatening crash.
- joosters 13y agoPerhaps the turning could be improved if jets were used for steering as well? But by this point, you are effectively left with a rocket that just happens to have some circular things that touch the ground.
- dagw 13y agoJust make the wheels optional and set a 1.5 meter flight ceiling.
- gaius 13y agoAnd you've got Wipeout :-)
- Gravityloss 13y agoYou'd rather use aerodynamic surfaces for turning as well as the speed increased. It would start resembling aerobatic aircraft like Extra 300. High aerodynamic acceleration is an old thing, it's how they actually discovered G-induced loss of consciousness. If you are mostly doing the racing with electronic motors, there's less noise and it's not as interesting anymore. Therefore some airstream operated whistle or siren would be useful, as you could deduce the speed directly from it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC9Lmr5mjJQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC9Lmr5mjJQ
- exDM69 13y ago> There are so many rules dictating the design of an F1 chassis/engine that I wonder how much faster a "anything goes" car would go. The cars could be made so fast that humans could not drive the cars any more. In addition, safety of the audience would be compromised and the costs would be prohibitively expensive to maintain competition. While there has been a set of rules and regulations always in Formula 1 (that's what the name "formula" refers to), there have been periods when the cars have been ridiculously quick, despite all the limiting regulations. In the late 1970's ground effect cars were able to produce a huge amount of downforce with very little drag, and the cars would corner at high speeds and had a rock hard suspension, the drivers hated the cars because of the rough ride. In the 1980's, there were turbo engines that developed more than 1300 horsepower in qualifying trim. They could spin the wheels on top gear when the boost kicks in. This was expensive, stupid and dangerous but the audience loved it. In the early 2000's, aerodynamic advances and improvements in computational fluid dynamics made it possible to get immense amounts of downforce. Cars regularly reached top speeds of 340-360 km/h, and ran at more than 400km/h outside of regular racing/testing in special top speed configuration. The costs were ridiculous and only a few top teams were competitive. The teams used up to 8 engines per weekend (that's roughly as much as they use in the whole season). "Anything goes" is just not a good idea when it comes to motorsport. There are things that have been banned in the past that could be incorporated in a fast and safe racing formula, though.
- mseebach 13y agoA meaningful "anything goes" tournament (compare "freestyle chess") would probably have as the single rule that there can't be a driver in the car. That, on the other hand, would probably remove most of the audience appeal, as it's just not that interesting to see machines compete (as is also the case with freestyle chess). No audience means no money and no money means no R&D budget. So that's probably why it wouldn't work.
- TheLegace 13y agoI don't know when I think about how the F1 car can drive upside down it almost makes me want to see these awesome 3D tracks where cars do all sorts of death defying racing and tracks that we have seen in science fiction become possible because advance AIs are so much faster. Maybe people would want to watch it on video or even VR so it seems like they are actually there. Who knows if done right it could be a better experience then looking at 1 piece of a race track for hours.
- beat 13y agoThere used to be an "anything goes" series… the original Can-Am (1966-1986) - what Car and Driver called "the vehicular equivalent of great white sharks in a goldfish bowl". The regulations were basically "two seats, enclosed fenders". There was effectively no regulation of engine size or configuration, or of aerodynamics. It was abandoned in part due to extreme cost, and in part due to the safety problems. The last straw for Can-Am, really, was Porsche simply pouring money into it with the 917 until no one could compete with them, rendering the racing kind of boring. Tight regulation in F1 and other racing forms keeps the focus on the driver, not the car.
- corresation 13y agoTight regulation in F1 and other racing forms keeps the focus on the driver, not the car. F1 has always been about the car, and the most heralded of driver in one car often becomes completely humdrum in another, and vice versa. Tight regulations simply change the parameters that the car makers have to optimize, and ultimately came about because without continually restricting the engineering, the cars were becoming impossibly fast. The only series that are really about the driver have identical cars. I believe that is how the Formula E thing is planned, for instance, at least to begin.
- stan_rogers 13y agoSafety problems, indeed. The 917/30, f'rinstance, had a chassis and bodywork you'd be leery of building into a child's pedal car wrapped around a twin-turbo flat twelve that could deliver 1800 bhp when turned up to eleven (and, given the turbos of the time, that power was pretty much on/off rather than something you could lay on gradually). But those were the days when "retirement" and "race car driver" were practically mutually exclusive terms.
- josephlord 13y agoI don't think "anything goes" would be wise but there may room for an interesting race with very minimal rules. e.g. 1) Total fuel limit (of specified type etc.). Gives all cars equal energy budget to use. Maybe some fuel could be traded for pre-charged batteries for KERS type systems. 2) Size limits. Must be narrow enough to overtake, short enough to fit in a pit box and maybe a height limit too. 3) Safety requirements and possibly a minimum weight to allow for sufficient safety without overly compromising safety. There would still be plenty of things that could be done that are currently forbidden such as active aerodynamics so the car could actually have one or more rudders to assist with cornering etc. and that wings could flatten into aerodynamic shapes. I could almost imagine the cars no longer using their brakes before corners but instead increasing downforce enough to take the corner and that increased drag being the only reason that they slow down at all.
- protomyth 13y agoWell, even Indy had to tone down the cars for places like Texas Motor Speedway because the drivers were passing out in the corners. Daytona and Talladega are run with restrictor plates in NASCAR for much the same reason. The cars have been able to go faster than drivers can handle for a long time.
- ericcumbee 13y agoNascar put restrictors on the car because they were hitting 212 average laps. And Nascar was not comfortable pushing the cars or tires (Nascar had open tire competition back then) farther than they wanted. so the solution was limit the amount of air an engine could take in. which created massive packs that cause 30 car wrecks. In my opinion it's probably killed more people than the cars running at 212 would have.
- protomyth 13y agoRusty Wallace did 228 mph at Talladega Superspeedway without a restrictor plate in 2004. The new car probably could do a bit more than that. Racing at that speed would be insane and all the safety advances since wouldn't be effective. Further, they were implemented because Bobby Allison crashed into a retaining fence at around 210 mph. This is big no-no in NASCAR because fan's shouldn't be in danger[1]. Looking at what has happened in other series to fans at high speed needs to be a consideration. I don't think a race at 228 mph would be safer than a restrictor plate race and I am pretty sure it would kill more people. 1) look at all the attention to the Nationwide Race where the catch fence failed
- ericcumbee 13y agoYeah the cars needed to be slowed down. However the Restrictor plates were the wrong way to do it.
- protomyth 13y agoWhat would you propose?
- jdietrich 13y agoThere's a reason for those rules - F1 is a sport haunted by the memory of dozens of dead drivers. The only way to ensure driver safety is to keep cornering speeds manageable and restrict the use of high-risk technologies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8t_QzZJn7M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8t_QzZJn7M