Remember guys: Horsepower sells cars, hp/L wins races.

 

J/K?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marcus

 

Most if not all F1 cars are actually built under the minimum weight, because the cars are designed to allow for ballast to be placed in various stategic areas of the chassis to tune the balance of the car for a particular track. Another advantage is that it places more weight down as low a possible to help with the center of gravity.

The 3.0 foumula was intoduced in 1995 to cut down on power after Ayrton Senna was killed the previous year (for the reaminder of 94 the teams ran with holes in the airbox). Strangly, today's motors are much more powerful.

If left to their own devices the manufactorers would certainly come upon a more ideal comprimise between power size and weight, just like the did when the settled in on the v10 as the ideal, rather than v8s and v12s. What exactly that would be is anyone's guess. I doubt that the displacement would increase dramatically though.

 

The cars would go for bigger engine with more power.
Look what happened at Indy in 1994. Penske ran a physically larger 3.4L (1020hp) pushrod motor because it produced ~170hp more than the 2.65L DOHC (at the time ~850hp) motors. The Penske cars looked like camels thanks to the taller air box. It didn

 

Hmmm... as I recall the Penske / Mercedes pushrod package was substantially faster down the straights. I recall the cars pushing 250mph at the end of the straights during practice. I also remember that the chassis was less than sterling and that they needed a good deal of that extra power to be competitive when they ran the pushrod package.

 

thanks for the info doc, i thought F1 cars were a little over the min weight limit!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr. WOT
Most if not all F1 cars are actually built under the minimum weight, because the cars are designed to allow for ballast to be placed in various stategic areas of the chassis to tune the balance of the car for a particular track.

 

My limited experience indicates that the tighter the rules are, the more it costs (R & D) to gain an advantage. A second a lap advantage might cost you $10 million a year in F1. In a less sophisticated class with a more open rule book, it might cost you $100,000.

When you look at the chassis and the tube shapes for the suspensions and all the little winglets, etc. You can only guess the $$ and wind-tunnel time that it took to figure out the optimum setup.

With current materials there is a limit to how light you can get the car and still have it stiff enough to allow the suspension to work and also protect the driver. I seem to remember some rules about exotic materials, but I don't know if they were ever passed for F1.

If I were a car manufacturer and I had to choose between having a big advantage on the straight or in a turn. I'd take the straightline advantage. It's easier to pass on the straight and block in the turn.

 

Slithr, it's not always the simple... speed on the straights has as much to do with the exit speed from the last corner as it does pure grunt in a straight line.

You are quite right about the materials and the point of diminishing returns. The car the McLaren designed for the 2003 season ended up never being raced (pretty much unprecedented and hugely embarrassing). Adrian Newey tried to push the envelope too far, making too light, and is so doing lost the integrity... the car flexed changing suspension geometry and aerodynamics. Alex Wurz suffered a few monstrous crashes at high speed testing the car. Just as with all things, there is a fine line and finding the right balance is the key.

 

You are correct about corner exit speed. It's amazing how many passes are put down to h.p. when the guy really exited the previous corner 5 mph faster. I keep trying to remember; slow in/fast out.