so how clever are the F1 engineers exactly?

Exactly, the boundaries of the design, based on other far more important considerations leave the driver in the present position. He is sandwiched into the "space available" due to the requirements of axial center of gravity, the need for a high nose to control airflow under the mid sections of the car and create downforce under the car. A smal amount of aerodynamic drag (that is mitigated by careful design) is an acceptable tradeoff for the other benefits of higher cornering speed that is gained with the present configuration.

Being an engineer and designer by profession I've often found that "everybody thinks they are a designer". They get a silly idea and think they have solved the worlds problems. In my experience, very few of them are truly as earth shaking as the originators think they are, and most of them flat don't work.

 

Nope. Energy can be focused as desired, by design.

 

How would they go about lying a driver down? It would certainly be harder to face the road without some sort of neck strain. It would be harder to control the steering wheel and pedals. It would take a few years of training for a driver to get used to controls that are so counter-intuitive compared to conventional car controls.

How about in the event of a crash. If you make them lie down feet-ahead, in the event of a crash, the force transfers from the legs to the spine... pretty much killing the driver. If you make them lie down head first batman style then boom, headshot.

 

Just more excuses for a failure to innovate. Yawn...

 

Oh please. Flat screen TV monitors can replace non-aerodynamic mirrors. F-117 pilots can fly with the windows closed. Put cheap $10 web cams all over the car, feed the views to some flat screens inside, such as the tiny screens used on TV sunglasses, and the driver's field of vision can be expanded to a greater field of view than humanly possible unassisted, plus the view can be stabilized to remove bounces/vibrations, and you can include a zoom that gives the driver a sharper close-up picture ahead, as desired.

No neck strain because you place the TV glasses in the most favorable position for the driver.

You don't need a steering wheel, either. Aircraft have been flown by stick/rudder pedals for over a century.



Please kids...innovations are overwhelming. F1 engineers just aren't thinking of them.

 

What can more safely take greater impact...landing on your bottom as you parachute to the ground from 10,000 feet, or landing on your feet?

 

Why even have the driver in the car. Saves weight, simplifies packaging, takes the danger out of the equation. Just a giant RC car.

 

Because there is a delay in the remote driver figuring out what to do, the transmitter processing the remote driver's input, the receiver in the car processing the remote's signal, and the equipment on the car responding. A remote driver doesn't obtain the same *feedback* from the car as does an in-car driver, as well.

It also reduces the sport's fan appeal.

 

Not to mention the lack of athleticism intrinsic in sport.

 

As far sa I know the harness has nothing to do with bottoms. What about negative Gs under braking, it would rip you in half......

 

Nope. Just need a harness with a different shape.



See, this thread is *precisely* what I'm talking about. F1 has become *excuses* for not innovating.

That's unclever.

 

Its an interesting question. Aerodynamics really must be an imprecise science. Since each team is told to make "THE MOST AERODYNAMICALLY GREAT CAR", yet they all come up with different solutions.

Why the cars are faster this year? I don't think they are fast every track. Slick tyres let them go through slow speed corners a lot faster, and those are the corners where an F1 driver can make up a lot of speed.

Also the sneaky Brawn/Toyota/Williams double diffusers added a huge amount of Downforce without any drag (apparently, I don't know too much about this) ----> Lap times.

 

and this thread has become laugh out loud silly. F1 engineers are all idiots! you are a genious for bringing it to the attention of us F-chatters--who are even bigger idiots than the ridiculously stupid people designing those race cars... you da man! thread of the year. give this man a cigar!

 

Sigh...


Mocking reality isn't going to aid your cause.


F1 wants to hold down speeds.

F1 wants to be a sport, not a science bed.

Laying down is more aerodynamic than sitting up.

Tiny web cams and interior flat screen TVs are more aerodynamic than exterior side-view and rear-view mirrors.

Active braking stops faster than passive braking.

These are all truths. They are axiomatic. They are all innovations that aren't being thought about by F1 engineers, yet are being used by aerospace companies, solar racers, and soldiers on the battlefield.

If F1 engineers want to be thought of as being clever, then they'll have to do at least as well as designers in other fields.

 

What cause is that.?

Yes but not to an extent it is slower than a lower series.

It is a sport! why is wanting to be a sport? and why can't it be a test bed for science.

So how do you suggest they do this within the given required specification rules of the car, yes I'am interested.

They have web cams mainly for TV purposes plus some of the cars are using the exterior mirror supports as aero.

If you believe you are above F1 engineers and could show them how to do it, as I said your in the wrong job... however I doubt it.

 

This thread has not become a bunch of excuses, it is a "discussion". All of us have opinions, just some are more stubbon than others

 

Every sanctioning body want to control top speeds. the designers come up with new way to gain speed through aerodynamics, mechanical grip, and reduction of friction all with in a tight set of rules

It is a science exercise. Making a highly stressed engine last 3 race weekends. There are advances in materials, lubrication, and Mfg. techniques have all applications of science.

Take a look at my points I made in Post #41

Active driver aids have been banned over the year, including active suspension, traction control, Etc. On top of this placing electric motors inside the wheels to have them reverse direction add weight and would not do much for slowing the car down once it has lost contact with the road. On top of this you now have a wheel that still has kinetic energy, if the wheel were to be broken away from the chassis not you have a dangerous flying projectile that has more stored energy than a wheel that has been locked up by the brakes.

I tell you what if you really want to put your money where your mouth is. Show us your design of a F1 car. The one stipulation is it has to fall into the rules of a F1 car under 2009 or 2010 rules. You have to design the car that allows the tallest driver currently in F1 to fit inside. The engine has to be a 90degree V8 due to the engine freeze.

 

Speaking of, u guys noticed some extra winglets on the sidepods of Ferrari, Mclaren and Brawn? It's located near the side mirrors of the car. I thought all those extra stuff was banned this season?

 

The Mirror mounts are exempted from the technical regulations dealing with apendages on the body work I.E. winglets, barge boards. etc.

This is why the Ferrari Mirror mounts have been shaped like a turning vane all season long it is a grey area in the rules and the teams are taking advantage of it.

 

Indeed. BUT on the Brawn the mirrors are not mounted on the sidepods as they are on the Ferrari, and yet it still has the blades or what ever they are on the sidepods. Not sure about the Mclaren.

 

Where do you get these ideas? If you were an engineer working for me and you came up with this kind of nonsense I'd fire you. What you are proposing has no basis in science. Spinning the wheels backwards with electric motors would only shread tires and cause any vehicle to spin out of control. The maximum friction coffecient is obtained with the tires on the edge of traction without slipping. Slipping, skidding or spinning of tires results in a loss of lateral force capability and loss of control.

You are confusing the concept of flywheel energy storage with braking and there is a difference that you clearly don't understand. In flywheel energy storage the energy from the vehicle at speed is transferred to a flywheel and stored there until it can be used. This has nothing to do with braking.

I'm all for innovation, but if you think that you've got such great engineering ideas, maybe you should go get an engineering degree FIRST and learn some physics before you go out an make a fool out of yourself with tripe like this.

 

Another example of how in today's F1 engineers have to be lawyers as well

 

So from that conclusion there are clever..

 

To be sure. Real boffins they

 

I think I'll yield to solofast's rebuttal to the design concepts proposed as he clearly has a fundamental understanding of aero & mechanical engineering. I'm no engineer but some of the concepts discussed here are beyond laughable to anyone who has driven a race car.

1) Having the driver on his back or stomach would be same as putting a bullet into his head - no matter what type of harness is developed. For example, if Massa were prone during his shunt in Hungary, Ferrari would be in the process of erecting a monument to him in that his spinal column would have exited his body via the top of skull. Or how about getting punted from behind? Its no better.

I would guess that poster who suggested that has never turned a lap in open wheel or prototype race car. I've driven Star Mazda and currently have an IMSA Lites car. Obviously both of these cars are light years from a grand prix machine, but nevertheless the braking forces placed on the driver can be pretty intense. As such, I don't think any race driver would ever dream about placing himself in a prone position. I was talking to Sascha Maassen (ex Penske Porsche RS Spyder driver) at Sebring in 2007 & said that under braking going into the hairpin he could actually feel the steering wheel flex forward! Transferring that energy directly into the spinal column doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

A harness, no matter the type, theoretical or not, by definition secures the driver to the car. Hence, energy is transferred from the car to driver...who happens to be prone, and therefor upon impact dead or crippled at best.

2) Having "active braking" by the system proposed earlier is absurd and again conceived by someone who has never driven a race car. Simply put, (aside from the exponentially increased tire degradation), the input of any steering correction under that type of braking with the wheels trying to move in reverse would launch the car into an instant spin. Period.

For the most part all F1 cars are within a hair of next one - it's a very fine line between 1st and last & common sense dictates that it must be because each machine is so well conceived and built. If you want to squeeze more speed out these cars perhaps you should look at tire manufacturers. Tires are the single most influential component of the car. As such, perhaps the venom directed at F1 designers should be steered towards Bridgestone engineers to come up with an earth shattering compound which weighs 1/4 of its current weight, is super sticky & won't ever break loose in the corners, is hard & fast on the straights and lasts an entire race!