so how clever are the F1 engineers exactly?

With all due respect, I think a few of your premises are flawed. As has been stated before, a designer is given a mandated set of parameters to work with for each section of the car (front wing, rear wing, etc). If you are given a hypothetical box of X volume to design a wing, there are only so many variations that one can come up with - each of which are a defacto nuanced variation on a common theme (the devil is in the details). In essence, they are not designing a car from the ground up but rather a bunch of separate pieces that fit together to become a grand prix car. Put all of those "boxes" for each section of the car together and of course, each car will look similar and it will appear as though the designers are not creative. Break the design design down into small and I think they're terribly creative given the regulations.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Adrian Newey's of the sport and the 100 engineers he has working for him on CFD, models, wind tunnel time etc. I find it hard to believe that a team of engineers with a bottomless budget and resources who's only purpose are innovate new ways to eek out a few hundredths of second have somehow failed to turn over a stone that us shmucks on an internet forum see as such an obvious gain in time.

The analogy of the 2004 cell phone to 2009 cell phone to a F1 machine isn't valid. It's a hell of a lot easier to make a substantial leap forward when the product in question has limited development and there are no rules limiting what you can design. I'd say the cell phone is nearing its peak in development of what it can do. How much farther can it go? It's only going to be refined from here on out. Look at the TV. Color TV is probably the last innovation, everything else (the tiny Sony watchman, rear projections, plasma, LCD) is just refinement. The picture on my 2 year old plasma is no better than the picture on my 10 year old Lowe tube TV. The F1 chassis has probably reached its peak in development as well (as per current rules) and can only be refined. By no means does that mean the designers are "mailing it in", so to speak.

The claim that active braking is being used on jets...what's that got to do with a race car? Brakes on a jet are designed to STOP the aircraft ONCE - and I'm sure that application is the best solution to that problem. Brakes on an F1 car are meant to quickly SLOW it as it approaches a change in direction without upsetting its balance and desired line of travel. This is best done by modulating the wheels forward rotation, not trying to reverse it. Upon release of the pedal with the active braking application there would have to be a moment where the wheel hesitates and reverses it direction of travel from backwards (or neutral) to forward, which would result in at best, a sudden lurch forward. I'll take you at your word that you have driven an open wheel car (if you've driven a race car with carbon brakes you know the insane stopping power they have). Ask yourself what happens when you are heavy on the brakes going into a corner AND turn the wheel. Nothing good is the answer. Now imagine what happens in the same situation when the wheels are trying to move in reverse. Get your checkbook ready to repair your wrinkled machine. I don't think jets factor trailbraking into their design!

As to trying to keep the prone driver from life in wheelchair upon impact, it can't be done. As I said earlier, any harness must attach the driver to the car thereby transferring the energy of the impact to the spine, bent knees or not. The spine is in line with the direction of travel...no innovation can change that. The only theory that would work is if the driver magically levitates in the cockpit so as to not absorb the energy.

Again, given the rules, the chassis can only be refined at this point. The greatest gains in time would have to come from the tires, radical engine redesigns and the loosening of regulations to allow for independent wheel braking, etc.

 

Incorrect on all points. You are stuck thinking inside a very small box, just like F1 engineers. The driver's spine does *not* have to be in the line of travel, for instance. You could lay the driver down with face-feet aligned 20 degrees to the right of center.

In other words, you can place the driver at an angle. I'm not saying that you *must* place the driver at an angle. Nope. Instead I'm showing you that you *can* place the driver in a position other than directly straight ahead.

What your above post is really saying is that everything that can be invented, innovated, and done, has been done already...and that's just laughable because the helmet alone will soon morph into having hyper-sight with zoom tv cameras and wide angle tv cameras projecting images inside the helmet.

Side view & rear view mirrors will be replaced by rear-facing cameras sending their signals to flexible displays or projectors inside the cockpit (or even inside the helmet itself). That alone will allow the aero-drag from the ancient exterior mirrors to be eliminated.


Innovations are feasting to break into F1...it's just that the current crop of F1 engineers aren't going to think of any of them. Heck, they probably won't understand reverse thrust braking any better than you...and you completely botched it above.

 

Of course they have thought of it. It's not exactly a revolutionary idea It was being tried as far back as the 60's in professional racing.

Clearly not the case. Innovations like mass dampers, active suspension, traction control, electronic clutches and brake controllers, paddle shifting, semi-auto sequential gearboxes, data logging and so much more are all things that appeared first in Formula one, born in the minds of brilliant engineers who were thinking outside the box.

There is tons of innovation in Formula 1.



The bottom line is that the rules do prevent a driver racing in the prone position or on their back. Not necessarily through a specifically targeted rule, but rather by a set of rules that place very strict requirements on various measurements, thereby making a driver laying down into a liability instead of an asset. If you read through the technical regulations, you can see for yourself how the idea that they haven't thought of it is in error. The rules specify measurements in millimeters for many things. So many of the dimensions of the car are already fixed within the rules, that there is not significant enough leeway for the team to make a car with accomodation for a laying down driver.

 

Is that a guess, or can you name such an effort?

 

Midgets.

They'll use em soon.

You heard it here first.

 

Bernie's been in the sport for years.

 

Wrong.

ARTICLE 13: COCKPIT

13.1 Cockpit opening:

13.1.1 In order to ensure that the opening giving access to the
cockpit is of adequate size, the template shown in Drawing 2 will
be inserted into the survival cell and bodywork.
During this test the steering wheel, steering column, seat and all
padding required by Articles 14.6.1-6 (including fixings), may be
removed and :
- the template must be held horizontal and lowered vertically from
above the car until its lower edge is 525mm above the reference
plane ;
- referring to Drawing 2, the edge of the template which lies on the
line d-e must be no less than 1800mm behind the line A-A shown
in Drawing 5.
Any measurements made from the cockpit entry template (when
referred to in Articles 13.1.3, 14.3.3,15.2.2, 15.4.5, 15.4.6, 15.5.4,
16.3 and 18.4), must also be made whilst the template is held in
this position.

13.1.2 The forward extremity of the cockpit opening, even if
structural and part of the survival cell, must be at least 50mm in
front of the steering wheel.

13.1.3 The driver must be able to enter and get out of the
cockpit without it being necessary to open a door or remove any
part of the car other than the steering wheel. When seated
normally, the driver must be facing forwards and the rearmost part
of his crash helmet may be no more than 125mm forward of the
rear edge of the cockpit entry template.
13.1.4 From his normal seating position, with all seat belts
fastened and whilst wearing his usual driving equipment, the driver
must be able to remove the steering wheel and get out of the car
within 5 seconds and then replace the steering wheel in a total of
10 seconds.

13.2 Steering wheel:
The steering wheel must be fitted with a quick release mechanism
operated by pulling a concentric flange installed on the steering
column behind the wheel.
13.3 Internal cross section:
13.3.1 A free vertical cross section, which allows the outer
template shown in Drawing 3 to be passed vertically through the
cockpit to a point 100mm behind the face of the rearmost pedal
when in the inoperative position, must be maintained over its entire
length.
The only things which may encroach on this area are the steering
wheel and any padding that is required by Article 14.6.7.

13.3.2 A free vertical cross section, which allows the inner
template shown in Drawing 3 to be passed vertically through the
cockpit to a point 100mm behind the face of rearmost pedal when
in the inoperative position, must be maintained over its entire
length.
The only thing which may encroach on this area is the steering
wheel.
13.3.3 The driver, seated normally with his seat belts fastened
and with the steering wheel removed must be able to raise both
legs together so that his knees are past the plane of the steering
wheel in the rearward direction. This action must not be prevented
by any part of the car.
13.4 Position of the driver’s feet:

13.4.1 The survival cell must extend from behind the fuel tank in
a rearward direction to a point at least 300mm in front of the
driver's feet, with his feet resting on the pedals and the pedals in

13.4.2 When he is seated normally, the soles of the driver's feet,
resting on the pedals in the inoperative position, must not be
situated forward of the front wheel centre line.

14.6 Headrests and head protection:

14.6.1 All cars must be equipped with three areas of padding for
the driver’s head which :
- are so arranged that they can be removed from the car as one
part ;
- are located by two horizontal pegs behind the driver's head and
two fixings, which are clearly indicated and easily removable
without tools, at the front corners ;
- are made from a material which is suitable for the relevant
ambient air temperature, details of approved materials and the
temperature bands in which they should be used may be found in
the Appendix to these regulations ;
- are covered, in all areas where the driver’s head is likely to make
contact, with two plies of Aramid fibre/epoxy resin composite prepreg
material in plain weave 60gsm fabric with a cured resin
content of 50% (+/-5%) by weight ;
- are positioned so as to be the first point of contact for the driver's
helmet in the event of an impact projecting his head towards
them during an accident.

14.6.2 The first area of padding for the driver’s head must be
positioned behind him and be between 75mm and 90mm thick over
an area of at least 40000mm². If necessary, and only for driver
comfort, an additional piece of padding no greater than 10mm thick
may be attached to this headrest provided it is made from a similar
material which incorporates a low friction surface.

14.6.3 Whilst he is seated normally the two further areas of
padding for the driver’s head must be positioned directly alongside
and above the lower edge of his crash helmet.
the inoperative position.

15.4.5 When the test referred to in Article 13.1.1 is carried out
and the template is in position with its lower edge 525mm above
the reference plane, the shape of the survival cell must be such
that no part of it is visible when viewed from either side of the car.
The parts of the survival cell which are situated each side of the
driver's head must be no more than 550mm apart.
In order to ensure that the driver’s head is not unduly exposed and
for him to maintain good lateral visibility he must, when seated
normally, have his eyes above the sides of the survival cell and the
centre of gravity of his head must lie no more than 25mm vertically
above the sides of the survival cell. When viewed from the side of
the car, the centre of gravity of the driver’s head will be deemed to
be the intersection of a vertical line passing through the centre of
his ear and a horizontal line passing through the centre of his eye.




Bottom line, there are tons of rules that prevent a driver-laying-down seating position. In addition to being technically incompatible with the rules (given the FIA designates the specific dimensions of the safety cell), it would also not work from a performance standpoint as was mentioned previously.

 

LOL nice one..classic Korr!

 

OK, fine. Point noted. Rules forbid innovations in seating position/orientation.

Now explain why F1 engineers still use drag-catching external side-view/rear-view mirrors instead of rear-facing TV cameras.

 

Do you put your brain into gear before you start to type??

If you were to do this you would have to widen the tub forcing you to shorten the A-Arms on the suspension, as the track width is set by the rules. Now you have to raise up the height of the side pods to allow for radiators of enough area to properly cool the engine. Now you have increased drag and caused more turbulent airflow to the rear wing.

If it was as simple as hey I am going to make these changes and it will have no effect on the rest of the chassis, does not exist. A simple change of camber or wing flap angle can upset the rest of the chassis in terms of aero or mechanical grip.

F1 cars are on the ragged edge of grip and control. It takes a very talented driver to get the maximum from the setup and a very talented engineer to know what changes are going to affect the rest of the car and find the proper compromise to get the best out of the car.

 

Lying down inside a moving box is no more aerodynamic than sitting down inside the same moving box.

 

Moot point. See the above post by SRT Mike. Rules forbid innovations in seating position/declination/orientation.

 

It would make no difference in any case. In an F1 car the driver's body is not in the air flow so, aerodynamically, it doesn't matter if it is prone or upright.

 

Of course it would matter, as the size of the box could be shortened, and anyway, it's a moot point that you are beating on. Rules forbid it.

 

The mirror mounts are used for more than just holding up the mirrors. Teams have used them to house the telemetry antennas. Ferrari is using them as a turning vane that is legal within the wording of the rules.

If you were to mount a couple of cameras on the chassis you would have to have the wires to operate them, the electronics to operate them. The monitors to view the cameras. all of this adds up to extra weight. on top of that extra weight that is mounted up high in the car raising the center of gravity.

The fact of the matter is the extra drag caused by the mirrors are canceled out by the benefits of not having to go to a high tech replacement that cost more, weighs more and are possibly less reliable.

 

ND,

As a mechanical engineer by education, I gotta ask, are you joking here?

Rotating the wheels in reverse will do nothing to scrub off speed.

They could have a very high-mass projectile that was fired out of the car in the direction of travel which would impart an equal but oppositely vectored force to the car slowing it down, but I sure wouldn't want to be the guy sitting in the stands when the slug of depleted uranium was heading my way at 5,000fps

 

Utter nonsense. In 10 years the exterior mirrors will be gone and your above view will be ridiculed by anyone unfortunate enough to have heard it.

 

The force applied in the counter-rotation need only exceed the resistance of passive brakes to deliver a benefit in stopping speed.

 

Chapparral (sp?) had a design in the 60's with the driver in the prone position.

 

Actually I figured we'd just make the cars remote control and the drivers can sit in a dark room hooked up to all sorts of sensors jumping left and right as they grimace and make "brrrrrrrr...pop!... brrrrrrrrrrrr" sounds for 90 minutes

Hey, didn't Hamilton have an iPhone F1-car control app or something?

 

I'm beginning to think someone on here doesn't know when there are completely out of there depth.

 

The last time I checked next year will be 2010 not 2019. that statement might be true then but this is now and we have to live in the now. Now lets take a look at F1 in 2019 the drivers will more than likely sitting in a cockpit mock up in the garage that gets movement inputs from the telemetry on the car give the drivers a tactful feed back.


Again that is what might happen in the future not this season or next season.

 

Great cars! But not in the prone position... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaparral_Cars

 

Well, that proves my point that improvements are only incremental in F1, rather than being radically innovative (read: clever).

You do realize that's been my claim in this thread all along...that F1 Engineers aren't being as clever as engineers in other fields.

10 years to replace mirrors that web cams today can replace for $10! Whooo Hooo! Way to go out on a limb F1 Engineers!

Man, those guys are sharp!





...not...

 

did you flunk out of geometry?? If you reduce the cross section a box you will have to lengthen it in order for it to carry the same volume.

If you shorten the box you will have to enlarge the cross section to get the same volume.