Well, you could always read the technical regulations yourself There are 2 reasons: 1) The mounting 'struts' for the mirrors are exempted from the anti-aerodynamic rules, thereby giving the teams the opportunity to have ridiculous "mirror supports" that are clearly and obviously aerodynamic components. The aerodynamic advantage for not having the mirror would be more than offset by the aerodynamic loss of the benefit from the mounting structure. I have attached a picture I took 2 weeks ago in Belgium of Kimi Raikkonen's car. You can see the "mirror supports" (I have to hold back a chuckle when I call them that). 2) Then there is article 14.3.1, which states: "All cars must have at least two mirrors mounted so that the driver has visibility to the rear and both sides of the car." and 14.3.2 which states: "14.3.2 The reflective surface of each mirror must be at least 150mm wide, this being maintained over a height of at least 50mm. Additionally, each corner may have a radius no greater than 10mm." Which obviously defines the mirrors to be two objects having a reflective surface 150mm wide maintained over a height of at least 50mm. Therefore, a rear facing camera is illegal under the rules. I appreciate your point that the cars are all too similar, but I think there is way waaay waaaaay more innovation in F1 than you think there is. The mass damper that Renault introduced was nothing short of brilliant. It moved a mass around the car on-the-fly to assist the car with cornering. It was simple, elegant, and brilliant. I'm sure it cost tons to develop, and it was summarily banned. Williams active aerodynamics from the 90's was equally brilliant... movable wings that changed depending on what the car was doing. Brilliant thinking, and quickly banned. The engineers are purposely contained within a very small and very well defined box. And they still find ways to innovate. I would say there is more brilliant innovation and engineering in F1 than in any other sport by a massive margin. More than in most businesses too. Image Unavailable, Please Login
They tested R&D models in the prone position with Surtees driving and it was a mess - they scrapped it and went with the more conventional design before the season started. Also, as you mentioned, there have been cars developed years ago (at least 10 years ago, probably more) that had the driver in the prone position. So it was nothing novel or new, it was a known concept. Ergo, the idea that F1 engineers didn't think about it must be incorrect since it was known and maybe even common for years before today and furthermore because it is specifically not allowed per the rules... so to suggest they didn't think of it and that's why they aren't doing it is clearly not the case. IMO
What part of compromise to you not understand. Reduce the drag here but have to lengthen the chassis there now you have a car that cut through the air like a bullet yet a school bus goes around a corner quicker than your car does. The aerodynamicist wast the car to look like this but now the engine designer cannot fit his engine into the chassis, the suspension people can not get the optimum geometry for mechanical grip............................ With the rules you cannot have a perfect solution to everything. Everything has to be compromised in one fashion or another.
seven pages and counting! should've read through the ridiculous regs before starting this thread. but yeah, whatever..it's entertaining
And not to hammer the point home too much, but I think there is maybe some lack of appreciation for just how strictly the FIA defines the rules to the teams. The FIA dictates that each car will have a survival cell to serve as the 'housing' for the driver. The following images are from their own technical rulebook listing the specific dimensions for that survival cell. No chance of anything other than a very conventional driver seating position. Same deal with the rest of the car... very rigid and structured. There is not that much left up to the engineers to play with. But what they are allowed to play with, they do a fantastic and absolutely brilliant job with and display engineering prowess worthy of the best of engineering anywhere in the world. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Just because I think the cars look so cool.... here are a couple of pics I found of the original design for the car... the driver slid in through a sort of trap door in the rear and stuck his head in the front. The second picture is how the car was then changed and actually run in competition. Very cool design. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Unfortunately that is banned too. I don't have the specific section handy but it states that the survival cell will be placed symetrically about the front-rear centerline of the car (It's in section 13 or 14 that deals with the survival cell)
"Incorrect on all points." Sheesh...you sound like my wife! "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." OK, I'll bite. But what happens when the car makes impact with something at that 20 degree angle? What happens when the car is T-Boned at a 45 degree angle? Instead of the spine being compressed and driven straight out of a bodily orifice, its quickly snapped in half. At any rate, there is still no feasible harness even in theory that could protect the driver. "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..." As the book of Ecclesiastes says; "There's nothing new under the sun." What I'm saying is that everything runs its course in due time. If Adrian Newey is only allowed to design within a regulated box and has $300 million and a team of 100 trained aero engineers working for him, I trust that he has/is/will have tested countless different approaches and what we see on the car is the most effective. Take the regulations away and give them free reign & then you will see something innovative. "...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." Anything beyond a Corvette-ish heads up display of telemetry in the helmet ceases to be F1, in my opinion. At the point the driver is looking at images of the circuit, the human "****** pucker factor" has been removed from the sport. I mean, if the driver relies on a computer generated image to guide him instead of his own eyesight, what the hell is the point of driving the car? Where is the thrill? You no longer have a driver, you have a "user" and any human connection to the sport as a driver or a fan is gone. I'd sooner watch NASCAR than F1! I for one like knowing that the driver almost sh!ts himself in a hairy situation. You can't equate the SPORT of F1 to a instrument-only night time bombing mission from 50,000 feet. "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." I agree that technology allows for such a thing, but practicality doesn't. You could easily mount a rear facing camera, but why would you when a mirror is the simpler and safer solution? Just as the prone driver argument, you again fail to realize that driver safety is paramount to anything. Is it not infinitely safer and more natural to simply glance to the side mirror to look behind you than to look down & take your eyes off of what is happening in front of you? I've spent 18 years racing in many different cars & there's no way you can convince me that looking in the cockpit while under pressure RACING is safe. And having a rearview image projected in your helmet is insane. I could see having a rear view camera displayed in place of the mirrors, but why do it when a mirror is more reliable? What happens when the camera fails and the driver is blind to what's behind him? "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." Once more, if the regulations change innovation will explode as far as the new regulations allow - and the current crop of engineers will lead the way. As for brakes, I don't think you realize just how good the carbon brakes on an F1 car are, frankly, I can't even imagine. I drove a Lola EX257 (LMP 675, then upgraded to LMP1) around Suzuka a couple years ago. Let me tell you, the car was a handful and not set up very well. But the brakes were unlike anything you can imagine, believe me. It's frightening how late you can brake, the modulation they afford and sheer "snap your neck" stopping power. I don't know how they could be anymore powerful. So to to redesign the entire concept of braking (reversing wheel rotation) is crazy. Perhaps some kind of electro-magnetic system is theoretically feasible, but that's only because its a refinement of the current principle of slowing the wheels forward rotation. As an aside, in all seriousness, I'd like to hear your explanation of how reverse thrust braking works. The description in my previous post about its effects on a car are true - it just can't happen any other way. Simplify it for me and apply to a motorcycle. I just don't see how it wouldn't mangle the tires and/or highside the rider if not upon application, then surely upon the release of the brakes. We're all here to learn. -Cheers
This picture is an artists rendering based on the blueprints of the car showing how it would have looked had it ever actually competed... I posted this pic because you can see the trap door and how the driver would be positioned. Raise your hands here who would drive that car??? Not me! Can you imagine a crash? effff that! Image Unavailable, Please Login
ND, I don't know if you're seriously stupid or just messing with us. Since you say you raced cars, they must not have been open wheel formula cars, because your are basically laying down in these type of cars. There is no seat to speak of, just a back rest. And your analogy of reverse thrust on an airplane to "active braking" makes no sense at all.
Just want to point out that here you said literally that the wheels would spin backwards. Not that you would apply a backwards force at the limit of traction. Again, a moot point but the driver is already feet-ahead and the reason a frontal crash doesn't transfer force from the legs to the spine is that the spine is not in-line with the legs. It should be obvious that even prone the legs do not need to be in-line with the spine. You are implying that carbon brakes are better than other materials because of their insane stopping power. Not true; the main advantage to carbon is the weight. In an open wheel car iron brakes get the job done just as well as far as slowing the car goes. The tires stop the car, not the brakes. I don't follow this at all. Why wouldn't there still be a brake pedal which provides variable control and force feedback? Anyway, the real point I wanted to make is that I can't see how "active brakes" in the sense of a motor resisting the wheel's motion would make any sense. The amount of horsepower required would be phenomenal, thus making the motor quite heavy (and it'd be unsprung weight). And there'd be zero advantage since current brakes can stop the cars, given their current speeds, right at the limit of traction without any difficulty and with minimal components and low weight. What would be beneficial is ABS. However this is banned, rightly so IMHO, to make it more of a driver's race. There HAVE been many braking innovations. They get banned when they give too big an advantage. Unfortunate, especially since the other teams would copy them right away anyway.
Here is a link from f1.com about car dimensions: http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8695/ http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/119845428__21_12_2005_F1_regs_2008_fnl.pdf It's been stated many times that teams must design cars within certain space parameters.
Even though my thread was partly ruined, No Doubt has made it great by making a fantastic fool of himself. Thanks SRT Mike for going through the trouble of searching through the FIA regs.
"You are implying that carbon brakes are better than other materials because of their insane stopping power. Not true; the main advantage to carbon is the weight. In an open wheel car iron brakes get the job done just as well as far as slowing the car goes. The tires stop the car, not the brakes." -Significantly lighter pads & rotors means less unsprung weight and less rotating mass = greater stopping power. -Carbon brakes have negligible fade under even the most severe usage, meaning consistent modulation/pedal feel = greater stopping power. -Tires don't stop the car until the brakes stop the tire's rotation. I think we can all agree that F1 engineers know more about car design than us!
