450 kph F1

[Moose]

With top speeds reaching 450 kilometres per hour and with even more downforce, it is rather questionable whether any human being could cope with the g-forces.

That´s first thing wich came to my mind too, but then I realiced about a simple solution. Same as they do in Red Bull Air Race, limit max G.

Nope, F1 doesn't accelerate in the plane that causes g-force issues in humans.

Humans are known to be able to cope fine with 30-40g, as long as it's not accelerating up or down. Pilots have issues with g-forces above ~7g because they're pulling up and down, not turning on a flat plane, or coming to rapid stops.

There's a reason that Astronauts sit flat on their backs in space craft, rather than upright.

[Greg Locock]

How accurate do you want? The repeatability of g force measurements is /much/ better than 0.1g in real life is that good enough?After all there's several different ways to measure it these days,

[strad]

I'm not sure how successfull Pirelli would be in producing tyres capable of handling such loads.

I bet Pirelli aren't happy with the fallout from the tires that they were asked to produce. A ton of bad PR that they should have seen coming and declined.
I am certain Pirelli is capable of making tires to match what would be called for in this or any other case.

[zac510]

So unhappy they signed another contract..

Anyway, back on topic, surely the car would need some active aerodynamics.

[Andres125sx]

With top speeds reaching 450 kilometres per hour and with even more downforce, it is rather questionable whether any human being could cope with the g-forces.

That´s first thing wich came to my mind too, but then I realiced about a simple solution. Same as they do in Red Bull Air Race, limit max G.

Their problem is the same, planes can produce a lot more Gs than any human can sustain, so they´ve limited G forces to 12 and anyone going further will receive a penalty. For F1 that limit should be around 5-6G, but then they could use active aero wich allow high DF on the corners but also low DF and drag at the straights for blistering top speeds

The problem is though, that the G-force measurement could be quite difficult when it comes to accuracy. Or at least, that is as far as I know.

Any reason accuracy should be a problem in F1 when it´s not in the Air Race?

[Andres125sx]

With top speeds reaching 450 kilometres per hour and with even more downforce, it is rather questionable whether any human being could cope with the g-forces.

That´s first thing wich came to my mind too, but then I realiced about a simple solution. Same as they do in Red Bull Air Race, limit max G.

Nope, F1 doesn't accelerate in the plane that causes g-force issues in humans.

Humans are known to be able to cope fine with 30-40g, as long as it's not accelerating up or down. Pilots have issues with g-forces above ~7g because they're pulling up and down, not turning on a flat plane, or coming to rapid stops.

There's a reason that Astronauts sit flat on their backs in space craft, rather than upright.

Up and down are the only G forces air pilots sustain (only a flat turn could cause lateral G forces on a plane), and they cope with 12G

Tolerancy always depend on the time pilots/drivers will have to cope with that force. Alonso received more than 30Gs when he did hit AbuDabhi curb and his front axle jumped, but since it was an instant he could handle it. But some drivers got sick after some GPs when cars had tons of DF because they had to cope with around 6G constantly for almost 2 hours.

It´s not as easy as you say, but that´s the reason a G force limit could work great, then you can let teams decide what aero philosofy to follow

[ME4ME]

I'm not sure how successfull Pirelli would be in producing tyres capable of handling such loads.

I bet Pirelli aren't happy with the fallout from the tires that they were asked to produce. A ton of bad PR that they should have seen coming and declined.
I am certain Pirelli is capable of making tires to match what would be called for in this or any other case.

Certainly Pirelli weren't ask to produce this. Or 23 psi running pressures

[strad]

yes they were

[illario]

Every time i think about F1 i get stuck between the idea is it a race between drivers, engines or chassis? When i imagine a drivers battle, i end up with strict rules. No job for people like Adrian Newey. I think it would be as much sin as burning Galileo not to have room in F1 for people like Newey. Then i think about Ferrari, Mercedes, Honda etc. I find it extremely difficult to imagine F1 without the sound of Ferrari V12 or Honda V10 in Monaco! And than Senna. So i think...Every time some miracle happened in F1 it was this strange 'spooky' alignment of driver engine chassis combination that enables miracles to happen in F1.
My base point is safety. To make room for Newey i(who am i) would suggest there be a competition for the best design(safest). This design would than be chosen officially for all teams to be incorporated. Budget cap 250 million euros a year. So every year like this the same. Companies would be able to compete... Wining design would be powered by the Best Engine. For that year(or different periods) all teams would run the same car. and we would have drivers race with same performance, but at the same time the talents of aerodynamicists and engineers are allowed to grow.

Happy new year to all, best forum in the world

[Tommy Cookers]

That´s first thing wich came to my mind too, but then I realiced about a simple solution. Same as they do in Red Bull Air Race, limit max G.

Nope, F1 doesn't accelerate in the plane that causes g-force issues in humans.
Humans are known to be able to cope fine with 30-40g, as long as it's not accelerating up or down. Pilots have issues with g-forces above ~7g because they're pulling up and down, not turning on a flat plane, or coming to rapid stops.
There's a reason that Astronauts sit flat on their backs in space craft, rather than upright.

Up and down are the only G forces air pilots sustain (only a flat turn could cause lateral G forces on a plane), and they cope with 12G
Tolerancy always depend on the time pilots/drivers will have to cope with that force. Alonso received more than 30Gs when he did hit AbuDabhi curb and his front axle jumped, .......

air force pilots cope with +9g (sustained) only with g (leg and abdomen) 'suits' and oxygen - and the planes aren't intended to develop more than +9g
Red Bull pilots reach +12g (briefly) only by using similar suits - the planes are intended to reach +12g and -12g
there's maybe 1000 of this level (of aerobatic planes), you can rent one (with a minder, of course)
dive to maybe 260 mph and you can pull up quite long enough (at 8g)

(yes, personal experience tells me +8g for a few seconds is possible without such aids but with the right 'straining' technique)
there's no damage or loss of consciousness somewhat beyond these levels of positive g, but you can't see ie it's blackout

but -12g will give at least temporary eye damage (around -6g you'll probably start to taste blood)
and iirc over 45g sustained eg in braking a rocket sled will detach the retina
iirc crash helmets pass their tests if at test impacts they don't transmit accelerations over 150g for more than ? msec to the test 'head'

it's easy to imagine that sideways g would be easier to take than the usual
you could simulate this by leaning your head over while at conventional high g but you might get a neck injury

[zac510]

When I read it I presumed that Wurz meant a car would reach 450km/h down a straight like China or Monza, but in the corner the speed would only be 10-20% faster than today. I thought this way because the cornering speed would never be equal to the straight line speed. So g-forces would not be hugely higher than today, there'd just be a greater difference between cornering and straight line speed.

[Nickel]

When I read it I presumed that Wurz meant a car would reach 450km/h down a straight like China or Monza, but in the corner the speed would only be 10-20% faster than today. I thought this way because the cornering speed would never be equal to the straight line speed. So g-forces would not be hugely higher than today, there'd just be a greater difference between cornering and straight line speed.

bottas hit 372 if I'm not mistaken. assuming the upper end of your 20%cornering increase, you'll find that 372+20%=446 so if cornering speeds also go up by 20% it's proportional.

[Gaz.]

yes they were

Point it out in the regulations then.

[mrluke]

As I understand it the pilots "up and down" g can be aided with suits to control the blood flow through your body, lateral (side to side) g cannot be controlled this way as the blood collects on one side of your body, e.g one side of your brain.

This could be overcome with the reintroduction of banking.

Personally I can't wait to see f1 pushing the boundaries of what is possible again and deciding how the car looks based on what is the fastest rather than what is the prettiest or most traditional.

[Andres125sx]

Nope, F1 doesn't accelerate in the plane that causes g-force issues in humans.
Humans are known to be able to cope fine with 30-40g, as long as it's not accelerating up or down. Pilots have issues with g-forces above ~7g because they're pulling up and down, not turning on a flat plane, or coming to rapid stops.
There's a reason that Astronauts sit flat on their backs in space craft, rather than upright.

Up and down are the only G forces air pilots sustain (only a flat turn could cause lateral G forces on a plane), and they cope with 12G
Tolerancy always depend on the time pilots/drivers will have to cope with that force. Alonso received more than 30Gs when he did hit AbuDabhi curb and his front axle jumped, .......

air force pilots cope with +9g (sustained) only with g (leg and abdomen) 'suits' and oxygen - and the planes aren't intended to develop more than +9g
Red Bull pilots reach +12g (briefly) only by using similar suits - the planes are intended to reach +12g and -12g
there's maybe 1000 of this level (of aerobatic planes), you can rent one (with a minder, of course)
dive to maybe 260 mph and you can pull up quite long enough (at 8g)

(yes, personal experience tells me +8g for a few seconds is possible without such aids but with the right 'straining' technique)
there's no damage or loss of consciousness somewhat beyond these levels of positive g, but you can't see ie it's blackout

but -12g will give at least temporary eye damage (around -6g you'll probably start to taste blood)
and iirc over 45g sustained eg in braking a rocket sled will detach the retina
iirc crash helmets pass their tests if at test impacts they don't transmit accelerations over 150g for more than ? msec to the test 'head'

it's easy to imagine that sideways g would be easier to take than the usual
you could simulate this by leaning your head over while at conventional high g but you might get a neck injury

Not sure what are you trying to expose here, as I can´t find any contradiction with my post nor I can´t see any new contribution to the discussion.

My point was simply that F1 could do the same as the Air Race, limit max G and let the drivers/teams regulate as they want. That way active aero could be used, top speeds will be much higher, and cornering speed will be more consistent, as they could regulate DF depending on the corner speed to always produce 6G. Well, when possible at least as on a 80km/h corner it will be difficult to produce that ammount of DF without a fan



This is my idea about how F1 should be in the future for several years now. If efficiency is any important for the rule makers, active aero is a must. Two big wings are almost the same as two big airbrakes. It´s a complete nosense to be forced to push those two big airbrakes at speeds in excess of 300km/h when technology reached a point it´s not neccessary several decades ago. Utter nosense.