Base your F1 car design around 1 specific circuit?

[adrianjordan]

So I had a thought earlier and I was hoping you good people could help figure out whether it would work or not...

What I wondered was, could a team design it's F1 car with 1 particular circuit in mind - one of the "special" circuits that in previous years would have had a bespoke package on the car for (ie: Monaco or Monza...) - and fine tune it enough that it would give them a significant car advantage at that circuit (and hence a decent shot at victory) at the expense of car performance at all other circuits?

I was thinking about how good the Force India was at Spa in particular in 2009 which was how the idea originally arose. And let's face it, a win is a win!!

[Jersey Tom]

Eh, think that's a bit of a stretch.

[Tamburello]

Didn't Red Bull do just that, that is design a car for high and efficient downforce requirements, which happened to be those of 90% of the calender?

[scotty86]

Didn't Red Bull do just that, that is design a car for high and efficient downforce requirements, which happened to be those of 90% of the calender?

Heh. I think all teams strive for that and more... but obviously it doesn't work like that.

To answer the OP, yes, a team could conceivably design a car with specific circuits in mind, but the fact is at most circuits certain characteristics will be ideal, and the teams have to go for that philosophy to get the best WCC position possible. Obviously, teams will modify/add to their designs as much as possible as per the circuit requirements for the same reason, but it will always be a compromise. One 'lucky' win won't be worth as much to the teams as a net better championship position, i am sure.

In my opinion the Force India situation in '09 was a total freak occurrence/stroke of luck - i can't believe they intended for that, plus, you have to say Fisichella was on fire at that Spa weekend too.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, all teams do it. It's a routine to change wings and many aero parts for Monza and Monaco, the season extreme circuits, where estimated Cd is 0.75 and 1.25 respectively. So, Adrian, I say good thinking, but a bit too late.

Actually, I guess those two extremes plus the 90% "intermediate" circuits that Tumbarello mentions are what constrict your design.

I'd say more.

What the driver needs, his essence, his gene load, his inheritance, his soul, his style is probably more important: there are people that like to go fast in straights (pedal to the metal drivers) and people that extract the juice in the curves with a tad more down force (slow in/fast out drivers).

You might remember that the day you design your car: cars are not made in a void. Cars are (I exaggerate, I know) kind of the suit of the driver... carbon fiber suits that have to be tailored to those guys.

I have the fixation, after teaching people to drive karts, that the former "pedal to the metal" drivers are "heavy" drivers, a tad reckless, leather jacket guys, while the later, "apexing carefully" are "subtle" drivers, kind of cerebral, nerd drivers, wool sweater pals, but I might be wrong (and I might be using too many adjectives instead of numbers lately for lack of time... I know most of you understand my changing relation with this forum, lackadaisical these days).

Having said that, it's true that there are "faster" cars or maybe faster drivers, as I said, like, I think, this image proves (as any statistic, you can use it in any way you wish for your secret hidden, malevolent and twisted purposes, mwahaha, or your innocent, pure and altruistic motives, kumbaya) :



You can see that a couple of cars varied wildly from one year to the next one, but there is a tendency: most fast cars are fast in both years, while slow ones keep being slow, exception made of Hamilton, Rosberg and Nakajima, but those guys were either rookies or rookies, finding an style. Differences are a few km/hr, but I like Poirot and Mrs. Marple stories and it is Caturday night while I post.

Now, JTom, that's a lot of a stretch, ain't it? However, I like it because it shows I'm not "good people", Adrian, I'm bad people that enjoys confusing tender minds...

[spinmastermic]

In my opinion the Force India situation in '09 was a total freak occurrence/stroke of luck - i can't believe they intended for that, plus, you have to say Fisichella was on fire at that Spa weekend too.

FI knew they had a slippy car all that year. Before the season started they had booked a straight line text the week before Spa.

[marcush.]

there are Monaco ,Canada ,Australia ,Monza which could possibly be the target circuits for something like this.

funny that the lower teams who are last anyways do not concentrate their little
recources towards single events....like MonteCarlo.

If I were HRT I would pull out all stops and develop just for that one .In that case a minnow has a certain advantage for that single race as the recources put in are likela close to what the top teams put into that special event ...So compromise your car for the rest of the year (being last anyways ..so who cares?)
and have a good show at one of the blue ribband races.Imagine HRT getting into Q3 in 2010..
A bit of a stretch ,true ..but for Monaco all others are very unlikely to compromise their car design for that one event.If it were possible to shave off a 4 seconds deficit ...debatable. But worth a try.

[ESPImperium]

I see your logic there. If Hispania were to develop a car for one track, like Monaco they could more or less optomise their car for this event, and gain reconition and then posibly be able to attract better sponsors and get more money in their coffers.

The thing is, if they were to optomise for Monaco, that set-up is simmilar to Hungaroring and Singapoer as well, also elements of that set up are used at Austrailia.

Could be a good call, and for someone with nothing much to loose, a decent gamble. Remember in 1984 there was a Toleman in the wet that once almost deposed Prost from P1 if the race wasnt stopped on Lap 33 i think. As well as recently, there was a Spyker that led once at Nurburgring after lap 2. Whitch leads onto another consept...

Wht not develop a decent car that has a pretty good temprement at medium downforce cuircits that performs well on medium to high downforce circuits that can perform really well in the Wet. When they see a wet race, set it up for a 100% wet set up, storm thrugh the feild and take a point or two... Always gonna get a picture and thats what sponsors want.

[marcush.]

tbh ,
I don´t get the thought process of the tailenders.
I would ALWAYS gamble if the car was not competitive. What´s the fuzz to be 50 seconds or 2 laps behind if you are last anyways.So go against the trend and you got at least a chance to hit a lucky strike.
Same for Virgin doing a new tub to accomodate fuel to make it through the race... never ever they were in position to make use of that extra fuel,right? so money wasted ..they would not even have to tell anyone....it was a first year ....and that money would have been better spent in aero development.

[Mystery Steve]

It's one thing to make a statement like "We're going to design a car to win at Circuit X." It is something else entirely to actually deliver on it. Within packaging and the regulations, there is not a significant enough difference between a custom tailored chassis design and one that is designed for all circuits to make up the kind of time that separates the front runners from the back markers. Besides, just about all of the significant performance influencing components (wings, springs, dampers, etc) are designed to be interchangeable for a reason.

[scotty86]

In my opinion the Force India situation in '09 was a total freak occurrence/stroke of luck - i can't believe they intended for that, plus, you have to say Fisichella was on fire at that Spa weekend too.

FI knew they had a slippy car all that year. Before the season started they had booked a straight line text the week before Spa.

Yes perhaps they knew it, but i don't believe for one second that a team would optionally go for a slippery car (across the course of a season) over one that can produce far more downforce.

[Jersey Tom]

Steve gets it

[Tamburello]

It's one thing to make a statement like "We're going to design a car to win at Circuit X." It is something else entirely to actually deliver on it. Within packaging and the regulations, there is not a significant enough difference between a custom tailored chassis design and one that is designed for all circuits to make up the kind of time that separates the front runners from the back markers. Besides, just about all of the significant performance influencing components (wings, springs, dampers, etc) are designed to be interchangeable for a reason.

Which goes to show that circuits resemble each other more than they differ from each other, doesn't it?

[Giblet]

Would designing a car specific to one circuit be any cheaper or resource intensive than trying to make one good everywhere?

Probably not, as you are working in smaller windows.

[RacingManiac]

And also, if you are lacking downforce, you are lacking downforce designing for one circuit or all circuits. If another team(say RBR) can make a car thats good everywhere, meaning efficiency and out right aero dominance, they can find extra stuff for tracks like Monza(less) or Monaco(more).

Its probably more feasible anyway though if you were to focus on one track, to focus on the low downforce circuit anyway as its probably easier to find less downforce than try to find more. FI 2009 was more of a case like that...

Monza is really its own beast as the corners are slow and the straights are long, with Canada being probably the most similar.