What amount of power is too dangerous for Formula 1?

[strad]

"You know the risks, you accept them. If a man can't look at danger and still go on, man has stopped living. If the worst ever happens – then it means simply that I've been asked to pay the bill for the happiness of my life – without a moment's regret."

Graham Hill

[ringo]

Bring back 1000hp.

It's only dangerous if you can't restrain yourself.

[Byronrhys]

The power is jut right, most F1 drivers say themselves that while the power is great its not the most impressive thing about a modern F1 car, The downforce levels in 2010 may have even tamed the power itself.

[PlatinumZealot]

I would Give them 1500 horsepower.

That will increase the braking distance and it will keep the drivers on their toes coming out of the corners.

Not to mention the sound! How could we not have 1500hp?!

[justsomeguy]

The fact that this sport is trying to be "slowed down" in my opinion is just rubbish. F1 is supposed to be the end all be all fastest cars on the planet that require the drivers with the utmost skill. The whole debate about fuel is also rubbish. The amount of fuel wasted on circling the planet in zig zag/back-forth fashion wastes exponential amounts of fuel in relation to what is actually being burned on the racetrack. That's just one example. As far as the power limit, let the driver's decide what they can handle. Many driver interviews conclude they want the power back of the big engines, the rush of the speed. Let them get more excited about the car so they can drive with more enthusiasm. Also, let F1 fans brag about the super high revs, the small naturally aspirated engines that boast four digit horsepower. It saddens me to see all of the innovation being created to get around the "rules" being shot down and eradicated by the big wigs because they think its cheating. They want to talk about saving costs, yet they gouge the racetracks every year by raising the costs and making everyone else as well as the consumer/fan pay more. Don't forget about the untold millions the teams have to spend just to accomodate new rules every year, the new kers designs, the new engine designs, all the bodywork changes..etc. I am a huge fan of the sport (since '99) and want to keep watching the races, but it seems as though in a couple of years it will be so watered down with rules and regulations that it will dull the sport. Yes, the races lately this year have been exciting, but so have the races of seasons past. Sorry my rant is so long and by all means could be much longer but today I have decided to share my opinion. Best regards to all

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, the truly awful part about the no regulations proposal, as brave and brilliant as it might be, is that it hurts. I have the scars...

Usually, in engineering, the idea is to balance things. Precisely many drivers want incidents and accidents to be reduced within reason, that is, within balance, like the one of Justice.

I, for one, refuse to be cannon fodder to entertain people that doesn't race. Now, to entertain people that actually races, that's an entirely different proposition.

The ones I know are not entirely convinced by a no regulations brawl. In case you like that kind of racing, there is always the Car Wrecking Races, where you can admire in all its glory the Mother of All Unregulated Racing series.

Just in case, I would like to quote the following, taken from a SimHQ RaceTalk log:

"Back off, that's my line!"
"My line!"
"Whose?"
"Mine!"
"You?"
"Me!"
"Wrong!"
SCREEECH...CRASH...BANG...!!! (N.B.: sound effects are mine)
"*#&@^!! I own your line
you monkey's *&#)@$%!"

The quality of this content should convince more than one. Of course, the older you get, the more you appreciate its lyricism, rhythm and powerful message, you can't blame entirely the spirit of "bigger is better". BTW, have you seen Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs?

Finally, in the spirit of Justice for All, regulations also help a bit for those less fortunates, like proletarians, emo kids, kart racers and relatively poor teams that might exist in any series (if in fact they do exist and are not a mirage). In the world of No Regulations, the rich are few and powerful, lemme tell you.

[gridwalker]

As far as the power limit, let the driver's decide what they can handle. Many driver interviews conclude they want the power back of the big engines, the rush of the speed. Let them get more excited about the car so they can drive with more enthusiasm.

Personally, I think that this is a non-argument : if my driver isn't enthused by driving at the so-called "pinnacle" of their profession (or by being paid the kind of wage that I shall never be capable of earning) then I would dump that driver immediately and replace them with someone with more of an appetite for maximising the opportunities presented to them.

The issue of engine power cannot be taken in isolation. There are other considerations, such as weight, handling, mechanical grip and downforce. There is no point in having masses of power if your car weighs the same as a tank. Likewise, power is useless if it cannot be transmitted to the ground. The art of the engineer is to ensure that all of these factors are balanced within the constraints imposed by their budget, the regulations, their knowledge & skills and the laws of nature; it is then up to the driver to make use of the equipment ... if the engineer has found the optimum balance then they should have the equipment to deliver results consistently.

Without enthusiasm, a driver is not going to be on the top of their game : if engine power alone is enough to prevent a driver from getting enthusiastic about filling one of the 26 seats available in the top flight of motorport, maybe they should be in a formula where larger engines are more suitable ... like truck racing.

Just look at Kimi : he lost enthusiasm, so he walked away to a sport that he felt would be more suited to him.

F1 is what the rule makers say it is. If the drivers don't like it, then I am sure that there are hundreds of people sat on the sidelines (ignored due to a lack of sponsorship) who are more than capable of putting on a show.

*EDIT*

P.S. Welcome to the forum.

[HampusA]

But in the 80's when turbos and ground effects became standard in Formula One, everyone came to the realization that the cars could out-perform the human driver. And that's when changes had to be made, that's when the rule makers had to limit performance. And to this day you will find that the regulations not only define the cars, they also limit performance.

We are not even close to explore the limits of humans in F1 cars. Not then not now.
This only applies to fighter jets who pull alot more G then any F1 has ever done.

I'm sure in the future we will see drivers with G-suits aswell.
And the most dangerous G-force for drivers is the one that acts vertically and not so much horizontally.
I know that some oval series had problems with g-forces which caused drivers to pass out.
it wasn't close to 9g or so but the problem was the banking of the track.

we might also see more women in F1 in the future. They handle G forces much better tyen men due to the body type.

[mep]

[...]

[Steven]

We might also see more women in F1 in the future. They handle G forces much better tyen men due to the body type.

Care to explain that?
Is there any study that you source this from?

[HampusA]

no not right now, i watched a documentary regarding fighter pilots and they said that women are much better at withstanding g forces due to their body. which in general (in the military atleast) is a much smaller frame.

In 2,5 hours i go off work and will see if i can get some credible sources from the net to back what i just said.

[Byronrhys]

no not right now, i watched a documentary regarding fighter pilots and they said that women are much better at withstanding g forces due to their body. which in general (in the military atleast) is a much smaller frame.

In 2,5 hours i go off work and will see if i can get some credible sources from the net to back what i just said.

Its said that or at least I heard that because women have a smaller body mass the shorter distance between their heart and brain makes it easier for them to counteract the G-forces, but also the G-force is not good for a lady who wants to have a child.

[HampusA]

Sounds pretty logical, thanks. Will see if i can find more about this soon.

EDIT: Been reading some now and it seems women handle G-forces just as good as men. Not better though as they said in the documentary.

Read another link and found this quote:

"Basically, there doesn't seem to be enough information to say one way or the other. There may be some factors that would theoretically help females, in terms of pulling Gs, but real world experiences, and some initial studies in airforces seem to be saying the opposite. However this could simply be due to the fact that "g suits" are designed for the male anatomy."

This is a pretty interesting site aswell. Or site, more like an article..
http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... 6/01/70006

And here´s the one with the quote,
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/20 ... .Bp.r.html

It seems i was wrong to an extent and humbly apologize for spreading false information, it was never my intention.

Here is the question to the quote aswell,

Several friends that are pilots always tell me that the women pilots can
handle the g-forces better then the men. Why are the women able to handle it
better?

EDIT: Read some more now aswell regarding G-forces Please remove if it´s way to off topic.

Basically, Humans can withstand around 9 positive G´s (from head to toes), that´s what the tests are so maybe it´s possible with 10 or 11 for a somewhat briefer moment.
(obviously you can withstand up to 100G´s but that´s for a very short time period, split second sort of.)

But what got me interested is the Negative G loads. Humans can only withstand around -3 G´s, soon after something called red-out starts to kick in.
You get so much blood in your brain it starts engorging your eyes. Pleasant...

G-suits is also just removing 1g and kicks in at 2G´s.

Some more interesting info regarding people and G-forces,

Some are, there is a lot of individual variation. Most people start to lose consciousness if they’re relaxed between 5-7 Gs. Normally, the taller you are the less able you are to handle the Gs and that’s because it depends a lot on the heart to brain distance. The greater the distance, the more distance you have to pump blood up to the brain and that puts more strain so you have to maintain a higher blood pressure to do that. So people who tend to do a little bit better on average tend to be people who are short.
Major Todd Dart, Aerospace Physiologist with the United States Air Force.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/ ... rview/764/

[PlatinumZealot]

no not right now, i watched a documentary regarding fighter pilots and they said that women are much better at withstanding g forces due to their body. which in general (in the military atleast) is a much smaller frame.

In 2,5 hours i go off work and will see if i can get some credible sources from the net to back what i just said.

The typical F1 driver is so small he's like a woman anyway .
the g forces are side to side in turns and it actually pumps blood to the head in braking the difference might not be so big.

[andrew]

no not right now, i watched a documentary regarding fighter pilots and they said that women are much better at withstanding g forces due to their body. which in general (in the military atleast) is a much smaller frame.

Padding?

Seriously though, the smaller frame makes sense.