Would rules still allow mid-front engine cars?

[g-force_addict]

Maybe with the driver between the rear tires like 60s front engine drasters?

[Just_a_fan]

The rules effectively prevent such a design because the fuel tank has to be between the driver's back and the engine.

6.1.2 All the fuel stored on board the car must be situated between the front face of the engine and the driver's back when viewed in lateral projection. When establishing the front face of the engine, no parts of the fuel, oil, water or electrical systems will be considered.
Furthermore, no fuel can be stored more than 300mm forward of the highest point at which the driver's back makes contact with his seat.

[Tommy Cookers]

Maybe with the driver between the rear tires like 60s front engine drasters?

there was one such F1 car, the Tipo 160 Alfa Romeo (tested but not raced, for the 2.5 litre 1954 formula)
the engine/transmission casing (flat 12, 4 wd) was the chassis and most of the bodywork

[Richard]

Its a bit scary ...

[DaveW]

Maybe with the driver between the rear tires like 60s front engine drasters?

Do you really think there would be a performance advantage? If so, then I am reasonably confident it would be banned, regardless of the current rules.

[wesley123]

Maybe with the driver between the rear tires like 60s front engine drasters?

This cant be serious...

Teams back then switched to a engine switched behind the driver because it was better, much better

[Tommy Cookers]

Maybe with the driver between the rear tires like 60s front engine drasters?

This cant be serious...

Teams back then switched to a engine switched behind the driver because it was better, much better

not better for 4 wd
(was ARs view, they already had made the rear/mid engined 512, intended to replace the 158 but replaced by the 159)
the picture is not a Tipo 160 but a lashup 158 to test the concept
the 160 was not bullt fully, only the mechanicals or engine

surely we need 4 wheel KERS anyway ?

[strad]

B.S. aside, don't you think F1 should be all wheel drive? All the time prattling on about road relevance.

[Tommy Cookers]

4 wheel KERS integrates well with 4 wheel mechanical drive

[mzivtins]

In my eyes, massive design and performance disadvantage, and thats kind of been proved by every car manufacturer ever

In terms of converting the mechanical energy into kinetic, it is much more efficient having the engine pushing from the back, i'e rearwheel drive. Of course 4wd mixes that up a little lol

[Tommy Cookers]

In my eyes, massive design and performance disadvantage, and thats kind of been proved by every car manufacturer ever

In terms of converting the mechanical energy into kinetic, it is much more efficient having the engine pushing from the back, i'e rearwheel drive. Of course 4wd mixes that up a little lol

ever is a long time
fwd was king at Indianapolis for about 30 years when rear/mid engines were nowhere

for 1954 F1 two major manufacturers designed for 4wd (AR and Mercedes Benz)
for 1966 F1 both V12 and H16 BRM power units were designed to be 4 wd capable
aero killed 4wd

there is screamingly obvious potential in 4 wheel KERS ie 4 wheel electric drive (with 2 wheel mechanical drive)
or (better ?) electric fwd + mechanical rwd
but the FIA is frightened, any such system has inherent characteristics equivalent to substantial ABS and traction control
the rules would be a nightmare

[Sombrero]

There were even four 4-WD F-1 car at the back of the grid of the Bristish GP 1969 in Silvertone.

15. Derek Bell McLaren M9A-Ford Cosworth
16. John Miles Lotus 63-Ford Cosworth
17. Jo Bonnier Lotus 63-Ford Cosworth
18. J.-P. Beltoise Matra MS84-Ford Cosworth

http://www.f3history.co.uk/Racingpics/s ... colour.htm

The most interesting car is the Lotus 63-Ford Cosworth (Colin Chapman/Maurice Philippe)



It's interesting to see that the motor rotated 180° could be the trick to build a mid-front engine F-1...

"All the fuel stored on board the car must be situated between the front face of the engine and the driver's back when viewed in lateral projection".

[Jersey Tom]

In my eyes, massive design and performance disadvantage, and thats kind of been proved by every car manufacturer ever

In terms of converting the mechanical energy into kinetic, it is much more efficient having the engine pushing from the back, i'e rearwheel drive. Of course 4wd mixes that up a little lol

How do you figure? And I that were the case why do consumer cars tend to be FWD in a market where efficiency is a big selling point .

[Lycoming]

In terms of converting the mechanical energy into kinetic, it is much more efficient having the engine pushing from the back, i'e rearwheel drive.

I am also curious as to why this would be the case.

[Richard]

I suspect a mix up between "efficient" (ie least fuel per mile) and "effective" (lap times) ?

With regard to consumer cars, equally dominant factors are cost of production, cabin space and ease of driving - all areas where FWD easily wins. However those are irrelevant if the sole focus is performance of a race car, hence RWD is viable.