Why 1000bhp cars?

[thedutchguy]

10 seconds? I see your 10 and raise to 15!
Last time we were exaggerating, it was only 8 seconds slower: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =1&t=20481, but never mind the facts: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 51#p540851

I was talking about the race pace. Qualifying pace is nice for statistics, but of no importance to what happens on Sundays when the mass audience turns (or rather turned) on their tv's.

Since the ban on in-race refueling and the introduction of the Pirelli 'Show Tyres' (as Mark Webber called them) the race pace has plummeted. 2014 was a new low due the the new aero restrictions and the need to save fuel. For instance fastest laps for Australia:

2004: 1.24:1
2013: 1.29:3
2014: 1.32.4

All of them in the dry. And indeed, that's 8 seconds, not 10. I stand corrected, but my point remains the same.

[ojlopez]

Keep the hybrids V6 and remove the fuel flow limit, keeping the fuel allocation untouched.

[dren]

Keep the hybrids V6 and remove the fuel flow limit, keeping the fuel allocation untouched.

I think you'd run into more fuel savings doing that. It might make qualifying more interesting, though.

[Sevach]

Yes exactly,

The 1000hp is absolutely not important for anything other than penis size comparison as the cars are already laping faster than any other series can. And while its commercially important that F1 maintains the biggest dick of all race series, its more important that the resulting racing is entertaining to watch.

This simultaneous talk of 1000hp and wider tyres are a bit non-sensical because they are two effects which cancel each other out. More power and more grip will only make the cars faster but not much more difficult to drive. The end result will be a reduction in safety and no corresponding improvement to the show.

I believe its more important to have a large imbalance between rear grip (=stability) and power. The cars are too stable now at high speed thanks to large rear wings and the rear diffuser. A rule stating concave only surfaces with a minimum radius in certain parts of the body work will do the job of deleting most of the downforce producing elements. This will make 1000hp actually fun to watch.

The safety measures have improved out of sight in the last 10-20 years, so lets start using them...

Don't pass your beliefs as facts, while some do subscribe to this view that less grip=more difficult, many others go with "the higher the limit, the more difficult (and dangerous) to get there" including Niki Lauda, Sebastian Vettel, Michael Schumacher and... me lol.

Faster cars are more difficult than slower ones, the time you have to correct a slide is the crucial thing here, not how much sliding you have.

[Tim.Wright]

Don't pass your beliefs as facts

If you are interested, we can go into more detail given we are in a technical forum...

Note first that I never said less grip = more difficult. I'm specifically talking about REAR grip because its closely linked to vehicle stability. Secondly, I deliberately prefixed my hypothesis with the words I believe to avoid anyone thinking I'm shoving the idea down their throats - did you miss that bit?

Instability is harder to deal with than outright speed. This is not a baseless claim but rather an observation I've made from my work on both road and racing cars. You can have the slowest car in the field as the most difficult if there is a lack of rear axle grip. And its highly visible too from the outside which makes it more interesting to watch in my opinion. Once your static margin reduces to a certain point, the car is completely undrivable regardless of the speed.

Increasing the speed does reduce the yaw stability (via a drop in yaw damping) but this is partly compensated by the increase in downforce which generally increases both response and stability. Yes you need faster reflexes but the car is much more well behaved.

Now there is too much yaw stability built into the regs with large rear wings, rear diffusers and electro-hydraulic diffs. All of these are things which increase stability by increasing rear axle grip capability and therefore cornering stiffness in therefore stability.

Increasing power will reduce stability somewhat but putting wider rear tyres on will increase it again by increasing the cornering stiffness directly.

[gruntguru]

. . . . A rule stating concave only surfaces with a minimum radius in certain parts of the body work will do the job of deleting most of the downforce producing elements. . . .

Did you mean "convex"?

[OO7]

I agree with Nikki Lauda. Go up to 1200bhp.

Let the FIA set rules regarding the min from the ICE and ERS.

Manufacturers can decide how to achieve this best. Increase feul to 150/160kg at least.

After All - this is Racing

I like that figure, but I'd stipulate that the ICE produce 900 - 1000bhp and let the ERS fill the remaining deficit.

[OO7]

The cars are too stable now at high speed thanks to large rear wings and the rear diffuser.

I completely disagree with this. The rear diffuser is quite small, the rear wing is small and the beam wing has already been removed.

[Tim.Wright]

But they are still producing most of the downforce

[wuzak]

. . . . A rule stating concave only surfaces with a minimum radius in certain parts of the body work will do the job of deleting most of the downforce producing elements. . . .

Did you mean "convex"?

I believe that is in teh bodywork rules as they stand - but only in certain areas.

This is what stopped teh flip-ups, chimneys, etc, of the cars of 6 or 7 years ago.

[OO7]

But they are still producing most of the downforce

I don't think downforce is the problem as ground effect cars and late active suspension cars produced a lot of downforce. So many technologies have improved over the years, such as suspension system, tyres, differentials like you mentioned and extended wheelbases (perhaps). There are whole host of reasons for the stability we see in current cars.

[dren]

DBW certainly has helped. The type of tire used also forces a certain driving style to make them last. If you stuck rubber on the cars that lasted forever and banned wings and diffusers, you'd have some interesting driving. The cars seem to claw back a lot of the banned downforce during times of regulation changes.

[1158]

Didn't see this posted here

When asked for his thoughts on the move to 1000bhp, Renault F1's managing director Cyril Abiteboul pointed out that finances were a major concern.

"Personally I would love it, but I need someone to pay for it," he told AUTOSPORT.

"I hear small teams, the independent teams, are not prepared to pay the price of the power unit. And at the same time I hear that we need to add 200bhp or something like that. So how do you connect both?

"If you can find someone who is capable of paying for that, I would love to see that. I would love to see the current cars and the current drivers having to deal with 1000bhp.

Renault wary of cost implications of Formula 1's 1000bhp push - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com

Can't say I'm pleased about it but not shocked either

[dans79]

None of the manufactures really want it, mainly because they don't want to pay for it. A lot of the teams don't want it either, because they don't want to pay for it. The only people who really want it, are some fans & Bernie.

[Juzh]

some fans

most