F1technical.net

How would you design the fastest possible racecar, no matter about aero restrictions?

Let's say it would only have to fit a 5x2x1 meters bounding box and have four wheels...

How about he regulations? If they were unlimited, you could have moveable wings, all kind of speed tricks.
An enclosed body with maximum ground effects is probably the optimum. You would have very low drag with incredible downforce. Toss in moveable wings, and you could corner so hard it could make the driver black out. And it could easily exceed 200 MPH.
Toss in one, maybe two gas turbines with 5,000 to 10,000 HP, four wheel drive (or maybe six or eight) and you would have a very lethal combination.

DaveKillens wrote:How about he regulations? If they were unlimited, you could have moveable wings, all kind of speed tricks.
An enclosed body with maximum ground effects is probably the optimum. You would have very low drag with incredible downforce. Toss in moveable wings, and you could corner so hard it could make the driver black out. And it could easily exceed 200 MPH.
Toss in one, maybe two gas turbines with 5,000 to 10,000 HP, four wheel drive (or maybe six or eight) and you would have a very lethal combination.

Let's stay with standard piston motors for the moment...
How about front aero? Better a diffuser or a wing?
And how many G's with movable aero + ground effect?

Maybe with such aero we would get an increase in overtaking rate, because you should be able to run a corner even off-the-line...

Thats an impossible question to answer....... What will be its use? racing yes but what tracks? You don;t want downforce if its a drag strip.... Theres always some limitations.... you can;t right a desaign breif like that!

Welcome to forum!

Well, I think that Group C and Can-Am were more-less the answer on your question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CanAm

manchild wrote:Welcome to forum!

Well, I think that Group C and Can-Am were more-less the answer on your question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CanAm

And what about redesigning those cars exploiting a 20 years progress in aero and tyres, materials and chassis?

What about lapping the old Nordschleife in less than 5 minutes?

DaveKillens wrote:How about he regulations? If they were unlimited, you could have moveable wings, all kind of speed tricks.
An enclosed body with maximum ground effects is probably the optimum. You would have very low drag with incredible downforce. Toss in moveable wings, and you could corner so hard it could make the driver black out. And it could easily exceed 200 MPH.
Toss in one, maybe two gas turbines with 5,000 to 10,000 HP, four wheel drive (or maybe six or eight) and you would have a very lethal combination.

gas electric turbines hybrid active power managment to teh wheels active areo active suspension you would problay have to drive by wire since the drivers neck would snap in the first conrner

also id think tires might have a problem dealing with all of the force

I agree with manchild, sportscars are probably the best example.

It might look a bit like the Audi R10, but with bigger rubber, bigger wings and lower to the ground.

zac510 wrote:I agree with manchild, sportscars are probably the best example.

It might look a bit like the Audi R10, but with bigger rubber, bigger wings and lower to the ground.

I think it should be closed cockpit, to reduce drag, and with quite different front aero management (wing?)

also with a turbine if you take your air in under the car is becomes an amazind sucker car

flynfrog wrote:also with a turbine if you take your air in under the car is becomes an amazind sucker car

ok, let's start with restrictions: all downforce must be created from the air-flow, not "generated" by any device, such turbine, fans...

I was just wondering about how fast could be a prototype or F1 without restricted aero...

Open wheeler with closed cocpit, shaped underbody for ground effect, front and rear wing (maybe more). For engine I would say Wankell or even better Quasiturbine (both are rotary internal combustion engines) I would choose them because they have amazing power to weight ratio. The body will be from Carbon fibre and other light composites, wheels will be hubless (http://www.osmos-wheel.com) because they allow you to have several brake discs (and better cooling for them), less friction and better cornering capability. And it will be drive-by-whire car.
I think that´s it...

tomislavp4 wrote:Open wheeler with closed cocpit, shaped underbody for ground effect, front and rear wing (maybe more). For engine I would say Wankell or even better Quasiturbine (both are rotary internal combustion engines) I would choose them because they have amazing power to weight ratio. The body will be from Carbon fibre and other light composites, wheels will be hubless (http://www.osmos-wheel.com) because they allow you to have several brake discs (and better cooling for them), less friction and better cornering capability. And it will be drive-by-whire car.
I think that´s it...

why you say open wheeler? Aren't they very poor on drag?
What are the advantages of an open wheel car?

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/allardj2x.html

Something like that....

RacingManiac wrote:http://www.mulsannescorner.com/allardj2x.html

Something like that....

I already know... just underpowered!