F1technical.net

what advantages do you get with a long car like ferrari have opted for? and what about short like mercedes gp.

also advantages of short and long wheel bases?

thanks

Harder to park at Rascasse. They don't want a repeat.

I think that cars with a short wheelbase are faster through the slow corners while the other ones are faster in the fast corners ...

Also I think that the top speed is higher for the longer cars.

long wheelbase- more stability
short wheelbase-faster turning

Shrek wrote:long wheelbase- more stability
short wheelbase-faster turning

Not sure I agree with the latter statement. What does 'faster turning' even mean?

You have a few options with a larger wheelbase. All other things being equal, you will have more yaw stability. That doesn't necessarily mean the car is lazy. You can just as easily kick the front axle forward of the CG and keep the rear the same, in which case you have a higher yaw control moment as well.

Short wheelbase implies more longitudinal load transfer. I'd imagine that's almost always better for traction-limited corner exit (more load to rear tires). May or may not be better for braking (usually isn't) depending on a bunch of variables.

Not sure how it works with aero properties and drag.

You often read that a longer chassis is helpful with aero, the trade-off will be harder to keep weight down (not impossible) and slightly slower responses.

A longer wheelbase has the potential to be kinder to it's tyres (dynamic load transfer fore & aft). Likewise - it's always possible that the tyres won't get worked hard enough (anyone remember the BT55?). More scope to move weight around - either static ballast or (think about it) having compartments in the fuel tank that let you put fuel where you want it as the load comes down.

A shorter wheelbase conversely has the potential to get more heat into the tyres and could be more nimble in tight corners.

Of course the response/nimbleness argument would assume that the cars in question have all their ducks lined up properly with no heavy lumps hanging over the front/rear.

I doubt there is much in it and the choice will depend on so many other factors rather than the obvious ones.......

EDIT - typing as Tom posted......some duplicate opinions here

faster turning-go through quick right left rights faster (ex. the last turns at Turkey)

Shrek wrote:faster turning-go through quick right left rights faster (ex. the last turns at Turkey)

Ok. You are saying a short car will be able to take a chicane quicker than a long car. You're basing this on what metric? Yaw acceleration? I suspect depending on how the car is designed and how mass is centralized, you could do fairly well with a "long" WB car.

Admittedly I'm not totally convinced of this myself since yaw inertia increases with R^2 whereas yaw moment control increases with R.

i think so, at least that's what i was told

A smart old man told me once... don't believe anything you're told until you prove it to yourself first.

In reality a short WB car will probably have a higher maximum yaw acceleration. But who is to say that is the limiting factor? I'm not convinced it is.

I would say that a shorter POTENTIAL wheelbase car has more tuning options to shift weight distribution around by subtle variations in wheelbase/axle locations. Smaller changes mean more on a short wheelbase car than a long one.

Given this year's new tire configuration some weight distribution adjust-ability is desirable.

Were it me I would strive for a chassis with some options, therefore a short wheelbase car would seem most desirable.

Any longer and they will have to make them pivot in the middle to get round Loews hairpin.
I dont think the drivers will be thinking about the calculations at Monaco, they will be to busy trying to find enough track to drive on.

I beleive the assumption shorter F1 cars are better through slow turns is an oversimplification. Willi Rampf told me wheelbase changes (all else beign equal) only provides gains of 1000th. He didnt even feel shorter cars have an advatange at Monaco.

Perhaps we should drop the obsesison with the actuals length of the cars and concern ourselves more with the layout of the components along the wheelbase (driver, axles, engine\gearbox lengths etc)

scarbs wrote:I beleive the assumption shorter F1 cars are better through slow turns is an oversimplification. Willi Rampf told me wheelbase changes (all else beign equal) only provides gains of 1000th. He didnt even feel shorter cars have an advatange at Monaco.

Perhaps we should drop the obsesison with the actuals length of the cars and concern ourselves more with the layout of the components along the wheelbase (driver, axles, engine\gearbox lengths etc)

Obsessions? Dropped.. on F1T..? You've got to be kidding!

As for Rampf's claims, that's fascinating, seeing what lengths (no pun intended.. ok maybe a little..) McLaren went to in Valencia/Spa to introduce a shorter car. All that investment for only 1000ths of a sec?
Or did the layout of the car change dramatically at the same time..?

scarbs wrote:I beleive the assumption shorter F1 cars are better through slow turns is an oversimplification. Willi Rampf told me wheelbase changes (all else beign equal) only provides gains of 1000th. He didnt even feel shorter cars have an advatange at Monaco.

Perhaps we should drop the obsesison with the actuals length of the cars and concern ourselves more with the layout of the components along the wheelbase (driver, axles, engine\gearbox lengths etc)

Frank Dernie has the same opinion.