F1 Car Shape

[ouchiko]

Hi,

I've had trouble locating a good answer to this..

Does F1 administration dictate the overall "shape" of Formula 1 cars and if not why do we not see a bigger variation in overall shape? From memory, cars of times gone by (in the same year) had a more difference.

Is it generally agreed that the current shape is the "best" and therefore this is continually used with more work spent on aero etc..

Thanks
Jim.

[747heavy]

Hi Ouchiko, welcome to the forum

good question, and I think you have given the answer to it, at the end.

There are strict dimensional restrictions in place by the rules, but the general
shape is not limited. One of the better examples from the recent past is maybe the
Williams/BMW walross nose.

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2004/ ... 80x960.jpg

It was different, but not very sucessful. The air/physic is the same for everyone, therefor there is a trend to migrate to an "optimum" over time.

Because aerodynamic is so dominant to overall car performance, it leaves little room for radical different concepts/shapes.

It´s a bit like aeroplanes a Boeing 757 and a Airbus 320 don´t look radical different, because there is an "optimum" aerodynamic solution for a given size and power

[ouchiko]

Thanks for the answer, it's very interesting and the aeroplane comparison makes sense.

I'm still surprised there isn't more drastic developments in design, using the aeroplane example you could highlight some of the X-Planes as big diversions from the "norm" but ultimately with some apparent success.

Anyway, thanks
Jim

[Italiano]

The regs are written into millimeters, with only small loopholes. Nothing exciting here...

[Mafia]

That williams idea of front wing could've worked pretty well this year

they had to have JPM and Half Schumacher for that purpose

[Pandamasque]

That williams idea of front wing could've worked pretty well this year

Not sure about that. It was used to keep the air coming off the central part of the front wing from having to flow around the bottom of the nosecone. It's more or less the same as the nose-hole of F2008. Ferrari dropped it in 2009 as with current spec wings there's no upwash in the central area to worry about.

[WhiteBlue]

One of the reasons for similar looks lies in the concept of how to curb aerodynamic performance. There are literally hundreds of individual rules describing in detail geometric restrictions to possible aero configurations. There are rules which tell you which radii are allowed or where you can have holes in the body work.

On top you have to keep a certain construction principle that you have the driver in front of the fuel, the engine and the gear box driving the rear wheels. Additionally driving the front wheels for instance is prohibited.

The dimensions of the safety cell for driver and fuel are standardized in many aspects. The energy absorption and impact protection performance in five directions is exactly defined, which leads to very similar solutions for the protective structures. For instance, it took some 20 years for Mercedes to come up with a novel concept for the airbox/roll hoop design. They replaced the single element by a roll pillar and separate air intakes on the both sides which are not part of the safety structure.

[Tim.Wright]

cause aerodynamic is primary factor overall car performance, it leaves little room for radical different shapes.

That awkward moment when spam bots speak more sense than half of the forum members...

I think we are inching ever closer to this point every day. Oh the world we live in:

[adrianjordan]

I think the restrictiveness of current F1 Aero Regs makes something like McLaren's MP4-26 in 2011 all the more exciting...sure it wasn't a huge change, but it was different enough to be interesting!!