|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
11 Jul 2004, 22:53 (Ref:1033532) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,134
|
Is Formula One *Too* Fast?
im sure this discussion has been raised many times before, but watching the British GP today, i was thinking "These cars look really f---ing fast" (sorry for the profuse language!)
after the recent spate of quite large accidents, im unsure whether Formula One cars should be going this fast, whether they corner too fast. i heard a comment in ITVs commentary that JB was experiencing 7G during cornering in qualifying. now, to me, that is too harsh. so i was wondering, is formula one too fast now? how can we slow the cars down? and would this be productive? your thoughts please! |
||
__________________
Qui si convien lasciare ogni sospetto Ogni vilta convien che qui sia morta Here must all distrust be left; All cowardice must here be dead |
11 Jul 2004, 23:21 (Ref:1033547) | #2 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 89
|
5 g yes...7g?? thats prolly over hyped
|
|
|
12 Jul 2004, 07:03 (Ref:1033745) | #3 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 219
|
If the Logos on the cars cannot be read then they are going too fast
Forget about the safety and the Gs, You will give Bernie the impression you believe his little subterfuge LOL |
||
|
12 Jul 2004, 09:37 (Ref:1033865) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,000
|
I thinkMB said 6Gs, which is still a lot - I don't think passenger aircraft pull as much.
I don't think they're too fast to be safe though. A lot of the recent crashes ahven't beene specially high speed, and most would have the same outcome at 140mph as 190mph. The main problem to correct is the reliance on aerodynamic grip. The narrower cars and treaded tyres were mistkaes as well, mre from a perspective of limiting overtaking than anything. |
||
|
12 Jul 2004, 10:02 (Ref:1033893) | #5 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16,661
|
Cornering speeds do need to be pulled back a bit.
The cars are now 8 to 10 seconds a lap faster than just a few years ago. |
|
|
12 Jul 2004, 10:06 (Ref:1033900) | #6 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
Hmmm, fighter aircraft pull 8g's while turning sharply at Mach 1....
|
|
|
12 Jul 2004, 10:12 (Ref:1033907) | #7 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 21
|
What the hell! if i was in a crash i would want to be in an F1 car, its got to be one of the safest motorsports at the moment, dont slow them down. I am mainly a bike person into and starting superbike racing, motorbiking is far more dangerous yet it is not being slowed down, so why F1, the best thing to do is try and improve safety through car design and track design, its track run off that kills people alot of the time due to the fact that the barriers are getting closer track side, i dont want to hit a concorete barrier at 180mph or 60mph!!
|
||
|
12 Jul 2004, 10:26 (Ref:1033930) | #8 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
1) It's still reasonably safe compared to previous decades, and 2) The FIA is doing something with planned engine changes to 2.4-2.5L V8's and possible control tyre etc. In other words.... we could do with a small speed reduction and it will happen. |
|||
|
12 Jul 2004, 11:09 (Ref:1033985) | #9 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,885
|
I'm very strongly of the view that you can't remove danger from F1 (or any motorsport for that matter), but you can minimise the risks and eliminate unnecessary risk. And I also very strongly believe that the progress made in the safety of F1 over the last 15 to 20 years has been absolutely superb. I have argued vehemently against those who have recently claimed that safety is not treated seriously and that the FIA is somehow negligent, because that denies the progress that continues to be made.
I also believe that an F1 car is probably the safest vehicle you could possibly be in if you're going to have a 150mph - 200mph accident. As proved at Indy. However. Yes. Max is right. We need to reel it in a bit. F1 cars are now pushing the envelope into territory only previously experienced in the development of military aircraft. And after two major accidents in three races, I fear that the next one might not be so lucky. It is time for the FIA to act, as it has done continually over the past few decades, to slow the cars a little. It doesn't need to be much, just back to 2003 lap times would be enough. But it would be a tragedy if the action is taken in response to F1's next fatality. |
||
__________________
"Never pick a fight with an ugly person, they've got nothing to lose." |
12 Jul 2004, 11:09 (Ref:1033986) | #10 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,299
|
It's fine the way it is - all this speed and safety talk is coming from the FIA and specifically Max Mosely, who needs to be able to invoke the safety regs to get all his changes through without needing anyone to agree.
Ralf Schumacher's accident was more or less his Reichstag fire. |
|
|
12 Jul 2004, 14:49 (Ref:1034261) | #11 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,332
|
As far as the human body is concerned, those 5g (or 6) peak loads seen for an instant in a corner pose no threat to the drivers per se. Prolonged amounts of time at even 4g can cause problems with dizziness/narrow vision/nausea/fatigue, though, as evidenced by the champ cars at the oval in Texas.
The real problem is the g loadings that occur when an race car hits something. The consequences of coming unglued in a corner often include contact with a barrier (or another car), and the higher the speed in the corner, the worse the consequences will be upon impact. At any rate, physics tell us there is a HUGE difference between an impact at 140mph and 180mph. Without getting too technical, the kinetic energy of a car varies by the square of it's velocity... so the 40mph gap between a crash at 180 and 140 is much worse than the 40mph gap between 80 and 40 as far as the energy involved goes. |
||
__________________
Juliette Bravo! Juliette Bravo!!!! |
12 Jul 2004, 15:10 (Ref:1034286) | #12 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,512
|
IMO the main problem with high speed cornering is that overtaking is more and more difficult.
About forces, if drivers don't complain why shlould we? |
||
__________________
You got to learn how to fall, before you learn to fly P.Simon |
12 Jul 2004, 15:17 (Ref:1034300) | #13 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,332
|
The reason that high speed cornering makes overtaking difficult is the means by which current F1 cars achieve those high speeds... through aerodynamics. It is perfectly possible to pass in high speed corners, there you can take NASCAR for example at 190+ mph (and at half or less the g-loads of F1!)
As for drivers complaining, some currently are! TGF, Trulli, Fisi, and others have voiced that opinion so far this season. But some drivers (Panis comes to mind... not that he has to worry about travelling all that fast in the Toyota ) disagree with the notion that F1 is too fast, they like it how it is... Last edited by shiny side up!; 12 Jul 2004 at 15:18. |
||
__________________
Juliette Bravo! Juliette Bravo!!!! |
12 Jul 2004, 15:22 (Ref:1034304) | #14 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,885
|
My impression now is that the increase in cornering speed, through improved aerodynamic performance, is beginning to outstrip the advance in component reliability. Hence the (possible) cause of Trulli's accident. We don't know yet, but it looked like mechanical failure. Was that caused by degradation of a suspension part damaged by contact or kerbing earlier in the race, or was it straightforward component failure at high lateral g? The latter is what worries me most.
|
||
__________________
"Never pick a fight with an ugly person, they've got nothing to lose." |
12 Jul 2004, 15:25 (Ref:1034309) | #15 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16,661
|
I'm quite nervous about Spa and Monza for that very reason.
|
|
|
12 Jul 2004, 15:25 (Ref:1034311) | #16 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 177
|
Track design can be a big factor as well. Trulli's accident could have been lethal had the car crashed into something upside down.
Last edited by Paarma; 12 Jul 2004 at 15:27. |
||
|
12 Jul 2004, 15:35 (Ref:1034322) | #17 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,332
|
garcon, I see where you are coming from. If it was a component failure, I doubt it was caused by one individual peak g-load. If it was a carbon component, that is possible... but would have occured much earlier in the part's life, unless there was some strange temperature issue (which has happened before for sure, just ask TGF about Monaco a few years ago...). If it was a metal component it probably was a fatigue issue, it failed after repeatedly being cycled through high and low loadings lap after lap.
Either way, I don't believe that aerodynamics is too good for the available componenet technology... engineers can always devise a more structurally robust part to cope with 100g in corners. Their problem is that stronger parts mean heavier parts, and race engineers hate weight! In the end, the techinical 'formula' that is F1 is responsible for the speed at which cars travel, as the object of racing is to go as fast as possible given the rules of the game. I hope F1 does something soon to slow the cars down, hopefully whilst making it a bit easier to pass, before one of these big crashes turn out horrible... |
||
__________________
Juliette Bravo! Juliette Bravo!!!! |
12 Jul 2004, 15:37 (Ref:1034326) | #18 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,512
|
However, about Renaults, there is something that doesn't convinces me, I mean, up to Monaco they shared with Ferrari the record of most reliable team, then, all of a sudden, they started usffering serious structural failures.
IMo those cars have been changed in order to get lighter (and, maybe, to compensate via that the horsepower gap), but also getting more fragile by consequence. |
||
__________________
You got to learn how to fall, before you learn to fly P.Simon |
12 Jul 2004, 15:38 (Ref:1034327) | #19 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
|
Corner speeds have not gone up because of aerodynamic increases (well, I'm sure they have a bit, but not solely) rather they have increased massively because of the tyre war and, partly, the fashion for three pit-stops (which leads directly from the parc ferme rules). The tyres are just so sticky these days.
|
|
|
12 Jul 2004, 15:38 (Ref:1034328) | #20 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,885
|
Quote:
Last edited by garcon; 12 Jul 2004 at 15:39. |
|||
__________________
"Never pick a fight with an ugly person, they've got nothing to lose." |
12 Jul 2004, 15:42 (Ref:1034333) | #21 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,885
|
Good point Glen - tyres are probably as much involved as aerodynamics in increasing corner speeds. And more aggressive pit strategy is likely to increase speeds too.
So it's not just aero, then... Last edited by garcon; 12 Jul 2004 at 15:43. |
||
__________________
"Never pick a fight with an ugly person, they've got nothing to lose." |
12 Jul 2004, 15:58 (Ref:1034361) | #22 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,000
|
Great points from Glen and Climb in my view. I don't think Renault's problems ar eindicative of a general trend. With both the big crashes they've caused, there was never any real chance of injury.
I don't think there's a real need to slow the cars down, or do anything different in terms of car safety. The trend towards safety cars and away from red flags in situations of lots of on-track debris is worrying and misplaced in my view, but otherwise I've got no complaints, and I don't expect Monza or Spa to have any problems. |
||
|
12 Jul 2004, 16:41 (Ref:1034401) | #23 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,276
|
At least in Silverstone Trulli had a doctor by his side in less than a minute.
|
||
__________________
"Many people depend on motor racing for their livelihood, to them it is a business. To me, it is a sport." -Jim Clark |
12 Jul 2004, 17:09 (Ref:1034418) | #24 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 234
|
The suspension failures of the Renaults is a failed mod. they have intruduced to the car and I can Agree with Climb that they might want to increase the power-weight ratio of the car to improve performance...I think speed is still okey...
|
||
|
12 Jul 2004, 17:15 (Ref:1034425) | #25 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,299
|
People are saying now then that the issue is that Formula One cars can't overtake at the current speeds.
So is it a spectator's issue, or is it a safety issue? I find it hard to imagine that carbonfibre suspension parts would fatigue so suddenly at something like 6g - and certain accidents, especially in CART, have been known to result in up to 40g for the briefest of moments. Luciano Burti's Spa crash is a case in point. Safety-wise I still don't think F1 is dangerously fast, but from a competition perspective, perhaps they should be looking at reducing the demand on aerodynamics/tyres? |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
So how fast do you tow? | Al Weyman | Racers Forum | 73 | 27 Nov 2005 21:08 |
Are they actually too fast? | browney | Formula One | 36 | 2 Nov 2005 10:07 |
how fast is too fast? | chillibowl | Formula One | 4 | 15 Jun 2005 19:33 |
F1 too fast | Kicking-back | Formula One | 24 | 18 Mar 2004 20:00 |
Fast Jag | Mr V | Formula One | 4 | 9 Feb 2002 06:17 |