[Tech Issue] Long wheelbase Lotus for Monza (merged)

[Marbot]

Lotus will be 'testing' a long wheelbase car at the Monza GP. They say that it is also a test study for the 2014 season where perhaps a more 'stable' car with low downforce would be the thing to have at more than just the Monza circuit?

http://kimiraikkonenspace.com/2013/0...or-lotus-2014/

It would seem that Lotus are more interested in testing than securing its first drivers title.

[Nicholosophy]

Will be interesting to see how different it is. Suspect not much.

To the days when someone could have some imagination, put it on a car and bring it to a track to try out...

[Oldtony]

"Kimi is not very interested in the simulator" says Boulier.
Some of the things we love about Kimi sometimes work against him.
But it is interesting that Lotus are likely to be adventurous in their technical innovation, and the need to co-ordinate simulator feed back with the real world to assist in long term development.
By the way Marbot, it would hardly be Lotus "first driver title" if you count it as a name rather than a traceable heritage.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

By the way Marbot, it would hardly be Lotus "first driver title" if you count it as a name rather than a traceable heritage.

I know, but so many regulars on here say that it's not the 'real' Lotus.

Mercedes, for the same reason, are also not the real Mercedes. If F1 carries on with the same teams for another 60 years or so, will that be enough time to say that they will really be the real Mercedes and Lotus?

If Hyundai buy the rights to the Maserati brand, for example, and come into F1 using that name, why aren't they Maserati?

But we digress.

I'm more interested in why Lotus feel that this long wheel base car is going to be the platform for their 2014 F1 car. Long wheelbase and low downforce? Is this a team that thinks the races will be won by having the best straightline performance?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

"Kimi is not very interested in the simulator" says Boulier.
Some of the things we love about Kimi sometimes work against him.
But it is interesting that Lotus are likely to be adventurous in their technical innovation, and the need to co-ordinate simulator feed back with the real world to assist in long term development.
By the way Marbot, it would hardly be Lotus "first driver title" if you count it as a name rather than a traceable heritage.

Interesting that many of the really talented drivers find the simulator to be of little help.
Kimi doesn't like them, and neither did Schu!

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by wnut

Interesting that many of the really talented drivers find the simulator to be of little help.
Kimi doesn't like them, and neither did Schu!

True wnut. But the Shui, and early in his career Kimi had the advantage of plenty of testing.
Ferrari of course used to use Fiorano very extensively. test limitations or not.
Marbot I think the low downforce, slippery car thing could be as much about getting the most out of the limited fuel flow as looking for straight line speed.
Drag=Need for Power=Fuel use.
I would imagine the longer wheelbase would be also helpful in high speed stability with less downforce.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Marbot I think the low downforce, slippery car thing could be as much about getting the most out of the limited fuel flow as looking for straight line speed.
Drag=Need for Power=Fuel use.
I would imagine the longer wheelbase would be also helpful in high speed stability with less downforce.

I suppose that is what I really meant to say.

Obviously, increased straightline speed could be a benefit depending on how much the ERS make up for the shortfall in fuel.

The more you think about it the more you realise how easy it could be to get the whole thing very very wrong.

[Sodemo]

The cars are too long as it is. The cars need to be shorter and wider, in my view.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The cars are too long as it is. The cars need to be shorter and wider, in my view.

Why? That makes passing even harder.
A B Double might be long but it only takes up one lane. A wide load takes up both.
(Sorry, a B Double is an Australian double articulated truck. Not a Road Train but getting close)

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Why? That makes passing even harder.
A B Double might be long but it only takes up one lane. A wide load takes up both.
(Sorry, a B Double is an Australian double articulated truck. Not a Road Train but getting close)

Well both from an aesthetic standpoint and a racing standpoint, it would be better. For one, they would look like single seaters again instead of buses. It was only really in the late 90's and 2000's that the cars started to get really long. The early 90's cars were short wide and gorgeous to look at. Wider cars = more chassis drag = bigger slipstream. The fact that the cars would be 20 cm wider, would that make a difference on tracks that have 25 metre wide braking zones? Probably not. In any case, the cars could overtake fine before 1998 with wider chassis, so all of a sudden it would be a problem with wider cars?

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Well both from an aesthetic standpoint and a racing standpoint, it would be better. For one, they would look like single seaters again instead of buses. It was only really in the late 90's and 2000's that the cars started to get really long. The early 90's cars were short wide and gorgeous to look at. Wider cars = more chassis drag = bigger slipstream. The fact that the cars would be 20 cm wider, would that make a difference on tracks that have 25 metre wide braking zones? Probably not. In any case, the cars could overtake fine before 1998 with wider chassis, so all of a sudden it would be a problem with wider cars?

The thing is, all F1 cars look like F1 cars. By definition. Of course, you might not like how they look (I really don't care one way or the other, or what they sound like TBH), but they always look like F1 cars.

[wolfhound]

A longer wheelbase should make the car more stable but less nimble in corners, they have also to get round the station harpin at Monaco. I imagine that Lotus has gone through a number of design concepts to look at what should work best from an overall point of view. There will be more packaging issues with next years cars with ERS, larger energy storage systems, turbos, intercooling and heat recovery systems.

Then the long wheelbase could be a red herring to throw the opposition off the scent.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

A longer wheelbase should make the car more stable but less nimble in corners, they have also to get round the station harpin at Monaco. I imagine that Lotus has gone through a number of design concepts to look at what should work best from an overall point of view. There will be more packaging issues with next years cars with ERS, larger energy storage systems, turbos, intercooling and heat recovery systems.

Then the long wheelbase could be a red herring to throw the opposition off the scent.

Is it that much of a difference in getting around low speed corners? The last two times I saw clips from Matchett (yeah, prob was 2-3 years ago) the long wheelbase cars were only longer in tiny increments by changing the suspension angles. The suspension mounting points are part of the chassis that is a frozen part at the start of the season? Maybe frozen isn't the right term but don't they have to re-test any changes to the chassis with the FIA to homologate a new design? And is there anything to limit them developing a long version for high speed tracks and using the shorter suspension for the tighter tracks? Or was Lotus looking at a whole new longer chassis completely?

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Is it that much of a difference in getting around low speed corners? The last two times I saw clips from Matchett (yeah, prob was 2-3 years ago) the long wheelbase cars were only longer in tiny increments by changing the suspension angles. The suspension mounting points are part of the chassis that is a frozen part at the start of the season? Maybe frozen isn't the right term but don't they have to re-test any changes to the chassis with the FIA to homologate a new design? And is there anything to limit them developing a long version for high speed tracks and using the shorter suspension for the tighter tracks? Or was Lotus looking at a whole new longer chassis completely?

To deal with the last part first I suspect but don't have any evidence that they are trying a modified car with a view to next year where there is so much more stuff to be packaged, Enstone are adding length to fit it all in.
If they change the angle of the front wishbones thats the easy bit Getting the front aero to work with it is more involved as the front wing will have to be moved forward or modified.
At the back the wheel base was traditionally lengthened by putting a spacer between the engine and gearbox or move the engine + transmission backwards. I would imagine that a longer wheelbase will be of benifit to the aerodynamics creating more underfloor down force and allowing better airflow over the top of the car.
I doubt we will see short wheelbase cars for the likes of Monaco due to cost but cars are regularly modified to have greater steering lock there.

[Amaroo Park]

In appearance the McLaren's over the last two to three years have seemed to be of a longer wheelbase than most of the other cars on the grid. It will be interesting to see how it compares to the current car. Have they said if both drivers will be using it?

[hondafan37]

Lotus to switch to long-wheelbase car from Italian Grand Prix

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/109380

I have the impression that this can be very good for Monza, but what about the rest of the circuits more locked in F1?