Jump to content

Talk:Formula One car

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Ground effects

Is it true to say that ground effects specifically are banned in F1, or is it just contoured underbodies that are banned? I honestly don't know, but it seems to me that the downforce that cars currently get from their raised nose, flat bottom and diffuser set up constitutes ground effects. SamH 09:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From what I saw on a doco once, both contoured underbodies (flat bottom must be used) and side skirts are banned. Sliding side skirts are just as important as the shaped undertray for creating the ground effect, as they prevent the fast travelling air from being 'sucked' out the side of the car, significantly reducing the ground effect. However, I do agree that using the ground effect as such is not specifically banned - but rules have been put in place to prevent its use. Similar to the banning of launch control...I believe the rule is actually banning electronic systems that control power to reduce wheel spin (or something ridiculous like that) below speeds of 100mph (not sure exactly) - an effective ban, but not specifically stated as such. AlbinoMonkey 12:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New Articles

I'd like to make new articles on each of the categories shown here, such as Formula One car aerodynamics. I am admittedly not an expert on any of the things, but have plenty of F1 magazines to take reference from, and am interested enough to do decent research. The information that is here could remain, but as I have seen on other pages, with a link just below the title that says something like Main article:Formula One car aerodynamics. Objections/comments? AlbinoMonkey 12:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The aerodynamics section of this article (Formula One cars) is quite short, so why not incorporate it there? The fewer "sub-articles" the better, I think, because it's less confusing. — Dan | Talk 13:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Danny; usually, articles are only split up when they become so long that they are difficult to read. I think that with the amount of info on this page, splitting it would make the information more difficult to read. SamH 13:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Engine section discrepancy?

In the Engine section, it starts out by describing the current enginer requirements as 8-cylinder V8, but later, after describing next year's changes, says that cars will be allowed next year to stay in the current V-10 configuration with detuning. So what is it? 8 or 10? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.241.17 (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cars are meant to use V8's in 2006, but there is an allowance to use a de-tuned V10 if they believe their V8 will not be reasonably competitive or available. I'm not sure of the exact ruling, but I'll have a look AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


=

The following as quoted from the main page, is totally untrue "Nonetheless a Formula One engine is over 20% more efficient at turning fuel into power than even the most economical small car." It is no surprise that this statement lacks a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.56.154 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement itself if somewhat true. Power (J/s or Energy per unit time) is the rate at which energy can be expelled as useful or mechanical work. A performance engine is therefore designed to convert the chemical energy of fuel into mechanical work as quickly as possible and almost always at the expense of fuel efficiency (useful energy out per amount of chemical energy in). The error in the article is therefore the language used to express this fact. Efficiency is often associated with that of the consumption of fuel per distance travelled, whereas in this case it is being used to describe the ability to convert fuel into available power. Essentially the comparison is a poor one as small cars have no bearing on the topic of the paragraph, which is engines and energy conversion. 137.82.115.193 (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=

The engines produce over 100,000 BTU per minute (1,750kW)[citation needed] of heat that must be dumped, usually to the atmosphere via radiators and the exhaust, which can reach temperatures over 1,000 degrees Celsius[citation needed](1,800 to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). They consume around 650 liters (23 ft³) of air per second[citation needed]. Race fuel consumption rate is normally around 75 liters per 100 kilometers traveled (3.1 US mpg - 3.8 UK mpg - 1.3 km/l). Nonetheless a Formula One engine is over 20% more efficient at turning fuel into power than most small commuter cars, considering their craftsmanship.

Hmmm, several points of note here. A BTU is a unit of energy, so in order to quote a power it does indeed need to be compared to a unit of time (the rather unconventional minute). A kW is however a unit of power so needs to be converted to joules per second and a minute conversion added. However this section is just a long hand version of energy efficiency. If you know the amount of fuel consumed, its calorific value and the useful work produced then you can quote a fuel conversion efficiency (in addition to the km/l figure). Similarly, on average the formula one calendar consists of 17-19 races per season and takes in a variety of tracks; how is it then possible to give energy and air consumption figures given this variety of engine operation conditions. Monaco has different cooling and engine use characteristics to Spa Francochamps. Air and fuel consumption are therefore dependant on engine operating conditions and should be quoted as such.

Finally, there is no citation for the '20% more efficient at turning fuel into power'. Not only is this claim dubious, but the comparison adds nothing to the readers understanding. The sentence is then concluded with the meaningless reference to craftsmanship. A F1 engine is hand made, a city car's is mass produced. A F1 engine is designed for high rates of energy conversion, a city car's for combined cycle fuel efficiency. An F1 engine is not concerned by emission regulations, a city car is shackled by them. Give and engine tuner a city car engine, a new ECU and a machine shop and the rates of energy conversion will rapidly converge. 137.82.115.193 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I agree they'd converge but with F1 teams' BIG budgets and the best and brightest engineers i don't think they would actually meet. I'm comparing simply HP/liter, all things being equal (aspiration etc). Hondaracer (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5valve?

article in wikipedia says no more than 5 valves. F1.com says 2inlet and 2 outlet. Mistake?

Actually Wikipedia says "The regulations specify that the cars must be powered by 2.4 litre naturally-aspirated engines in the V8 configuration that have no more than FOUR valves per cylinder."

engine horsepower ratings

I think we should add the fact that exact horsepower ratings are closely guarded team secrets, and all our numbers are estimations by experts. In fact, teams sometimes lie outright as a disinformation strategy against other teams. I am not sure where to put that though


performace sections

I originally added the entire performance sections (forward accel, deceleration, turning accel) without a username, so I have deleted and re-added these sections to get the credit (in a clumsy way). I spend a lot of time in F1 technical sites and forums, and for the figure for 0 to 300 quoted in the acceleration section I spent quite some time with a stopwatch in hand and wathcing onboard videos of F1 cars from several seasons. The distance markers on the side of the track leading to turns helped along with the stopwatch. Deletor 14:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Deletor[reply]

Unfortunately I think your work falls under Wikipedia:No original research and can't be included unless you can find a verifiable source to back the figures up. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 21:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the heads up; let me clarify that the figures I have quoted for the acceleration for the Renault R25 are from the times taken from onboard videos, so as such my 'research' for the exact figures are simply 'observations' of the actual, recorded phenomena, not research. (Anyone else can do the same). For the other figures, the acceleration figures for 0 - 100 kph are know to be 2 seconds for F1 cars, even in 2006. For instance, in the recent 2006 San Marino GP, explaining why he couldn't stop even when the lollipop slammed into his helmet, said: ". These things get from nought to sixty in two second so by the time you realise, you're gone and everybody is on the deck,". planet-f1 article linkThe other figures are from quotes during races, F1 TV shows, F1 racing mags, and F1 official team sites. Eg throughout the 2005 Turkish GP the g-force for the famous turn 8 was quoted in TV broadcasts, websites, official sites as 4.5 G (for 8 seconds which incidentally was causing the drivers pain in their rib-cages). Deletor 04:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Deletor[reply]

I'd be interested in seeing something included here about the turning radius of one of these cars. I read that the steering wheel is locked in the Monaco hairpin. Got me wondering... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.184.157 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article implies that use of carbon material is an important factor to achieve the "remarkable braking forces". This is not true. Cast iron has been tested and can achieve same performance. Indeed lots of materials would suffice if the goal was merely to brake hard enough to reach grip limit. Carbon is used mainly because of lighter weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.39.1 (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

safety section needs to be added

I don't have enough material to add the section on safety of modern F1 cars, for instance the detailed construction and crash testing (I know a bit from various Inside GP episodes), as well as the g-force sufferred and survived by Ralf Schumacher in the 2004 USA GP. Could someone start this with these facts? I'll try to look them up, or at least compile the known facts about safety and crash testing from the (Official FIA) Inside GP episodes. One thing related to safety that should be added is this: During an episode of the TV show Fifth Gear Jackie Stewart told Tiff Needell, "Michael Schumacher makes more mistakes every Grand Prix weekend than any Grand Prix multiple world champion I've ever known. I mean, the number of times I went off in a Grand Prix in my entire career I could count on one hand, because if you went off the road there was a very good chance you were gonna hit something hard, and you were gonna hurt yourself, nevermind the car." However the context of the show was safety in Grand Prix racing and Stewart's statement simply reflect the fact that safety standards in F1 today are vastly improved over those of thirty years ago. While every mistake could be potentially fatal in those days, modern-day top F1 drivers are expected to always drive on the limit, specially in practice sessions when they are trying to find the limits of the car. Technical director of Ferrari, Ross Brawn, has an explanation for this phenomenon. "The truth is that if, during practice sessions, Michael feels he's losing the car, he prefers to let the car go instead of trying to make huge corrections to stay on the track. It's part of his search for the limit. During a race however, he's the driver who makes the least mistakes." Deletor 22:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Deletor[reply]

Turning acceleration figures: it is 4.0g in Istanbul Turn 8

Somebody has changed the acceleration figure for Istanmbul Turn 8 from 4.0g to 3.0g. However there is no reason why the g-force can't be so high, and empirical evidence supports that the lateral acceleration force is 4.0g or more: 1. The turning ability in terms of centripetal acceleration is not fixed but goes up with speed - in low speed cornering at < 100 km/h it is almost all due to the mechanical grip of the tyres and is about 2.0g. As the speed rises the downforce increases, and depending on the cornering radius can be very high - in fast corners such as Blanchimont in Spa or 130R in Suzuka, although the corners pose no challenge in terms of being on the limit, the high speeds (>300km/h) mean that the g-force spikes at 5.0g for a few seconds. 2. The Turn 8 has 4 35° to 45° corners . They are taken at speeds between 190km/h and 240km/h (in 2005, as seen from the FIA official broadcast onboard telemetry). The same telemetry also shows the lateral g-forces, and on the scale which goes up to 5.0g, the g-force stays above 3.5g throughout the 8 second corner, and has several spikes > 4.5g (at the corner apexes). Deletor 23:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Twards the end of the article, it reads: "in which the cars maintain speeds between 255 km/h and 270 km/h (in 2006) and experience between 4.5g and 5.5g for 7 seconds - the longest sustained hard cornering in Formula 1 (and hence all motorsport)."

I believe Indy Cars see similar, if not higher, cornering g's. Mustang6172 04:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking Mr., all Indy Cars do is circle around and around, they have no cornering G's. (216.99.61.34 01:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"Circling around and around at high speed", that's where cornering G's come from! It's not magic you know. Mustang6172 06:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The radii of the so-called circular tracks are big enough to reduce those G's to something like 1 or 2. There are no exceptional braking zones or any sharp corners.
I think an accelerometer would disagree with you. I'm not talking about breaking or sharp turns. Sharp turns produce low lateral G's anyway. If you're interested in pure acceleration and breaking G's, a Top Fuel car has an F1 car beat hands down. Lateral G's come from wide fast turns, and banking makes them faster. Mustang6172 05:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Banking does make greater g forces possible, but they aren't lateral any more. On an unbanked surface, an F1 car will turn much faster around any radius than an Indy car will. sword 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.76.205 (talk) [reply]
Mustang, the equation for lateral acceleration is (V^2)/R. The sharper the corner (narrower radius) the more acceleration the car will experience. This makes sense if you consider an extremely wide turn is indistinguishable from a straight line which produces no lateral acceleration. The wide oval has a much higher radius than sharp corners do, thus cars experience higher lateral acceleration in sharp corners at equal speeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.34.169 (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with user 216.99.X.X. An F1 car is technologically way superior to that of an indy-car (fact). As a result, it would produce more G's under the same conditions/track/etc (head to head comparison). (130.113.226.6 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not talking about G's would be reached in a head-to-head comparison with identical (and controlled) parameters. I'm talking about what the cars actually do in real life. Like it or not, Indy cars are pulling 5 G's at Richmond Mustang6172 05:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mustang6172, as you can read in the article, F1 cars produce twice downforce of an Indycar can at 190 kph. 8th turn in IstanbuPark is taken over 275 kph speed, and its diameter is one tenth of any oval circuit. I watched 2005 Istanbul Grand Prix at the circuit, drived a Renault Clio RS (200bhp) on this circuit in 2006, driven at PS2 F1 2006 game hundreds laps and spend much time reading telemetry data. At third apex of Turn 8, F1 cars can reach over 6.2 G's with a right adjustment at the F1 2006 simulation. By the way, I'm totally sure an oval-racer car can't even get close to an F1 car on a non-oval track. Khutuck 18:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you played a video game. You're certainly a force to be reckoned with (sarcasm intended). While I’m sure you can reach 6.2g’s on your little game, in real life, 6.2g’s would cause brownouts. Champ Car cancelled an oval race in 2001 because drivers were seeing more than 6g’s sustained through the turns. The human body, regardless of physical condition, cannot operate in those conditions. I fail to see how it matters if a car that’s been designed specifically to race on ovals can reach the same g-loads on a road course. I fail to see what difference it makes if Xg’s are produced on a road course or an oval.Mustang6172 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


At the end of the first paragraph it says the cars achieve 6g at 130R in Suzuka and the author has quoted some spurious website as his/her source for the high figure. But on the F1 database website, Suzuka's 130R was taken at only 3.6g @ 272 kph in 2006. So 6g is a rediculous figure, and is clearly wrong. I can only assume the 6G figure was achieved by a ground effect car some time in the past, and is not anything like achievable by todays F1 cars. Also, according to the official F1 website, the max possible lateral G for this year's cars is given as 4g at high speeds, but will typically be around 3.5g. So it should say 3.6g at 130R @ 272kph and not 6g. In fact, to pull 6g on the same curve the car would have to be doing 350kph. Top speed at Suzuka was 312kph in 2006 (just before 130R), so absolute max through that turn would be 4.7g. So 6g is not possible, wherever the figure came from it's pure nonsense.

According to this BBC article, the current lateral g force is 5.2g at Silverstone/Copse: [1]. This article says Suzuka/130R was 5g when using the BMW P84/5 engine (probably about 2005): [2]. Re "to pull 6g on the same curve the car would have to be doing 350kph", how can you know that without original research? Joema 13:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple school physics:- lateral acceleration is only dependant on speed in one particular curve (it also applies to complex, non-circular curves). Calculation is G=v^2/R. Where R is a constant (same curve), then G is proprtional only to v^2. So to get from 3.6g @ 272kph you need to go at v(at 6g)=squrt(6/3.6)*272kph = 350kph. You don't need to know the downforce figure or tyre grip coefficient, whatever they are they have to keep the car on the track at the requisite speed which is 350kph. - So it can't be done. Not at 130R anyway..
I just checked on Google Earth , copse has a radius around 130meters, so 5g is the correct figure at 177mph, but 130R at 6g is still a nonsense.
The equation may actually corroborate the above-quoted Castrol article saying Suzuka/130R is 5 lateral gs. At from 285-290 km/hr, the equation gives about 5g for a 130 meter radius turn (Suzuka 130R). It would apparently indicate 6g isn't possible at current speeds. However there are two main problems with this:
(1) The equation is for a ideal mathematical curve. We don't know the exact racing line. You can easily pull more or less g's at the exact same speed on the exact same curve, just by adjusting the racing line.
(2) We can't post or change Wikipedia information based on original research, such as doing our own calculations -- no matter how straightforward these seem. That's discussed here: Wikipedia:No original research.
Sanity checking the figures by equations are a good basis for a discussion on the talk page, but we can't make article contributions based on that, as it constitutes original research. Joema 16:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007 issue of F1 Racing Turkey has an article about 8th turn of IstanbulPark. It mentions the lateral acceleration of an F1 car is continuously over 4.5G for 7 seconds, and it pekas to 5.2G on some bumps in the turn. It also mentions that without a proper G-suit like a fighter aircraft pilot wears, it is not easy for a human to be xposed to G-forces around 6G. --Khutuck 02:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Shouldn't this article properly be called Formula One car, in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions? --SFoskett 14:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I be bold now. Gzuckier 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engine heat units discrepancy

Under the "Engine" section, the engine is described as producing "100 000 BTU per minute (1750kW) of heat". Shouldn't that read "100 000 BTU per minute (1750kJ) of heat"? As kW is kJ per second.

-- A BTU per minute would is a valid unit for power (Watts), as energy over time. I haven't done the conversion, but BTU/min would go to kW or kJ/min, not simply kJ.129.116.14.205 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--100,000 BTU/min = 1750 kW = 1750 kJ/sec (actually 1758...). It should, however, read "power" instead of "heat", as heat/work are interchangeable descriptions of energy (units of BTU, J, or kW-hr), and power is work/time (units of BTU/min, kW). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.163.102 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

imperial measures

i was hoping that maybe imperial measures could be put in brackets next too the current metric ones. i was hoping this because many ppl in the US and UK would appreciate this and make it more understandable. i personally when reading the article had to convert the units in my haed so i could appreciate it Pratj 12:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top speeds

Hi 64.76.91.29. My recent edits were intended to clarify that an F1 car, modified, but still F1 legal (I don't believe there's any rule which says you have to have a rear wing) had reached a speed of 413km/h at Mojave. I only mention the actual Bonneville flats speed (the same car, but not F1 legal because it used a 'moveable aerodynamic device') because it's the one most people have heard of.

  • "Despite some so called Formula One car performance demonstrations being conducted by some constructors in recent years in the hope of media attraction." - In Wikipedia articles we need to keep a neutral tone (see WP:NPOV). 'So-called' and 'in the hope of' give a strong impression of the editor's views.
  • "the real performance of these cars can only be measured on a race track where the FIA restrictions and legislations are observed." - First off, although this kind of argument is useful for deciding what we put in the article, we can't actually put the argument in the article, unless we've got it referenced from somewhere else. I agree that 'real' performance can only be measured where FIA restrictions are in force. Honda claim that the car met FIA F1 regulations at Mojave - we have no particular reason to disbelieve them, but that is why I used that phrasing to make it clear to the reader that we only have their word for it. I don't agree that 'real' performance can only be measured on the race track. If you took a completely standard Honda and ran it at Mojave you'd still reach a higher top speed than they do at F1 tracks - given that you can trim downforce below the optimum for a racetrack and step up the gearing. We do need to be very clear that this is about the top speed that a car meeting F1 regulations can meet, not the top speed of the cars we see every other weekend on the track (Edit - sorry, clarifying my thoughts!).
  • "McLaren Mercedes and Red Bull Racing" - I didn't include this in my edit because I hadn't heard that they had done this and I didn't have a reference for it.
  • notoriously" - not a neutral word
  • "which is not an indicator of real open-wheeled F1 car performance but the indicator of what an open-wheel car could do during a qualifying session with the absence of a Formula." - I think I agree with the sentiment being expressed here, but I think it can be expressed more clearly. In particular, it's not about what can be achieved in a qualifying session, I would suggest it is more about what can be achieved with an F1 car if the only criteria is top straightline speed.

I will edit your words in line with these points. If you disagree, please correct those points that you feel are wrong, it would be useful if you could describe your reasoning here with reference to my points above. Thanks. 4u1e 07:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - although I have ended up modifying my version rather than yours. 4u1e 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is still funny thing on Top Speeds section. The FIA recognized a 372.6 as fastest and then after it is said that Bottas his 372.54 is still not recognized as fastest by FIA. I do not know who put that in. Very very small change you. But wanted to posted here for discussion and not just adjust things without discussing it with others.
But 372.54 is slower then the by FIA recognized 372.6 and so maybe that is why it is never recognized by the FIA? 2001:1C03:4918:A100:998A:A358:4A3A:8F83 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

good, thanks a lot 4u1e... user

As i can remember, in Monza track of Italy, F1 cars had reached over 380kph in the year 2003 or 2004. So i think it's quite possible for an F1 car to reach 450+ kph speeds on a long, long, long tarmac. The salt flats had required a car with a relatively high ground clearance, which is not very suitable for a F1 speed record trial. Note:This is totally my own view as a F1 fan :) --Khutuck 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steering Wheel

I tought they cost over $100,000, not $40,000.. i saw that in a book —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.12.155.116 (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

They cost £30,000 as far as I'm aware (so I guess about 43,000US$?).123.255.23.11 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyres

Im not sure where to mention this but here seems fine. In the article it is mentioned that FIA and F1 will return to "Slicks" in 2008. While there have been rumors of a return, nothing is final. I have also read the technical regs from the FIA website and they clearly state "grooved" tires in 2008. Im going to edit it and state it is a rumor, not fact. Here are the regs 12.1 starts Tyres http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/4042041__2008_F1_TECHNICAL_REGULATIONS.pdf

Power to weight ratio figures

In working out the power to weight ratio of the 2006 car the figures of

weight of 605kg (440kg before ballast)

and a bhp of 850bhp give or take

the power to weight ratio comes back as 0.7117

but yet the page states 0.9

"The 2006 F1 cars have a power-to-weight ratio of 1,250 hp/tonne (0.9 kw/kg). "

Is either not clear, I've missed something or wrong.

IanGUK 12:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you've done them the wrong way around. Its horsepower (850bhp in this case) divided by the weight (605kg) -> ~1,400bhp/tonne ... what you have worked out is the weight to power ratio.Pubuman (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably that figure was calculated for 2005 when power was creeping up around 900 bhp. 4u1e 23:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
850 bhp is equal to 637,5kW, 605/637,5 is 0,949. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khutuck (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should be the other way around (power/weight, not weight/power)... the 0.9 value was using the 1250bhp/tonne, because 1250bhp = 919 kW. So if it has a power to weight ratio of 919kW/tonne then its 0.919 kW/kg.Pubuman (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Plagiarism?

I am not sure who is copying whom here, but this article is, in places, almost word for word identical to an article on the F1 Complete website: http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/1381/389/

Its been slightly reworded, but that doesn't place it outside the realms of plagiarism, especially as there are no attributions. 82.152.52.97 22:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article originally said this, and then had some minor changes to it, and the other bits were added at completely seperate times: [3], [4], and have since had minor changes. I think it's pretty safe to say that, given these bits were added at different times, by different editors, in a different order, and with sometimes vastly different wording (although with the same concepts), that the link you provided copied it from a version here. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curb weight comparison?

To help readers understand how incredibly lightweight F1 cars are, can we add verbiage stating the estimated dry curb weight? That is how road cars are normally specified, which readers are familiar with. On a road car there's not a huge difference between wet and dry weight. However due to the extremely light dry weight of F1 cars, the wet weight (inc'l driver, apparel, fluids and ballast) is much greater than the dry weight. Wet weight understates how light F1 cars actually are. How about adding something like this to the "Construction section":

"Road cars typically specify "dry curb weight" (minus driver/passengers and fluids). F1 fuel capacity is about 150 liters (40 U.S. gallons), which weighs about 110 kg (244 lbs). The equivalent dry weight for an F1 car (minus fluids, driver and ballast) can be below 350 kg (770 lbs), or lighter than some motorcycles." Joema 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced and with British spellings (kerb, litres) to match the rest of the article that would probably be a good addition.4u1e 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As i remember, an F1 car's weight without fuel, but all lubricants must be over 600kg. FIA says:

4.1 Minimum weight :

The weight of the car must not be less than 605kg during the qualifying practice session and no less than 600kg at all other times during the Event.

1.9 Weight :

Is the weight of the car with the driver, wearing his complete racing apparel, at all times during the event.

So, the car cannot be below 600kg's at the end of the race, when all the fuel is consumed. Car's weight without fuel must be over 600kg. Khutuck 02:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has now (2011) increased from 620 to 640 kg to allow for the weight of the KERS 87.254.238.85 (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Acceleration discrepancy

The article states:

"0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.9 seconds" "The acceleration figure is usually 2.46 g (24.1 m/s²) up to 200 km/h (124 mph)"

Per google calculator, 0-124 mph in 3.9s works out to an average acceleration of 1.4 g. Protomech (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engine Efficiency

There is no evidence to suggest that the brake thermal efficiency of a formula one engine is higher than that of the most efficient of production passenger car engines, as stated in the article.

Engine speeds of 19.000rpm with mean piston speeds in excess of 25 m/s result in large friction losses. In addition, attainment of maximum output for a given quantity of inducted air mass requires operation with an air-fuel ratio that is rich of stoichiometric, at which air-fuel ratio the brake specific fuel consumption is higher than stoichiometric, where passenger car engines equipped with three-way catalysts operate. Turbocharging is another efficiency enabling technology that is available on passenger car engines which is not present on formula one engines.

I suggest deleting the sentence which states that brake thermal efficiency of the formula one engine is 20% higher than the most efficient of passenger car engines.

Emporiko (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I am new to the talk pages here, though I've done some anonymous editing. Sorry if I've replied in the wrong form. A web search reveals that the authour may be correct. The rather ugly page at http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/Z.Yates/Zach's%20Web%20Project%20Folder/EICE%20-%20Main.htm is probably also the basis behind the article at http://www.f1reviews.com/technical/The-anatomy-of-an-F1-engine-part-1 Both suggest that thermal efficiency of a "street engine" is around 26% while a race engine may be as high as 34%. At a guess the materials used and shorter working life mean that higher temperatures may be tolerated. Possibly also thinner cylinder walls might mean better heat flow. But I'm only guessing at all that. 193.34.186.161 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would especially recommend removing the statement that this increase in efficiency is due to "higher craftsmanship". Formula 1 car engines run at extremely high temperatures and compression ratios, which would not be allowable on passenger cars due to emissions standards. The effect of craftsmanship on efficiency (versus the engine technologies themselves) is likely very small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.137.204 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Driving upside-down

Theoretically, a car definitely cannot drive upside-down at the speed where they double their own weight. At such a speed, the tires have no grip on whatever surface they are driving on because gravity cancels out the downforce, and with no normal force between tire and surface, the wheels would immediately start to spin with no friction, causing the speed to drop below the necessary threshold to develop enough aerodynamic downforce to counter gravity, which would result in the car falling to the ground.

It is not necessarily impossible for a Formula 1 car to drive upside-down at some level of speed. However, the downforce has to be great enough, the tire friction coefficient has to be great enough, and the drag coefficient must be small enough that the force of friction in the tires can overcome the aerodynamic drag and keep the car at the necessary speed. However, we have no proof that such conditions exist, and until we do we cannot say that a car can drive upside-down, even in theory.--Kickflipthecat (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're all sure F1 cars can accelerate under 1G gravity (start of the race, while the car is stationary, so there is no downforce), also it is generally stated that a Formula 1 car can generate downforce equal to its weight at 120km/h, and double of its weight at 190km/h. So, a Formula One car may theoretically go upside down at speeds over 190 km/h, as the downforce will be double of the weight of car. Khutuck Bot (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
F1 cars can accelerate with the normal force equal to its weight, but the only thing it has to overcome is its own inertia and the rolling resistance in the tires. Because of the wings and surfaces on an F1 car, at 190 km/h the grip in the tires must also overcome the air resistance. While they may be able to do this without spinning the wheels, the F1 teams have not given us the necessary drag and grip coefficients to mathematically prove whether or not this is possible. Also, you have to take into account the fact that the ceiling of a tunnel is most likely not made of asphalt, but tile, which is much less grippy.--Kickflipthecat (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels

The article doesn't explain what the 'hubcap' things on the F1 car wheels are. They appear relatively new. I'd like to see some mention of them in the part on tyres and wheels. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they are only on cars with KERs systems to stop the fly wheels coming loose in the event of a crash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.106.221 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


^ WRONG. They are aerodynamic devices. They are to condition the air flow around the wheels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.138.135 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC) They WERE aerodynamic devices. Banned from the start of the 2010 season. Maybe some information covering them may be useful. Bjmullan (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Braking performance

(transferred from the article):

An F1 car can brake from 200 km/h (124 mph) to a complete stop in just 2.9 seconds, using only 65 metres* (213 ft).[1]


*this doesnt add up, if you say it can stop in 65m that would mean it would only take 0.7s and an deceleration of that speed would probably deform the car due to the forces and probably kill the driver too

v = u + at, v2 = u2 + 2as

where v is final velocity u is initial velocity, t is time, a is acceleration, s = distance.

using the equation : v = u + ( v2 - (u2/(2 * 65)) )

0 = (200,000/3600) + (02) - ((200,000/3600)2)/130)t

t = 0.7 seconds

(converted 200kmph to meters per second)

*it does add up. The acceleration/deceleration isn't constant throughout braking. Furthermore, at speed, it would take more than one second to cover 213 feet. How could it possibly take less time while slowing down?**

    • thats what im saying, the numbers dont add up, it cant take less time hence the figures are wrong. for all intensive purposes the average deceleration of the car is equal to the change in deceleration throughout, because we are talking about a time from motion to motionless, not a time from motion to motion, at a fixed distance.
What the previous poster was saying is that it would take longer than 0.7s to travel 65m if the car did not decelerate at all (at a constant speed of 200km/h – or 55.6m/s – it would take 1.2s to cover that distance), therefore there must be an error in your calculations. Hopefully this will clear things up:


So, assuming a constant rate of deceleration, it would take 2.33 seconds to stop in the required distance. Of course, the rate of deceleration would not be constant – braking force would decrease as the car slows – so the quoted figure of 2.9 seems reasonable to me.
In any case, I've not been able to find another reliable source giving contradictory information. Regards, AJCham 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You want a reliable source? What about a filmed video of an actual test at 200 km/h?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMp7UR_YGsw
2.12 seconds.
  1. ^ F1Technical.com web site. Retrieved 21 July 2007.

Ecology

Perhaps that a new section can be added "Ecology", where it is explained that eco-frinedly technologies are being tested on formula one cars, and introduction of (some of) them could happen soon.

Ie --> mixing ethanol with gasoline (E85) --> see Project Green, http://www.physorg.com/news197730744.html

--> biodegradable materials for the chassis --> see World First Racing --> http://www.worldfirstracing.co.uk/

91.182.40.154 (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram needed

This article would really benefit from one or more large labelled diagrams naming the different parts of the car, especially parts of the bodywork. I came looking for the names of two parts of the car. I eventually found them: "skid block" and "nose" - I hope these are correct but it's difficult to be sure without a labelled diagram. I also found "nosecone" on the F1 official site and "planks" are also often referred to elsewhere. Basically the only way I can use them is to Google and see what others use. BBC Sport used to have a good illustration (flash I think) but I can't find it any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.238.85 (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship winning Formula One cars

I noticed an absence of a category for F1 cars that won the World Constructors Championship (Red Bull RB6 & RB7, McLaren MP/4-4, etc). I know there is a category for Drivers Champions. Any thoughts; ought there be such a category? 71.210.0.211 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with a category for cars would be that constructors have often used more than one model during a season - sometimes with widely varying success. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engine, POV

Engine specs has listed a top speed of 362km/h. How can an engine have that when its the gearbox that dictates (including the downforce modifiers) the speed and acceleration figures of the whole vehicle with regards to a chassis. An engine doesn't do anything usefull without a gearbox of some sort. The whole article has got some sections of fan-boi-ism and flambouant expressive text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

F1 2014 and 2013 rules merging

I have noticed that F1 2012 2013 and 2014 rules have Merged into one mess. At one point it says this but then says that later. I would suggest a clean up and update — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.108.198 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Formula One car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications section

I'm wondering whether the "Specifications" section is starting to get a bit too detailed for a general purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Or whether the content should be split out into a separate article. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very late response but it is still relevant today, I agree completely that the whole section is overkill. It's also almost entirely unsourced and quite poorly written (like the abolation of the beam wing 5 years in a row). I suspect that this is mostly the result of an editor initially called Theriusrooney or something of the like (most recent confirmed activity on this article is sockpuppet account Karymborny, though I suspect the IP I just reverted is the same individual due to editing habit and geolocation in comparison with previously used IP's used to block evade) who does this type of editing on numerous motorsports related articles. In my opinion, just remove the whole section. The rest of the article provides better general information more appropriate for an encyclopedia anyway. TylerBurden (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DH85868993: Courtesy ping for you as I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, I'll wait a bit and if there is no further input I'll go ahead and remove it. TylerBurden (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden: I'd support removing the whole section; I think it's way too detailed for Wikipedia. DH85868993 (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright we're on the same page then. I'll remove it now. TylerBurden (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodynamics

BBC sport just added an excellent article on the nose / capes / J vanes impact to downforce at https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/51739796 (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20200706085005/https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/51739796). Might be some useful additions to the article. --donal.hunt (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism

I understand that there is a lot of crossover here with the History of Formula One article, but I think this article treats the modern form of a Formula One car as more of an absolute than it should. I don't know how exactly one would go about changing this article, but I think it should be made clearer that early Formula One cars were typically front engined and lacked aerofoils. The fact that some early Formula One cars had enclosed wheels is less relevant but possibly should be bought up at some point to avoid potentially misleading readers. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Formula_One_car&oldid=1212963821"