20 Things You Didn't Know About F1 Racing

[JohnRgt 0]

Even though FOX has taken massive gambles in trying to introduce F1 to the States, it hasn't taken here. That's a shame, as F1 is the most technologically advanced automobile racing forum in the world. (The one thing seen in NASCAR and IRL that's lacking in F1 is passing. F1 tracks and cars don't encourage it, which can make for rather dull racing.)

Click here for a quick evo piece that may put the biggest thing in sports in perspective.

13 The technical support at each event is massive. Renault alone takes 17,000 spare parts and 40 tons of equipment. Ten [trucks] are used to transport it all, with the cars carried at the top of the trailers because they are much lighter than the parts and tools carried in the immaculate lockers beneath.

16 The steering wheel is the centre of activity in an F1 car. In addition to its primary role, the carbonfibre wheel also serves as home to the gear selector, clutch, on-board diagnostics system, communications buttons and the engine and chassis controls. No wonder it costs around £20,000…

McLaren used to arrive a few days before everyone else in order to fit granite tiles to their allocated pit garage and give it a complete makeover! Ex-McLaren garages are much sought after…

To Ron Dennis: MORE McLAREN ROADCARS, PLEASE!!!

[Capitalism Forever 0]

I indeed didn't know most of this, even though I saw almost every F1 race in the last 3 years. These guys do mean business!

[JohnRgt 0]

To Ron Dennis: MORE McLAREN ROADCARS, PLEASE!!!

It seems like McLaren was listening... :

Link

Let's try this one more time, in the hope that we can correct a massive wrong brought about by the CO2 and oil shortage myths, fantasies that governments around the world are all too eager to legislate into fact.

To Ron Dennis: MANUAL TRANSMISSIONS IN THE NEW McLAREN ROADCARS, PLEASE!

(Both automated-manual and dual clutch transmissions allow manufacturers to add extra gears, making it easier to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. Yes, most of these transmissions shift far faster than a manual ever could and allow cars equipped with them to accelerate faster. These transmissions certainly have a place in the marketplace. But in extreme sports cars, the reduction in driver involvement and control is a strong negative for a massive percentage of car fans.)

[rtg24 0]

Saw this today.

The REALLY revolutionary thing here is the full carbon frame. The auto industry is due a shift to carbon frames, which are much lighter and have much better mechanical properties, from steel and aluminium any day. What was missing was one big public company making an order big enough to scale up production (and shift method) to compete in price with existing frames. This is a huge step forward for the auto industry.

Thanks for the article also!

[JohnRgt 0]

Leno gets a sneak peek at the MP11 (just under four minutes.)

[JohnRgt 0]

I guess it's appropriate for a thread that started off as a listing of interesting Formula 1 facts to morph into a McLaren MP4-12C thread -- McLaren is F1!

Here's about twenty-five minutes worth of video that shows Antony Sheriff, Managing Director of McLaren Automotive, walking Harry Metcalfe, evo's Editorial Director, around the MP4-12C:

Part 1 (7:04)

Part 2 (8:40)

Part 3 (9:18)

[JohnRgt 0]

Here are some F1 tech facts I found exciting. There from the 2006 edition of The Science of Formula 1 Design, by F1 journalist David Tremayne.

As an indication of the development process during a racing year, BMW's P83 powerplant underwent nearly 1,400 technical modifications.

Idle speed [for P83] was 4,000rpm, maximum race speed 19,000rpm and it weighed less than 90kg. In an hour of flat-out race running it would ingest 1,995 cubic meters of air and the maximum piston acceleration was 10,000g. Piston speed peaked at 40 meters per second and averaged 25 meters per second, each one accelerating from 0 to 100kph in a thousandth of a second.

From other reading:

-- 10kg on an F1 equals 4/10s of a second per lap at Barcelona's F1 track.

-- Though the V10 engines from the previous Rule weighed under 100kg, there were tracks where going with a wider V angle would yield significant dynamics advantages. (The allowed V range was from 72-111 degrees. Obviously, the wider the V the greater the aerodynamics and packaging headaches.)

-- The V10s were made out of 5,000 interrelated parts. Tolerances and packaging were so tight that modifying just one part required rethinking dozens of others.

[Arnold 0]

There is something I don't like about modern down-force cars; they look like slot cars with jerky sideways movements. As technology advances speeds, steps are made to counter them. Why not make it a rule to have Zero down-force. Not only will that limit speeds, but finally add some grace to cornering as the techniques of drifting are mastered. That would be more fun than watching suction cups race.

[JohnRgt 0]

There is something I don't like about modern down-force cars; they look like slot cars with jerky sideways movements. As technology advances speeds, steps are made to counter them. Why not make it a rule to have Zero down-force. Not only will that limit speeds, but finally add some grace to cornering as the techniques of drifting are mastered. That would be more fun than watching suction cups race.

I'm not sure if it continues, but there was a trend towards less sticky tires, "analog" brakes and an attempt to eliminate traction control (I've read that given the cost of a missed shift in a modern F1, H-pattern gearboxes and analog clutches will never return.) All of these measures were meant to curtain costs -- it can take 1,000 highly skilled people and cost a billion Euros for a team to field two cars built to a new Rule -- and bring some driving skills back to a racing format that had become so technically advanced that just about all drivers needed to do was floor the accelerator and point the wheels towards the apex.

[JohnRgt 0]

I was thinking of Arnold's POV and remembered another tidbit I found interesting.

Active aerodynamic appendages aren't allowed in F1. But some teams have so mastered the relative sciences that they design the front and rear wings to flex into shapes that exhibit specific characteristics at specific speeds. Apparently, it's almost impossible to regulate against this advantageous flexing, which gives the better teams a huge advantage (those who regulate F1 are always adjusting the rules in order to assure close, exciting races.)

How huge?

One year, it was estimated that the ability of Ferrari's rear wing to shed downforce past a certain speed on the long straights of the tour yielded a 7kph advantage on those straights, which represents about a 2.5% increase in regularly attained top speed.

[Arnold 0]

There is something I don't like about modern down-force cars; they look like slot cars with jerky sideways movements. As technology advances speeds, steps are made to counter them. Why not make it a rule to have Zero down-force. Not only will that limit speeds, but finally add some grace to cornering as the techniques of drifting are mastered. That would be more fun than watching suction cups race.

I'm not sure if it continues, but there was a trend towards less sticky tires, "analog" brakes and an attempt to eliminate traction control (I've read that given the cost of a missed shift in a modern F1, H-pattern gearboxes and analog clutches will never return.) All of these measures were meant to curtain costs -- it can take 1,000 highly skilled people and cost a billion Euros for a team to field two cars built to a new Rule -- and bring some driving skills back to a racing format that had become so technically advanced that just about all drivers needed to do was floor the accelerator and point the wheels towards the apex.

Surely it is not that difficult to establish whether a car has zero lift at speed. Simply relying on the weight of the car for traction should limit speeds to a sane level. After all, this isn't a speed race - they have salt flats for that- it is a driving skill test. Once the down-force is gone, the attendant expensive technology also goes. As it stands, this is as much a contest of technology as of drivers.

On a related note, I compete in (radio assist) Old Timer model aircraft competitions for this very reason. Even "humble" free flight models are so advanced now that they are purpose built in Eastern Europe. One cannot compete without them. Engine runs have reduced from 25 seconds to 5 seconds. Models go up so fast that they now have retracting wings, along with sophisticated computer programming to alter the trims during climb and glide. Engines howl at over 30 thousand rpm, and have folding props along with an engine brake to stop an overrun - 6 seconds of noise puts you out.

All this from the relaxed days competing with soaring more than technology.

[mcvideo 0]

[. . .]

(The one thing seen in NASCAR and IRL that's lacking in F1 is passing. F1 tracks and cars don't encourage it, which can make for rather dull racing.)

[. . . ]

I haven't watched F1 for quite a few years now, but, I recently read of the KERS. Has more passing been the result, as intended?

[JohnRgt 0]

[. . .]

(The one thing seen in NASCAR and IRL that's lacking in F1 is passing. F1 tracks and cars don't encourage it, which can make for rather dull racing.)

[. . . ]

I haven't watched F1 for quite a few years now, but, I recently read of the KERS. Has more passing been the result, as intended?

I don't get to watch much racing. I'm into the dazzling tech so when I come across a good article or book, I jump in.

From what I've read, KERS would impact on the straights only. The other adjustment that I've heard being considered in order to increase passing is replacing the rear wing with a smaller wing over each rear wheel. This, the theory goes, would allow enough clean air to get to the trailing car to enable a pass (without undisturbed air flow an F1 looses traction.) It would also reduce downforce, which may bring F1 closer to what Arnold mentioned above.

[JohnRgt 0]

I was thinking of Arnold's POV and remembered another tidbit I found interesting.

Active aerodynamic appendages aren't allowed in F1. But some teams have so mastered the relative sciences that they design the front and rear wings to flex into shapes that exhibit specific characteristics at specific speeds. Apparently, it's almost impossible to regulate against this advantageous flexing, which gives the better teams a huge advantage (those who regulate F1 are always adjusting the rules in order to assure close, exciting races.)

How huge?

One year, it was estimated that the ability of Ferrari's rear wing to shed downforce past a certain speed on the long straights of the tour yielded a 7kph advantage on those straights, which represents about a 2.5% increase in regularly attained top speed.

See from 00:26 to 00:51 of this slow motion video clip to get a feel for how active these supposedly inactive appendages are.

[Dan Cross 0]

[. . .]

(The one thing seen in NASCAR and IRL that's lacking in F1 is passing. F1 tracks and cars don't encourage it, which can make for rather dull racing.)

[. . . ]

I haven't watched F1 for quite a few years now, but, I recently read of the KERS. Has more passing been the result, as intended?

Only a few teams used KERS and though I didn't watch much last season it didn't really seem to make much of a difference.

I'm a huge F1 fan but the constant changes in qualifying, the switch to V8 instead of V10 engines, the engine development moratorium culminated in my interest really souring last year, especially with Ferrari and Kimi Raikonnen not being competitive. However, next year should be incredibly exciting with Mercedes having bought Brawn GP and McLaren sporting an the last two champions both of whom are English should create an interesting rivalry as they used to be McLaren-Mercedes now they are competitors.

The technology of F1 is incredible. I've been to 7 F1 races and it's always amazing to see the cars, especially in person. I don't like the zero down-force idea because F1 is not just about driver skill it's about engineering ability and technical innovation by the teams within certain uniform rules. Other series have standard spec cars where it's more simply about who can drive the best. The amount of innovations Formula 1 racing has brought to everyday road cars is astonishing. Many if not most of the major innovations in road car performance had their origins in Formula 1 racing.

[Dan Cross 0]

I meant to add--- 7 time champion Michael Schumacher returning to Mercedes alongside son of former champ Keke Rosberg Nico Rosberg so Mercedes v. McLaren is a battle of ex-partner and an all English team versus an all German team, not to mention some might be interested to know that there is the USF1 team trying to participate in next season although it's not all finalized. Along with the technology F1 has a great deal of interesting storylines and drama.

[JohnRgt 0]

not to mention some might be interested to know that there is the USF1 team trying to participate in next season although it's not all finalized.

A major sponsor pulled out at the last possible moment, just about guaranteeing that they won't race this year. They're still pulling, though.

[JohnRgt 0]

Here's a quick interview with Ron Dennis.

C/D: Let’s talk about 1988, McLaren’s most dominant season, when your drivers, Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost, won an amazing 15 of 16 events. That must have felt like the pinnacle, right?

RD: I’ll be honest. There are two things I remember about 1988, one of which I’ve never told anybody before. Firstly, when we won the last race, the significance of not having won Monza suddenly dawned on us [senna, in the lead, crashed trying to lap Jean-Louis Schlesser]. Because when we lost Monza, we still had races to go, but that had denied us the perfect score. The second thing was receiving a phone call from the chief executive of my principal sponsor [Marlboro], who actually told me that it would be in the interests of the sport if I started to lose races. Which, I mean, just blew my mind. And I can tell you he was absolutely, categorically serious. He was saying this is not good, back off a little bit and give other people a chance. Like, yeah, that was going to happen.

[JohnRgt 0]

not to mention some might be interested to know that there is the USF1 team trying to participate in next season although it's not all finalized.

A major sponsor pulled out at the last possible moment, just about guaranteeing that they won't race this year. They're still pulling, though.

Here's a quick piece on the troubles of the USF1 effort.

[JohnRgt 0]

The F1 wars continue:

Well, it maybe a new season but controversy is still never far away, and it’s McLaren who find themselves in the centre of a desert storm. They have developed a technique of stalling the rear wing, which involves their drivers moving their left legs on the straights to block a flap, thereby altering the airflow through the cockpit and onto the wing.

The rules are intended to stop teams stalling the rear wing (it reduces high speed drag and therefore allows the cars to run faster down the straights) [...]

Link

[JohnRgt 0]

I'm a huge F1 fan but the constant changes in qualifying, the switch to V8 instead of V10 engines,

V10 to return to F1:

http://www.foxsports.com/motor/story/ecclestone-to-propose-v10-comeback-for-f1-on-dec-18-121214