Hypothetical unlimited time attack

[Hazardous]

Just holding yourself upright, hands on the wheel and especially feet on the pedals at 10g would be quite an achievement. And if the cars would be able to corner at 10g I'd hate to think how many g they would generate under braking...

 

[ed1911n]

They brake at 5gs but they corner at max 3gs. They would have to go around the long sweeping bends 3x faster then they do currently to expierence 10gs. They wont pass out from 10gs of horizontal force but your brain slamming from side to side of your head isn't going to be very good for you, not to mention other organs.

Depends on the corner. In hairpins, the car is going so slow that they corner on mechanical grip alone, and even then they reach 2G. At certain very fast corners they do exeed 5G.

Some mates of mine and I did the boblsed track in lillehammer, same as Hammond did in the winter olympics special, and 5G is fucking brutal.

 

[Cold Fussion]

Depends on the corner. In hairpins, the car is going so slow that they corner on mechanical grip alone, and even then they reach 2G. At certain very fast corners they do exeed 5G.

Some mates of mine and I did the boblsed track in lillehammer, same as Hammond did in the winter olympics special, and 5G is fucking brutal.

They don't coner at 5gs mate.

 

[kennethcho1337]

Or their necks would just snap off.

 

[ed1911n]

They don't coner at 5gs mate.

In most corners, no they dont, but, like I said, in certain ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_car#Turning_acceleration

The turning force at low speeds (below 70 to about 100 km/h) mostly comes from the so-called 'mechanical grip' of the tyres themselves. At such low speeds the car can turn at 2.0 g. At 210 km/h (130 mph) already the turning acceleration is 3.0g, as evidenced by the famous esses (turns 3 and 4) at the Suzuka circuit. Higher-speed corners such as Blanchimont (Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps) and Copse (Silverstone Circuit) are taken at above 5.0g, and 6.0g has been recorded at Suzuka's 130-R corner[9]. This contrasts with 1g for the Enzo Ferrari, one of the best racing sports cars.

These turning accelerative forces allow an F1 car to corner at amazing speeds, seeming to defy the laws of physics. As an example of the extreme cornering speeds, the Blanchimont and Eau Rouge corners at Spa-Francorchamps are taken flat-out at above 300 km/h (186 mph), whereas the race-spec touring cars can only do so at 150?160 km/h. A newer and perhaps even more extreme example is the Turn 8 at the Istanbul Park circuit, a 190? relatively tight 4-apex corner, in which the cars maintain speeds between 265 km/h (165 mph) and 285 km/h (in 2006) and experience between 4.5g and 5.5g for 7 seconds - the longest sustained hard cornering in Formula 1.

 

[Lindstrim]

There was an article in F1 Racing a couple of years ago (when BMW was still a partner) and they hypothesied a car with 6 wheels, 2 front 4 back and what looked like a wedge of cheese.

Now I cant remember exactly but they said that in computer testing they generated enough lateral G-force so that the river would have to have a g-suit (similar to a Fighter Pilot's) when they were racing.

Lap times possibly 10-20% lower on the same engine (V10) power??

 

[vikiradTG2007]

If the engine, transmission, and, most importantly, the suspension withstands the enormous cornering, it would be doing stunning laptimes, probably 10 seconds inside the current lap records. But if they are to do it on all tracks, they ought to exploit under-car aero to the maximum.


THERE'S YOUR AERO PROBLEM IN F1!!!!! Restrict front and rear wings, make the rear wing an extreme drag-generating device, and rely either on under-car aero with active suspension or make twin-chassis legal, and it will be a more comfortable ride in the car, which might do laptimes at least similar, if not faster, than the current cars. The ground-effect monsters weren't as quick as today's cars because they had much more flexible chassis, less effective suspension geometries, and less developed tires.

 

[NooDle]

Someone said that if they now do 3 Gs in the corners, they need to corner three times as fast to get to 9Gs but this simply isn't true! It's not linear like that. Every extra kph in the corner generates more and more G.

As said above, that one insane 4 apex corner at Istanbul is the longest and fastest corner there currently is, with a sustained 5.5G for 7 seconds... that is particularly brutal. And that is also why that's my current favourite corner of all (including the magical Eau Rouge flick at Spa)

Also, anyone who's ever been in one of those fun fair attractions that spin real quick and you're stuck to the wall due to centrifugal forces (wow that was a long explanation), will know that at a sustained 4G, moving your arm, even just to extend it in front of your face, requires a lot of effort.

Doing this 2 hrs on end with even higher G forces is insane.

 

[thedguy]

A magazine did an article on this very subject and asked Gordon Murray what he would design given no limits.

Turbine engine + electric motor wheel hubs + super capacitors (can charge and discharge EXTREMELY FAST) = insane amounts of Power to weight ratio while maintaining throttle response.

Full ground effect (dynamically adjustable) aerodynamics, closed cockpit, active/electronic suspension... I can't remember it all but Murray said that it would likely require remote control as the cornering forces would likely cause any person to black out, and few people would like to late brake into a corner at 350MPH.

 

[Cold Fussion]

Someone said that if they now do 3 Gs in the corners, they need to corner three times as fast to get to 9Gs but this simply isn't true! It's not linear like that. Every extra kph in the corner generates more and more G.

My mistake. I made this graph to show the velocity required to achieve certain g-forces around a number of f1 corners:

(The graph isn't 100% accurate because windspeeds will also play a factor in cornering speed)

 

[NecroJoe]

Well, if there's no restrictions...how 'bout just laying some track?

 

[NooDle]

My mistake. I made this graph to show the velocity required to achieve certain g-forces around a number of f1 corners:

(The graph isn't 100% accurate because windspeeds will also play a factor in cornering speed)

this is quite interesting, but what is the Casino Square corner? Is that the "swimming pool" one in Monaco? Cause AFAIK that one is taken way way slower than the Turn 8 one...which obviously results in less G

 

[vikiradTG2007]

I'm actually surprised about that one, but I'm guessing that it's because it's a rather tight corner and it's also off-camber, so the forces on the car and on the driver are severe.

And Casino Square is the 3rd "real" corner on the Monaco circuit, disregarding the pit "straight" and the slightly curved run up the Beau Rivage. It's Ste Devote, Massenet, Casino Square, Mirabeau, Loews, Portier, the Tunnel, the chicane, Tabac, the Swimming Pool, Rascasse and Anthony Noghes, in that order.

 

[EsPpY]

this is quite interesting, but what is the Casino Square corner? Is that the "swimming pool" one in Monaco? Cause AFAIK that one is taken way way slower than the Turn 8 one...which obviously results in less G

Here, darling.

Casino Square.

 

[Cryptopygia]

Make the rear wing an extreme drag-generating device...

What's that? It's the Handford device coming to the rescue!