F1 cars 2000-2009

[Sonic]

Has F1 car design stagnated?

Here's a Williams from 2000;

http://f1vietnam.com/forum/images/modimages/cars/williams/FW22_BMW_Button_Intergalos.jpg

Stick a set of slicks on and to the casual observer nothing has moved on in a decade. Not something you can say about any previous decade.

What's to blame? Have the designers now found the optimum racing car design and will only tweak from here? Or are the rules simply too restrictive and F1 cars are going to be clones of one another until there is a radical rule change?

[Dave B]

Restrictive rules are the main culprit. The dimensions of the car are specified, and any obvious physical innovations such as X-wings are swiftly outlawed.

Within such limited paramaters it's only natural that designs will trend towards one optimal shape.

[turismo6]

Compare the 2000 Williams to the 2009 red bull
http://www.f1-site.com/wallpapers/2009/presentation_redbull/redbull-rb5-wallpaper-f1-car-2009-14.jpg
and there is a difference, but sure it isn't anything like the 2008 ferrari
http://www.f1-site.com/wallpapers/2008/presentation_ferrari/11_prezentation_ferrari.jpg

[jens]

Well, I think an F1 car as such has found its optimal shape through decades of development and the more developed something is, the harder it is to find further improvements, let alone radical ones. Williams tried a walrus-nose in 2004, but that didn't bring a revolution into F1 like the high noses did in early 90's.

With much having been invented already long time ago in the past (wings, diffuser, sidepods, etc, although there have been minor changes about these too), I would say 2000's were pretty much the winglet-era in car design. It has been the main area of aerodynamics with unfulfilled development potential, where teams found the opportunity to try and make notable gains. But with the winglet-ban from 2009 onwards, the new decade will have to be about something else.

[V12]

If there is to be any major groundbreaking in the coming decade there has to be a loosening of the technical regulations, and these are likely to be "under the skin" (i.e. alternative power technologies) rather than anything visual.

Personally I'd love the regulations to give the designers a 3D box to work within, with sensible provisions for safety, practicality and so on. Right now the regulations pretty much define the look and feel of an F1 car, the open wheels, open cockpit, front and rear wing, airbox, nosecone, sidepods.

Critics of the "box" approach I've described often say "but it wouldn't look like an F1 car", but to me an F1 car should be a car designed to go as quickly as possible (within reason). That's it. Form following function and all that.

Oh and of course the tired and weary "cost cutting" argument. You can bet that will never go away even when (if?) the world financial mess does.

[Sonic]

If there is to be any major groundbreaking in the coming decade there has to be a loosening of the technical regulations, and these are likely to be "under the skin" (i.e. alternative power technologies) rather than anything visual.


I'm with you on this front. F1 needs something that puts it above all other racing series - it needs to be at the cutting edge. Generally speaking every decade has had something special, be it '50's getting the engine in the correct place, '60's chassis development, 70's aero, 80's turbos, '90's driver aids. But the '00's - nothing (aside from KERS which is a brilliant idea canned way before its time) and for this I blame the rules. The cars may never change much in appearance again but there is still plenty of very clever people with bright ideas - they are just not being given the chance.

It seems Indycar might be about to show us the way - everything I've read about the 2011 cars is very exciting.

[F1boat]

It seems Indycar might be about to show us the way - everything I've read about the 2011 cars is very exciting.

I dunno, I can't imagine a wingless formula car. I don't want to, actually.

[garyshell]

I dunno, I can't imagine a wingless formula car. I don't want to, actually.


Oh how quickly we forget.

http://www.grandprix.com/jpeg/bc/Stewart_68_holland_01_bc.jpg

That era of wingless cars gave us some of the best displays of drivers actually DRIVING the car. The days of power oversteer, hard tires etc. were some of the best.
Gary

[shazbot]

It's funny, but I was looking at my model collection today and thought how out dated the 2000 model Williams looked. Having been intimately involved with its development I can tell you there's a huge change between then and now. I guess to the casual observer they may look the similar, but look closer and you will see just how quickly these cars where developed, even over the course of one season.

[Sonic]

It's funny, but I was looking at my model collection today and thought how out dated the 2000 model Williams looked. Having been intimately involved with its development I can tell you there's a huge change between then and now. I guess to the casual observer they may look the similar, but look closer and you will see just how quickly these cars where developed, even over the course of one season.

Yes of course. For the experienced eye (and in your case the technical eye) the cars have progressed. But my general thought was that if you showed a picture of a car circa 1960 to member of the general public and then one from '69 they'd be able to pick out the more modern one quite easily. Same with 70-79, 80-89, 90-99, but I don't think the results of the same quiz in the '00's would be so clear cut.

[shazbot]

Yes of course. For the experienced eye (and in your case the technical eye) the cars have progressed. But my general thought was that if you showed a picture of a car circa 1960 to member of the general public and then one from '69 they'd be able to pick out the more modern one quite easily. Same with 70-79, 80-89, 90-99, but I don't think the results of the same quiz in the '00's would be so clear cut.

Ah, OK I see. Yes you are right. The devil is in the detail (what ever that means!)

[ioan]

Yes of course. For the experienced eye (and in your case the technical eye) the cars have progressed. But my general thought was that if you showed a picture of a car circa 1960 to member of the general public and then one from '69 they'd be able to pick out the more modern one quite easily. Same with 70-79, 80-89, 90-99, but I don't think the results of the same quiz in the '00's would be so clear cut.

You know, if you ask someone not in the know which car between a 1980 and 2009 one is the most beautiful they will probably answer 'the [insert favorite color] one'.

If you want to talk about how F1 cars evolved between 2000 and 2009 than you should ask the one who have knowledge.

And there are plenty of difference to be honest.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You know, if you ask someone not in the know which car between a 1980 and 2009 one is the most beautiful they will probably answer 'the [insert favorite color] one'.

If you want to talk about how F1 cars evolved between 2000 and 2009 than you should ask the one who have knowledge.

And there are plenty of difference to be honest.

If all the F1 cars were painted the same colour any good F1 fan should still be able to tell them apart (apart from Red Bull and STR).

[ioan]

If all the F1 cars were painted the same colour any good F1 fan should still be able to tell them apart (apart from Red Bull and STR).

I agree, they should be able to do that. :)

[wedge]

Well, I think an F1 car as such has found its optimal shape through decades of development and the more developed something is, the harder it is to find further improvements, let alone radical ones. Williams tried a walrus-nose in 2004, but that didn't bring a revolution into F1 like the high noses did in early 90's.

With much having been invented already long time ago in the past (wings, diffuser, sidepods, etc, although there have been minor changes about these too), I would say 2000's were pretty much the winglet-era in car design. It has been the main area of aerodynamics with unfulfilled development potential, where teams found the opportunity to try and make notable gains. But with the winglet-ban from 2009 onwards, the new decade will have to be about something else.

More like fine-tuned parts eg. rear wing endplates, winglets, bargeboards.

There were still winglets in the 90s. They were simply bolted onto the sidepods/nose until they were banned for being ugly. This decade's winglets have been more aero efficient designs.

Gone are the days of simply adding a new aero part and pray it works. With toys like CFD you have to make sure new aero parts doesn't affect the total aerodynamic performance of the car.

[52Paddy]

Visually, the changes have not been as drastic, but there are still some major-ish changes that have happened. Though, most was between 2008 and 2009. The cars, particularly the front end, have become curvier.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/knak_will_silv_2009.jpg

The rear wing is probably the most noticeable change. Though, I agree: the difference in visual design over this decade is far less than in the past. I blame the rules. We'll always have innovators.

[nigelred5]

If they would just backtrack on that front wing spec and narrow it up the current cars would look pretty damn sexy IMHO. It's like tacking cyrano's nose on a supermodel. yuk.

[anthonyvop]

Oh how quickly we forget.

http://www.grandprix.com/jpeg/bc/Stewart_68_holland_01_bc.jpg

That era of wingless cars gave us some of the best displays of drivers actually DRIVING the car. The days of power oversteer, hard tires etc. were some of the best.
Gary
Add in High Side impact protection, front end crumple zones and all of the other safety mandates and I shudder to think what you would end up with.

[wedge]

Add in High Side impact protection, front end crumple zones and all of the other safety mandates and I shudder to think what you would end up with.

http://planet-irl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/indycar12.jpg

[nigelred5]

Add in High Side impact protection, front end crumple zones and all of the other safety mandates and I shudder to think what you would end up with.

No reason you couldn't have something very similar to what you have in that picture. Constructed of carbon fibre with small, full length sidepods similar to some of the indycars of the day that contained fuel tanks instead of crash structures, it could be very nostalgic and visually appealing to many race fans.

maybe something like this that is slightly different along the cockpit sides than the matra F1 car. mold in a rollover hoop and ballistic polycarbonate windscreen and a lower seating postion. state of the art brakes and a 700 hp turbocharged F1 engine and it would work for me any day of the week.

http://www.jakessite.com/07/notforgot/sessions/sam_indy.jpg

[Brown, Jon Brow]

http://planet-irl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/indycar12.jpg

That looks pretty fit! Especially with The Stig driving it. :D

[nigelred5]

http://planet-irl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/indycar12.jpg

I've yet to figure out how anyone considers that car wingless. non-traditional, yes, but hardly wingless. There are wings over both rear wheels, as well as canards on both sides of the nose. I'd also be very concerned with those canard wings acting like daggers to tires, other cars and drivers, especially with other cars of the same design. Those sides may provide a lot of impact protection, however they could also act as ramps to direct debris and other cars directly at the driver's head. Makes for a cool additon to the HotWheels collection, but I don't think that woud make for a very safe racing car.

[wedge]

With or without the mini-wings that Indycar concept is not that different to a Formula Ford

http://www.clubformulaford.co.uk/images/cffhome.jpg

[Sonic]

With or without the mini-wings that Indycar concept is not that different to a Formula Ford

http://www.clubformulaford.co.uk/images/cffhome.jpg

Really? Nice as that formula thud is, I doubt anyone would mistake it for the Indy concept.

[tinchote]

Well, I think an F1 car as such has found its optimal shape through decades of development and the more developed something is, the harder it is to find further improvements, let alone radical ones. Williams tried a walrus-nose in 2004, but that didn't bring a revolution into F1 like the high noses did in early 90's.

With much having been invented already long time ago in the past (wings, diffuser, sidepods, etc, although there have been minor changes about these too), I would say 2000's were pretty much the winglet-era in car design. It has been the main area of aerodynamics with unfulfilled development potential, where teams found the opportunity to try and make notable gains. But with the winglet-ban from 2009 onwards, the new decade will have to be about something else.

I would side with this opinion (although I have strong feelings against the restricting rules and I would love them to be more flexible). To compare, look at the Boeing 707 (late 50s); 50 years before it, you get almost to the Wright brothers, and 50 after it, you get to the 787 (more efficient in many ways, but the same basic principle). When you put so much resources into development, a plateau is the most natural consequence.

[ioan]

All I can add is that nowadays most developments, be it automobiles, trains or airplanes, are about the structural strength and mostly about the development of new materials.

Nowadays the changes in F1 cars looks and implicitly aerodynamics are in 99% of the cases due to rule changes.