TBK-Light.com

I'm not completely sure about the logic behind the idea to create single-seater formula with open wheels, but I believe the logic was this:

Single-seater:
- ultra light
- driver+machine in the ultimate, most purpose built solution possible
- people can see the driver and the driver can escape in case of fire

Then the Germans came up with this:



The later picture might be from a console game, but you get the idea. The streamlined race cars were extremely fast, way too fast for anyone's comfort and people realized this. If we're going to have ultimate race cars, there's some limits that we need. So the added engine rules that limited the power. But streamliners were still fast on the straightlines, and that caused headache for tire manufacturers. Their product was hidden.

So the benefits from open wheel regulations:
- more drag, less straightline speed
- tire brand can be seen
- less about aerodynamics, more about mechanical grip

So the only way I see it that open wheelers were created to make the most purpose built race cars slower. Remember that these single-seater open wheelers had no riding mechanic or big block engines. And topless race cars were the thing in the pre-60s even in sports car racing, so open cockpit was common sight.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

funny that they allowed the germans to race a streamlined racing machine among open wheelers

and yet they won everything

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: climate change ruining races everywhere

Somethings don't change, eh?

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

You describe a straw man argument. This wasn't one - all I did was make a tacky joke based on TBK's collective ability to always find something to complain about when it comes to what F1 'should' be.

You kind of rephrased the idea I was getting at two weeks ago:
The question is, if all open-wheel classes had unlimited money and workforce, what their final goal would be? Would they cover their cars, develop everything in terms of ultimate safety, and stop racing at dangerous tracks like Brands Hatch or Zandvoort and built 20 new Austins? Would all the open-wheel classes look same if they had unlimited budget?

I'm afraid no one is thinking these philosophical questions, even though the people regulating the series should think about the distant future of the series. But like we have seen in F1, even in one year's perspective things get too complex to decide anything.

I'm optimistic that no matter what, drivers and fans themselves want some kind of variety. Let's imagine that there had always been a world dictator who only allowed - let's say - saloon car racing. That would have been popular because there would be no competition. But once the dictator dies, new types of motorsport start to emerge. Some drivers want to race at public roads (birth of rally), some on faster cars (prototypes), some on motorcycles, some on dirt (rallycross/speedway racing). For children there would be a racing series that would be cheap and take place in a small playground area (pedal cars -> karting). Maybe that new category for kids would evolve into open-wheel/open-cockpit cars that resemble F1.

So if formula cars will become too indistinguishable from closed car racing, some people might create a new series that is once again more like old F1 cars. Similarly, if they would change football, athletics, gymnastics, swimming or skiing too much, some people would always revert back to the basics.

I've not read the pre-war regulations in any detail but I think the reason most manufacturers generally stuck with open wheel designs was to do with the maximum weight limit of 750kg, not because they were obliged by the regulations. It seems strange today but back then they had maximum weight limits (I guess the theory being that this would limit engine size and therefore power), and there's the classic story about the Mercedes and Auto Union cars being so finely built to that limit they had to shave the white paint off and race them with the bare metal. Enclosing the wheels would have had its benefits, as shown by the purpose-built streamliners for their speed record attempts, but would have come with a lot of additional weight.

They also tried other closed-cockpit variants, such as this C-Type for Monza ...


Before there was much understanding of aerodynamics, having the wheels open was the easiest way to reduce drag (but even then we can see with the streamliners that when an effort was made, creating drag-efficient bodywork worked better still) and also reduce weight - two sure fire ways to go faster even then without investing too much in body research and design. Hence most purpose built racing cars going down that route. In the end, I think Formula One became a specified open-wheel formula out of tradition. Sports cars, as we've seen from these pictures, had various traditions of open and closed-cockpits (and in recent years at Le Mans we've seen both) but always closed wheels.

I'm not sure why I wrote this.

You had good points in your post. It was all about weight reduction. Remove the fenders, remove the headlights, remove the other seat. Aerodynamics in the early days were just taking it's child steps. The aviation had just been invented few decades ago and space flight was only a science fiction from Jules Verne's silly books for crying out loud! Just like saying in the mid-90's that we all would have a computer+telephone+camera+videocamera+portable knowledge machine in our pockets in two decades. So like you said, dropping weight was more important than streamline design, eventhough it was valid design for top speed records. But on the race tracks the top speed was not what mattered.

So all in all, open-wheel design = less weight. That is, if you take most of the nuances away.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

sounds like Pascal Wehrlein will be racing for Manor
http://sportbild.bild.de/formel-1/2016/formel-1/wehrlein-steigt-in-die-formel-1-auf-44501668.sport.html

Good for him.

"It's not for his talent, it's not for his money, it's because we want access to the Mercedes windtunnel"

Well, at least it's a variation of the normal pay driver story

Interesting to see how he'll perform. To me Pascal is big question, because he skipped GP3 and GP2 and in F3 he didn't shine. Technically with only 16 license points he shouldn't even be qualified for F1 when compared to Ocon, Rosenqvist or Vandoorne.

don't take those superlicense points too seriously, the kid won in DTM and could be very helpful

it's not like Albers, who ended runner up in DTM and then got some disposable time in F1

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: climate change ruining races everywhere

I think open wheelers are looking like they got rid of all the unnecessary stuff so it is made to go as fast as possible around a circuit. Furthermore it gives an extra adrenaline shot if the wheels get close together or are even banging wheels. And you see more how the driver is working in the car I think. I know sports cars often have cameras inside, but it is not the same.

Technically only 16 points?
So the FIA went nuts over RBR signing Max Verstappen at the age of 17, introduced the points system + age limit to prevent this in the future and now they apparently allow someone with not enough points to enter F1?

Please tell me I understood it wrong.

Valid points or not, I probably wrote it to avoid doing work ... and here I am again.

In the end, open wheel cars have offered the best solution for everything except straight-line speed records which even today are undertaken with covered wheeled machines, and that's with a much greater understanding of aero so you imagine they've kept it like that for a reason. With the exception of streamlined straight-line machines, open wheel seems to provide less drag than conventional bodywork. And now we have wings to provide more grip.

I'm still curious though. There's no real fair comparison between closed-wheel and open-wheel to see which really is faster. In the 80s there was Group C and F1 ... a quick check shows that around Brands Hatch in 1984, F1 was about seven seconds faster. There's a similar margin today between the pole times in the WEC and F1 at Silverstone. However, the Group C cars weighed in at 800kg compared to F1s 540kg, and WEC cars are 900kg to F1s 700kg. Group Cs had Ground Effect though, and this had been banned in F1 by that point. (I'm not sure if the WEC has this.) F1 doesn't have the same aero sophistication as it had ten years ago with winglets, but then WEC cars don't have those either.

F1 magazines periodically interview designers and ask them what they would build with technical freedom ... I recall one answer being that the whole bodywork of the car would essentially become a wing using ground effect. I can't remember whether this would be open or closed-wheel though. With the same power and same weight, it would be interesting to see which could be made to go faster.

I should probably do some work.

Colin Chapman got very close to aerodynamic perfection with the Lotus 88

if they allowed that chassis development, cornering speeds would increase a lot

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: climate change ruining races everywhere

Nice answers in this page.

When you compare current Indycars with closed Le Mans prototypes, it really is starting to get very close visually. If you keep seeking performance/weight reduction from one side, and added safety features from the other, you may converge towards a single design, unless the technical regulations do impose an arbitrary limit - which I believe is already the case as you are not allowed to cover wheels in F1 for example.

There's a mildly amusing bitch fight currently in progress between Carmen Jorda, Marco Sorenson and Richie Stanaway.

_________________
Dan Wheldon ¦ 1978-2011
Marco Simoncelli ¦ 1987-2011
Jules Bianchi ¦ 1989-2015
Justin Wilson ¦ 1978-2015

Yeah, I know he's mad and I don't care. I do not care. I did not care then. I do not care now. I'm here to race him.

But Stanaway was so fucking spot on