6 replies to this topic

[Yelnats]

I believe the conventional process of F1 chassis design involves producing a bunch of alternative designs and narrowing them down before building a full-scale car for track testing. If this model proves to be undrivable then you are basically screwed as so many comprimises must be made that the origonal concept is lost and it's back to cut and try just like the old days.

In an era when the actual construction is a relativly small part racing car design/build process, perhaps it would be more effective to build several operating designs and track test them before selecting the development chassis. This could be taken one step further and fast/slow chassis would be developed independantly instead of trying to suit one chassis to all tracks by shiftiung weight distribution and altering wheel bases, roll centres and weigh distribution as is done now.

As I am obviously not an insider to the F1 design process I can't be certain if the bigger teams are'nt doing tyhis already but if they are it's a well kept secret.

Any comments on this idea out there?





[This message has been edited by Yelnats (edited 12-07-1999).]

[IndyIan]

I think you have a good idea but since the design is most of the work you would need 2 or more design teams, very expensive i would think. Also F1 cars now have probably made every large jump in performance there is, so a maclaren is faster because of a number of small details than a better design concept. So splitting up a design team for many cars would leave less time for the final car development.

[Christiaan]

True, the design process is complex for simple road cars. The problem with seperate designs is that some concepts, especially in aerodynamics, are impossible to seperate from an overall package. Say one design is a high nose, short wheel base, and run boards. The other design is low nose, long wheelbase and short boards. There are at least nine different interactions between these two designs. There are infinite interactions if you consider say, a not so high nose and a long wheelbase. So it would be hard to combine two completely different concepts. This why when Rory came to Ferrari he did not change anything major in his first year. He concentrated one a new concept for the next car.

[Yelnats]

I aggree with both contributors previous comments but I still wonder if the risk of taking a faulty design to the starting line would be reduced if several less intensly developed chassis were produced for the drivers to evaluate.

In a mature design process, several valid alternatives are usually developed and it's often a judgment call which one is selected. My suggestion is that they build both and let the drivers choose on the basis of drivability.

I suppose there are many practical considerations such as;

a) The engine may not be available until late in the process.

b) The chassis design is the work of one inspired person who pursuits a single vision at the exclusion of all alternatives.

c) Spreading resouces amoung several designs would result in late delivery of the final chassis.

Please excuse my musings, I suppose the F1 design process is unlike any other and a world unto it's own.

[Christiaan]

Actually, I think it all comes down to costs. I'm sure they would love to have all the options available, but its simply too expensive.

[Ruud de la Rosa]

doesn't CART use 2 different chassis for road and oval.

[Christiaan]

I am sure you will agree, CART is inherently cheaper than F1.