8 replies to this topic

[Lord Cuinavale]

Hello all. This is my first post on this forum. I having been following F1 for 32 years now (I just barely remember Jim Clark's death at Hockenheim in 1968) and used to be a 'regular' at the US GPs when they were held at Watkins Glen, NY.

I was intrigued by this particular forum - of all the many F1 forums (fora??) around at the moment - because I am a sort of F1 techno-nerd (cylinder head??) and am as fascinated by the car under the driver as I am by the guy in the car.

I will take the time to read all the current posts around here, but I do have one initial question for the rest of you:

I am a big advocate of permitting full-enclosing bodywork in F1, as was once the case in the mid-1950s. (In fact, one of the most beautiful racing cars in any motorsports series - to me - were those full-body Mercedes racing cars that Fangio and Moss used in 1954.)

I don't advocate requiring full-enclosing bodywork, just permitting it. And I already have a pre-emptive answer to the question I always get about driver safety. In the event of a serious, chassis-deforming shunt, with all the breakthroughs in materials, fabrication and crashworthiness modelling since the mid-1950s, it should be almost a no-brainer to design a 'pod' of lift-out cage that crash crews could get to to extract a driver that was truly trapped in collapsed bodywork.

And, anyway, Michael Schumacher's leg was broken by the collapse of the front end of his Ferrari last year at Stowe. So having or not having full-enclosing bodywork may no longer be the big survivability threshold common wisdom once thought it was. And, besides, the 'Cousins' over here in NASCAR have found ways - as we just saw at Daytona -to protect drivers in bodywork that is far more encapsulating than anything I have in mind for F1. And I am SURE no one is arguing that F1 - with all their NASA-class infrastructure - cannot do something to protect a driver that NASCAR can? Are they??

What do you think?

;)

Harold Foster
Washgington, DC
USA

------------------
Lord Cuinavale
Luanda West
Washington, DC

[Art]

LC welcome.

If the tire barrier had been constructed properly Michael wouldn't of broken his leg. and I don't think any design could with stand a straight shot into a concrete wall. Including that nasty word you mentioned Niel Bonnet was killed and Ernie nearly killed twice. As for the fully enclosed body work it's beautiful but blocks the drivers view of the front wheels. In the past it had a tendency of getting tore up. And comparing an F1 car to a Cup car is like comparing a covered wagon to a Ferrari.

Art NX3L

[Ray Bell]

Sorry, Moss was watching from a distance as Fangio and Kling drove the streamliners in 1954.
There is a whole thread on this subject somewhere... poke around that while you're investigating our brainwaves.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Billy Gunn]

Dost my venerable Lordship refer fair soth to thou great Fangio and albeit nearly great Moss - those riders of beasts (named for the fair maiden of germanic lands, the father being good at Benz!), upon far Roman lands known to all and sundary as thy "Mille Miglia"? Were not these beasts transposed today to thy Panoz, but not thy LMP for lo! this beast is without head!!!

NotintakethofthinepithdearLordship!
Billy G

[MattC]

Try the Nostalgia Forum:
http://www.atlasf1.c...TML/000125.html

As I recall, it all got a bit heated, and deviated somewhat from the practical/technical considerations that I think some of us would be interested in.

[PDA]

The 'streamliners" like the MB W196, the 55 Connaught and the 56 Maserati were open cockpit cars, rather than fully enclosed

I think the "not being able to see the wheels" was a bit of a red herring, becasue the same drivers managed quite well in the sports racing cars of the day.

Tyhe ALMS prototypes like the Audi and BMW are pretty much wide F1 type cars with wheelenclosing bodywork. they work on a minimum weight of 900 kilos rather than the 600 (including driver) of F1. they are also somewhat wider.

I can't think of any technical or safety reason why enclosed wheels should not be allowed. the cars may be a bit faster in a straight line, but they would be heavier, so acceleration would suffer somewhat. they almost certainly would look a lot better, but that is not really a compelling reason to change.

[tak]

Welcome to the board.
I must disagree with the enclosed wheels--the cars will start to look like sportscars. On the safety side, fully enclosed cars are much more aerodynamic than open wheel cars, so it would increase the cars speeds...

[Lord Cuinavale]

Thanks all. This is a fascinating forum for a 'cylinder head' like me, although I seem to be in the back of the class when it comes to level of immediate familiarity with a lot of what is being discussed here. But that's fine: I needed some extra 'pull' to get me fully back up to date with the technology of F1 and I certainly found it here.

I also agree with several corrections some of you made, especially that I was actually arguing for enclosed wheels, not fully enclosing bodywork since the Mercedes and the others were not coupes.

I must 'confess' to being as much of a LeMans fanatic as I am an F1 fan. (Before you rush to agree that 'Grand Prix' was the best racing movie of all time, take a look at 'LeMans' and then cast your ballot.)

So, while I agree that enclosed wheels in F1 might make the cars look like ALMS sports prototypes, I am unsure whether that is altogether a bad thing.

(I also wonder if those of you here think there really is that much technical difference these days between F1 and CART, aside from turbocharging still being permitted over here. I suppose there may be some substantive differences since the charitable interpretation of why Alex Zanardi bombed out so badly last year in F1 is that he just could not adopt to the F1 technical envelope as it is these days, compared to his bash-around days at Lotus before he came to CART.)

Thanks all: I finally found a home.



Harold Foster
Washington, DC

[desmo]

LC,
I have yet to hear any sound reasoning for the argument against enclosed wheel bodies. The best the open wheel advocates can seem to muster are that the driver couldn't see the front wheels and would thus be constantly running into things (I won't even dignify this non-argument with a response), and some variation of it just wouldn't LOOK right. I, for one, don't consider this a valid argument and being an artist I do rate aesthetic factors as valid to some extent.

There are safety ramifications which can be argued in either direction which I would find more informative than a simple statement of one's opinion on how enclosed bodies might offend the delicate eye of the beholder.