With the endless and quite arbitrary rules and limitations they impose on the F1 cars each year I sometimes wonder what would happen if they hadn't done that. What would the teams have built if it weren't for the weigh, power, and technology limitations shaping the development?
I see an analogy to evolution versus controlled genetic reproduction: what would the F1 cars look like and how would they behave if the only thing that mattered was being the fastest and winning races?
If you gave an F1 team their same budget with no restrictions, you would get an incomprehensibly fast car. I'd bet on them going with 6 wheels: 4 in front, two in back for more traction when turning and braking, similar to the Tyrrell P34.[1] They'd likely use ground effect with fans to provide active downforce, similar to the Brabham BT46B.[2] It would probably be driven by electric motors in each wheel. The power source would be a gas turbine attached to a generator.
It would be a death trap. If the suction fan malfunctioned, all downforce would be lost and the car would skid off the track. G forces when accelerating, braking, and turning would quickly injure even the toughest human being. Going around any track would require superhuman reaction times. Such a vehicle could only be controlled by a computer. Also, such a vehicle could only be painted plaid.
I'm not sure how profitable or safe this hypothetical series would be, but I'd certainly watch the first couple of races. Then again, I'd also watch cyborg kickboxing in some future version of the Paralympics.
The digital creation was a response to Kazunori Yamauchi's question: "If you built the fastest racing car on land, one that throws aside all rules and regulations, what would that car look like, how would it perform, and how would it feel to drive?"
> "If you built the fastest racing car on land, one that throws aside all rules and regulations, what would that car look like, how would it perform, and how would it feel to drive?"
The big question is whether it would qualify as a "car".
Get rid of the human pilot - get the engineering teams compete with fully autonomous cars, maybe with the team feeding it strategic directives during the race. I would certainly love reading about it, though I acknowledge that the lack of human drama would make poor advertising copy...
You'd quickly see how many people watch F1 because of the secret wish that something goes wrong and there is a huge crash. If there were no risks in the race, there would be no tension that keeps people from getting bored by watching cars go in circles.
It would be difficult to ensure the safety of participants and spectators if there was entirely free regulations. Don't underestimate quite how fast a Formula 1 car is now, even within the current regulations.
Formula 1 has made significant contributions to the safety of motorsports over the last two decades and much of this is due to the continual improvement and unequivocal dedication to preventing accidents. If you've never seen Kubica's accident from 2007 in Canada, it's amongst the best demonstrations of how safety has advanced in F1 (note Kubica was released from hospital the next day, unhurt). (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP1_POQPJVw)
Agreed. Kubica hit that concrete barrier at 300KM/h at a 75 degree angle, and was subject to a peak g-force of 75G. He emerged with just a light concussion and a sprained ankle. [1]
At the time, I wasn't even aware that humans could survive peak G's that high.
One team would very likey dominate, and then all the other teams would quit. After all, these teams are backed by shareholders which continuously question the ROI of participating in the sport.
I see an analogy to evolution versus controlled genetic reproduction: what would the F1 cars look like and how would they behave if the only thing that mattered was being the fastest and winning races?