Talk:Formula One car

message: Is it true to say that ground effects specifically are banned in F1, or is it just contoured underbodies that are banned? I honestly don't know, but it seems to me that the downforce that cars currently get from their raised nose, flat bottom and diffuser set up constitutes ground effects. SamH 09:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I saw on a doco once, both contoured underbodies (flat bottom must be used) and side skirts are banned. Sliding side skirts are just as important as the shaped undertray for creating the ground effect, as they prevent the fast travelling air from being 'sucked' out the side of the car, significantly reducing the ground effect. However, I do agree that using the ground effect as such is not specifically banned - but rules have been put in place to prevent its use. Similar to the banning of launch control...I believe the rule is actually banning electronic systems that control power to reduce wheel spin (or something ridiculous like that) below speeds of 100mph (not sure exactly) - an effective ban, but not specifically stated as such. AlbinoMonkey 12:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ground effects

message: I'd like to make new articles on each of the categories shown here, such as Formula One car aerodynamics. I am admittedly not an expert on any of the things, but have plenty of F1 magazines to take reference from, and am interested enough to do decent research. The information that is here could remain, but as I have seen on other pages, with a link just below the title that says something like Main article:Formula One car aerodynamics. Objections/comments? AlbinoMonkey 12:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The aerodynamics section of this article (Formula One cars) is quite short, so why not incorporate it there? The fewer "sub-articles" the better, I think, because it's less confusing. — Dan | Talk 13:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with Danny; usually, articles are only split up when they become so long that they are difficult to read. I think that with the amount of info on this page, splitting it would make the information more difficult to read. SamH 13:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Articles

message: In the Engine section, it starts out by describing the current enginer requirements as 8-cylinder V8, but later, after describing next year's changes, says that cars will be allowed next year to stay in the current V-10 configuration with detuning.  So what is it?  8 or 10? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.241.17 (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cars are meant to use V8's in 2006, but there is an allowance to use a de-tuned V10 if they believe their V8 will not be reasonably competitive or available. I'm not sure of the exact ruling, but I'll have a look AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine section discrepancy? 

message: The following as quoted from the main page, is totally untrue "Nonetheless a Formula One engine is over 20% more efficient at turning fuel into power than even the most economical small car."  It is no surprise that this statement lacks a citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.56.154 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: The engines produce over 100,000 BTU per minute (1,750kW)[citation needed] of heat that must be dumped, usually to the atmosphere via radiators and the exhaust, which can reach temperatures over 1,000 degrees Celsius[citation needed](1,800 to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). They consume around 650 liters (23 ft³) of air per second[citation needed]. Race fuel consumption rate is normally around 75 liters per 100 kilometers traveled (3.1 US mpg - 3.8 UK mpg - 1.3 km/l). Nonetheless a Formula One engine is over 20% more efficient at turning fuel into power than most small commuter cars, considering their craftsmanship.
Hmmm, several points of note here. 
A BTU is a unit of energy, so in order to quote a power it does indeed need to be compared to a unit of time (the rather unconventional minute). A kW is however a unit of power so needs to be converted to joules per second and a minute conversion added. However this section is just a long hand version of energy efficiency. If you know the amount of fuel consumed, its calorific value and the useful work produced then you can quote a fuel conversion efficiency (in addition to the km/l figure). Similarly, on average the formula one calendar consists of 17-19 races per season and takes in a variety of tracks; how is it then possible to give energy and air consumption figures given this variety of engine operation conditions. Monaco has different cooling and engine use characteristics to Spa Francochamps. Air and fuel consumption are therefore dependant on engine operating conditions and should be quoted as such.  
Finally, there is no citation for the '20% more efficient at turning fuel into power'. Not only is this claim dubious, but the comparison adds nothing to the readers understanding. The sentence is then concluded with the meaningless reference to craftsmanship. A F1 engine is hand made, a city car's is mass produced. A F1 engine is designed for high rates of energy conversion, a city car's for combined cycle fuel efficiency. An F1 engine is not concerned by emission regulations, a city car is shackled by them. Give and engine tuner a city car engine, a new ECU and a machine shop and the rates of energy conversion will rapidly converge.  
137.82.115.193 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: I originally added the entire performance sections (forward accel, deceleration, turning accel) without a username, so I have deleted and re-added these sections to get the credit (in a clumsy way). I spend a lot of time in F1 technical sites and forums, and for the figure for 0 to 300 quoted in the acceleration section I spent quite some time with a stopwatch in hand and wathcing onboard videos of F1 cars from several seasons. The distance markers on the side of the track leading to turns helped along with the stopwatch. Deletor 14:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I think your work falls under Wikipedia:No original research and can't be included unless you can find a verifiable source to back the figures up. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 21:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, thanks for the heads up; let me clarify that the figures I have quoted for the acceleration for the Renault R25 are from the times taken from onboard videos, so as such my 'research' for the exact figures are simply 'observations' of the actual, recorded phenomena, not research. (Anyone else can do the same). For the other figures, the acceleration figures for 0 - 100 kph are know to be 2 seconds for F1 cars, even in 2006. For instance, in the recent 2006 San Marino GP, explaining why he couldn't stop even when the lollipop slammed into his helmet, said: ". These things get from nought to sixty in two second so by the time you realise, you're gone and everybody is on the deck,". planet-f1 article linkThe other figures are from quotes during races, F1 TV shows, F1 racing mags, and F1 official team sites. Eg throughout the 2005 Turkish GP the g-force for the famous turn 8 was quoted in TV broadcasts, websites, official sites as 4.5 G (for 8 seconds which incidentally was causing the drivers pain in their rib-cages). Deletor 04:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  performace sections 

message: I don't have enough material to add the section on safety of modern F1 cars, for instance the detailed construction and crash testing (I know a bit from various Inside GP episodes), as well as the g-force sufferred and survived by Ralf Schumacher in the 2004 USA GP. Could someone start this with these facts? I'll try to look them up, or at least compile the known facts about safety and crash testing from the (Official FIA) Inside GP episodes. One thing related to safety that should be added is this: During an episode of the TV show Fifth Gear Jackie Stewart told Tiff Needell, "Michael Schumacher makes more mistakes every Grand Prix weekend than any Grand Prix multiple world champion I've ever known. I mean, the number of times I went off in a Grand Prix in my entire career I could count on one hand, because if you went off the road there was a very good chance you were gonna hit something hard, and you were gonna hurt yourself, nevermind the car." However the context of the show was safety in Grand Prix racing and Stewart's statement simply reflect the fact that safety standards in F1 today are vastly improved over those of thirty years ago. While every mistake could be potentially fatal in those days, modern-day top F1 drivers are expected to always drive on the limit, specially in practice sessions when they are trying to find the limits of the car. Technical director of Ferrari, Ross Brawn, has an explanation for this phenomenon. "The truth is that if, during practice sessions, Michael feels he's losing the car, he prefers to let the car go instead of trying to make huge corrections to stay on the track. It's part of his search for the limit. During a race however, he's the driver who makes the least mistakes." Deletor 22:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  safety section needs to be added 

message: Shouldn't this article properly be called Formula One car, in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions?  --SFoskett 14:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I be bold now. Gzuckier 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Under the "Engine" section, the engine is described as producing "100 000 BTU per minute (1750kW) of heat".
Shouldn't that read "100 000 BTU per minute (1750kJ) of heat"? As kW is kJ per second.
-- A BTU per minute would is a valid unit for power (Watts), as energy over time. I haven't done the conversion, but BTU/min would go to kW or kJ/min, not simply kJ.129.116.14.205 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine heat units discrepancy 

message: i was hoping that maybe imperial measures could be put in brackets next too the current metric ones. i was hoping this because many ppl in the US and UK would appreciate this and make it more understandable. i personally when reading the article had to convert the units in my haed so i could appreciate it Pratj 12:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  imperial measures 

message: I tought they cost over $100,000, not $40,000.. i saw that in a book —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.12.155.116 (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They cost £30,000 as far as I'm aware (so I guess about 43,000US$?).123.255.23.11 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steering Wheel 

message: In working out the power to weight ratio of the 2006 car the figures of 
weight of 605kg (440kg before ballast)
and a bhp of 850bhp give or take 
the power to weight ratio comes back as 0.7117
but yet the page states 0.9
"The 2006 F1 cars have a power-to-weight ratio of 1,250 hp/tonne (0.9 kw/kg). "
Is either not clear, I've missed something or wrong.
IanGUK 12:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, you've done them the wrong way around. Its horsepower (850bhp in this case) divided by the weight (605kg) -> ~1,400bhp/tonne ... what you have worked out is the weight to power ratio.Pubuman (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Probably that figure was calculated for 2005 when power was creeping up around 900 bhp. 4u1e 23:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 850 bhp is equal to 637,5kW, 605/637,5 is 0,949.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khutuck (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should be the other way around (power/weight, not weight/power)... the 0.9 value was using the 1250bhp/tonne, because 1250bhp = 919 kW. So if it has a power to weight ratio of 919kW/tonne then its 0.919 kW/kg.Pubuman (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power to weight ratio figures 

message: I am not sure who is copying whom here, but this article is, in places, almost word for word identical to an article on the F1 Complete website: http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/1381/389/
Its been slightly reworded, but that doesn't place it outside the realms of plagiarism, especially as there are no attributions.
82.152.52.97 22:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia article originally said this, and then had some minor changes to it, and the other bits were added at completely seperate times: , , and have since had minor changes. I think it's pretty safe to say that, given these bits were added at different times, by different editors, in a different order, and with sometimes vastly different wording (although with the same concepts), that the link you provided copied it from a version here. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential Plagiarism?

message: To help readers understand how incredibly lightweight F1 cars are, can we add verbiage stating the estimated dry curb weight? That is how road cars are normally specified, which readers are familiar with. On a road car there's not a huge difference between wet and dry weight. However due to the extremely light dry weight of F1 cars, the wet weight (inc'l driver, apparel, fluids and ballast) is much greater than the dry weight. Wet weight understates how light F1 cars actually are. How about adding something like this to the "Construction section":
"Road cars typically specify "dry curb weight" (minus driver/passengers and fluids). F1 fuel capacity is about 150 liters (40 U.S. gallons), which weighs about 110 kg (244 lbs). The equivalent dry weight for an F1 car (minus fluids, driver and ballast) can be below 350 kg (770 lbs), or lighter than some motorcycles." Joema 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Referenced and with British spellings (kerb, litres) to match the rest of the article that would probably be a good addition.4u1e 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As i remember, an F1 car's weight without fuel, but all lubricants must be over 600kg. FIA says:
4.1 Minimum weight :
The weight of the car must not be less than 605kg during the qualifying practice session and no less than 600kg at all other times during the Event.
1.9 Weight :
Is the weight of the car with the driver, wearing his complete racing apparel, at all times during the event.
So, the car cannot be below 600kg's at the end of the race, when all the fuel is consumed. Car's weight without fuel must be over 600kg. Khutuck 02:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It has now (2011) increased from 620 to 640 kg to allow for the weight of the KERS 87.254.238.85 (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curb weight comparison? 

message: The article states:
"0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.9 seconds"
"The acceleration figure is usually 2.46 g (24.1 m/s²) up to 200 km/h (124 mph)"
Per google calculator, 0-124 mph in 3.9s works out to an average acceleration of 1.4 g. Protomech (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forward Acceleration discrepancy 

message: There is no evidence to suggest that the brake thermal efficiency of a formula one engine is higher than that of the most efficient of production passenger car engines, as stated in the article.
Engine speeds of 19.000rpm with mean piston speeds in excess of 25 m/s result in large friction losses.  In addition, attainment of maximum output for a given quantity of inducted air mass requires operation with an air-fuel ratio that is rich of stoichiometric, at which air-fuel ratio the brake specific fuel consumption is higher than stoichiometric, where passenger car engines equipped with three-way catalysts operate.  Turbocharging is another efficiency enabling technology that is available on passenger car engines which is not present on formula one engines.
I suggest deleting the sentence which states that brake thermal efficiency of the formula one engine is 20% higher than the most efficient of passenger car engines.
Emporiko (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I am new to the talk pages here, though I've done some anonymous editing. Sorry if I've replied in the wrong form. A web search reveals that the authour may be correct. The rather ugly page at http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/Z.Yates/Zach's%20Web%20Project%20Folder/EICE%20-%20Main.htm is probably also the basis behind the article at http://www.f1reviews.com/technical/The-anatomy-of-an-F1-engine-part-1 Both suggest that thermal efficiency of a "street engine" is around 26% while a race engine may be as high as 34%. At a guess the materials used and shorter working life mean that higher temperatures may be tolerated. Possibly also thinner cylinder walls might mean better heat flow. But I'm only guessing at all that. 193.34.186.161 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I would especially recommend removing the statement that this increase in efficiency is due to "higher craftsmanship". Formula 1 car engines run at extremely high temperatures and compression ratios, which would not be allowable on passenger cars due to emissions standards. The effect of craftsmanship on efficiency (versus the engine technologies themselves) is likely very small.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.137.204 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine Efficiency 

message: Theoretically, a car definitely cannot drive upside-down at the speed where they double their own weight.  At such a speed, the tires have no grip on whatever surface they are driving on because gravity cancels out the downforce, and with no normal force between tire and surface, the wheels would immediately start to spin with no friction, causing the speed to drop below the necessary threshold to develop enough aerodynamic downforce to counter gravity, which would result in the car falling to the ground.
It is not necessarily impossible for a Formula 1 car to drive upside-down at some level of speed.  However, the downforce has to be great enough, the tire friction coefficient has to be great enough, and the drag coefficient must be small enough that the force of friction in the tires can overcome the aerodynamic drag and keep the car at the necessary speed.  However, we have no proof that such conditions exist, and until we do we cannot say that a car can drive upside-down, even in theory.--Kickflipthecat (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're all sure F1 cars can accelerate under 1G gravity (start of the race, while the car is stationary, so there is no downforce), also it is generally stated that a Formula 1 car can generate downforce equal to its weight at 120km/h, and double of its weight at 190km/h. So, a Formula One car may theoretically go upside down at speeds over 190 km/h, as the downforce will be double of the weight of car. Khutuck Bot (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: F1 cars can accelerate with the normal force equal to its weight, but the only thing it has to overcome is its own inertia and the rolling resistance in the tires.  Because of the wings and surfaces on an F1 car, at 190 km/h the grip in the tires must also overcome the air resistance.  While they may be able to do this without spinning the wheels, the F1 teams have not given us the necessary drag and grip coefficients to mathematically prove whether or not this is possible.  Also, you have to take into account the fact that the ceiling of a tunnel is most likely not made of asphalt, but tile, which is much less grippy.--Kickflipthecat (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Driving upside-down

message: The article doesn't explain what the 'hubcap' things on the F1 car wheels are. They appear relatively new. I'd like to see some mention of them in the part on tyres and wheels. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheels 

message: Perhaps that a new section can be added "Ecology", where it is explained that eco-frinedly technologies are being tested on formula one cars, and introduction of (some of) them could happen soon.
Ie --> mixing ethanol with gasoline (E85) --> see Project Green, http://www.physorg.com/news197730744.html
--> biodegradable materials for the chassis --> see World First Racing --> http://www.worldfirstracing.co.uk/
91.182.40.154 (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecology

message: This article would really benefit from one or more large labelled diagrams naming the different parts of the car, especially parts of the bodywork. I came looking for the names of two parts of the car. I eventually found them: "skid block" and "nose" - I hope these are correct but it's difficult to be sure without a labelled diagram. I also found "nosecone" on the F1 official site and "planks" are also often referred to elsewhere. Basically the only way I can use them is to Google and see what others use. BBC Sport used to have a good illustration (flash I think) but I can't find it any more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.238.85 (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram needed 

message: I noticed an absence of a category for F1 cars that won the World Constructors Championship (Red Bull RB6 & RB7, McLaren MP/4-4, etc). I know there is a category for Drivers Champions. Any thoughts; ought there be such a category? 71.210.0.211 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem with a category for cars would be that constructors have often used more than one model during a season - sometimes with widely varying success. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Championship winning Formula One cars 

message: Engine specs has listed a top speed of 362km/h. How can an engine have that when its the gearbox that dictates (including the downforce modifiers) the speed and acceleration figures of the whole vehicle with regards to a chassis. An engine doesn't do anything usefull without a gearbox of some sort. The whole article has got some sections of fan-boi-ism and flambouant expressive text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine, POV 

message: I have noticed that F1 2012 2013 and 2014 rules have Merged into one mess. At one point it says this but then says that later. I would suggest a clean up and update  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.108.198 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  F1 2014 and 2013 rules merging 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Formula One car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100115010921/http://www.formula1.com:80/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8699/fia.html to http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8699/fia.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006170808/http://www.formula1.com:80/news/features/2013/8/14875.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2013/8/14875.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722013311/http://www.formula1.com:80/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8710/fia.html to http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8710/fia.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420054834/http://www.formula1.com:80/news/features/2008/2/7380.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2008/2/7380.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051102030216/http://www.bonneville400.com/flash/default.aspx to http://www.bonneville400.com/flash/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901003154/http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1603301296__2006_F1_TECHNICAL_REGULATIONS.pdf to http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1603301296__2006_F1_TECHNICAL_REGULATIONS.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012214615/http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/1/f1.html to http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/1/f1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081106195349/http://www.racecar-engineering.com:80/articles/f1/273555/inside-an-f1-engine.html to http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/f1/273555/inside-an-f1-engine.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141109221052/http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2014/1/15408.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2014/1/15408.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm wondering whether the "Specifications" section is starting to get a bit too detailed for a general purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Or whether the content should be split out into a separate article. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very late response but it is still relevant today, I agree completely that the whole section is overkill. It's also almost entirely unsourced and quite poorly written (like the abolation of the beam wing 5 years in a row). I suspect that this is mostly the result of an editor initially called Theriusrooney or something of the like (most recent confirmed activity on this article is sockpuppet account Karymborny, though I suspect the IP I just reverted is the same individual due to editing habit and geolocation in comparison with previously used IP's used to block evade) who does this type of editing on numerous motorsports related articles. In my opinion, just remove the whole section. The rest of the article provides better general information more appropriate for an encyclopedia anyway. TylerBurden (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Courtesy ping for you as I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, I'll wait a bit and if there is no further input I'll go ahead and remove it. TylerBurden (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd support removing the whole section; I think it's way too detailed for Wikipedia. DH85868993 (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright we're on the same page then. I'll remove it now. TylerBurden (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications section 

message: BBC sport just added an excellent article on the nose / capes / J vanes impact to downforce at https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/51739796 (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20200706085005/https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/51739796). Might be some useful additions to the article. --donal.hunt (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerodynamics 

message: I understand that there is a lot of crossover here with the History of Formula One article, but I think this article treats the modern form of a Formula One car as more of an absolute than it should. I don't know how exactly one would go about changing this article, but I think it should be made clearer that early Formula One cars were typically front engined and lacked aerofoils. The fact that some early Formula One cars had enclosed wheels is less relevant but possibly should be bought up at some point to avoid potentially misleading readers. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism