If F1 teams could design the fastest car possible...

[Ranger]

Without any restrictions, around GP circuits of course, what would the car have?

My guess:
- Turbo
- 6 wheels (4 at the back)
- Huge, flexing wings
- Ground effects
- An electronics factory in the back
- 4-wheel steering
- Nitrous?

Feel free to post your predictions!

[Miatanut]

Without any restrictions, around GP circuits of course, what would the car have?

My guess:
- Turbo
- 6 wheels (4 at the back)
- Huge, flexing wings
- Ground effects
- An electronics factory in the back
- 4-wheel steering
- Nitrous?

Feel free to post your predictions!

I'm assuming you would still have safety restrictions, because teams would do anything they could for a competitive advantage, and some undesirable things would creep back into the cars.

I agree with most of what you have, but I don't think they would have flexing wings. They would go back to Jim Hall's fully adjustable wings, but now they would be computer controlled to be optimum at any moment.
I don't think nitrous would make sense on a road racing car in a 200 mile race. It would increase stress on the engine, it's some additional weight to carry around, and it's only real advantage would be a boost for passing.
I don't think four wheel steering would be an advantage for an F1 car.

I think regenerative braking would have occurred before now, and store a lot more energy than KERS will.
They would have taken active suspension a farther that WRC did.
We would have seen hybrids before now.
Cars would weigh less, because they wouldn't carry ballast.
The cars would get wider, although for Monaco they might have an entirely separate, narrower car.
The cars would have fenders. GASP! Open wheels generate a lot of drag and some lift, so it would be an advantage to cover them up, at a slight weight penalty. They might have open wheels at Monaco.
Probably jet turbine engines, because they make more power for their weight.
Continuously variable transmissions.
Active differentials.
Toxic fuel blends.
Canopy over the cockpit

[Rollo]

This contains part of my answer:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html
I'd be looking at some sort of gas turbine running on either hydrogen, butane,
propane or perhaps hydrogen peroxide.
The car would probably be 4WD, and I'm undecided as to whether I'd either develop ground effects similar to the BT49 or Lotus 88, maybe even think about the Porsche 956.

VVT, camless, direct injection, traction control, auto gearbox, you name it, I want it provided it pays its way.

[wmcot]

I'm undecided as to whether I'd either develop ground effects similar to the BT49 or Lotus 88, maybe even think about the Porsche 956.


Could be a combination of all 3.How about liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket powered? That would make pitstops interesting!!! :)

[Valve Bounce]

Without any restrictions, around GP circuits of course, what would the car have?

My guess:
- Turbo
- 6 wheels (4 at the back)
- Huge, flexing wings
- Ground effects
- An electronics factory in the back
- 4-wheel steering
- Nitrous?

Feel free to post your predictions!

One of those Red Bull air race planes.

[ioan]

Without any restrictions, around GP circuits of course, what would the car have?

My guess:
- Turbo
- 6 wheels (4 at the back)
- Huge, flexing wings
- Ground effects
- An electronics factory in the back
- 4-wheel steering
- Nitrous?

Feel free to post your predictions!

1. Aspirated V12's
2. 4 Wheels, with large rears
3. Active wings
4. Ground effects
5. Active suspensions
6. And no nitrous, the engine has to last a race at least.

[V12]

I imagine the car, visually anyway, would resemble a single-seat version of an LMGTP/Group C-style sportscar. IMO this sort of deregulated motorsport would be an amazing spectacle, but I reckon it would evolve into more of a Robot Wars style battle of technology where the cars end up navigating the circuits themselves with no driver at all, unless there remains some sort of rule where the driver must have a certain degree of control over the car. Because even the best driver in the world adds extra weight and drag :p :

[wedge]

And would there be any overtaking during races? After all a race car should have more power than grip.

[Knock-on]

I'd have an energiser and whizz around the track 60 times in a second :D

http://uk.gizmodo.com/star_trek_transporter.jpg

[schmenke]

It'd look similar to... ;)

[Bagwan]

It'd look similar to... ;)

Ah , the Pacer , a fine figure of the class of automotive engineering .
Went from Fergus to Calgary , stopping at Canadian Tire stores , doing a complete body job/spray bomb paint job on a Gremlin , on the way to the oil patch .

If teams could design the fastest car possible , we would undoubtedly meet with the limits of the human body before the ultimate speed was reached .
The pumps and valves in our bodies make it so it is wise to wear a G suit for over two and a half Gs sustained for any length of time . Lateral Gs are those we must worry about , and we are approaching that already .

I remember a test at , I think , Texas motor speedway , where the cars were running four to four and a half Gs , and the drivers were getting dizzy and seeing stars .

You'd need to redesign tracks to be drag strips , as the drivers wouldn't be able to handle turning .

[call_me_andrew]

I remember a test at , I think , Texas motor speedway , where the cars were running four to four and a half Gs , and the drivers were getting dizzy and seeing stars .

That wasn't a test. That was a CART race that was cancelled. And the drivers were pulling 6Gs.

I highly doubt anyone would use a continuously variable transmission. They're a great thing in theory, but in reality they can't handle a lot of power.

Gas turbine seems like a logical engine. Though I wouldn't rule out a piston engine running on nitromethane.

[Miatanut]

I highly doubt anyone would use a continuously variable transmission. They're a great thing in theory, but in reality they can't handle a lot of power.

Gas turbine seems like a logical engine. Though I wouldn't rule out a piston engine running on nitromethane.
The ultimate configuration would probably be a small turbine engine running 100% all the way around the lap, with the excess energy stored during braking and part throttle periods, with direct drive electric traction motors (4WD), making the CVT unnecessary.

[fizzicist]

I thought about this some time ago and I think the restricting factor would be keeping the tyres on the rims - you'd probably have quite tall wheels to reduce the number of revolutions they undertake at high speeds. Taller tyres also have a lower drag for their contact patch size.

You'd probably see a spec along the lines of:

Twincharged (Turbo charged & supercharged) triple or quad rotor el engines running on ethanol or possibly hydrogen if a lightweight hydrogen storage system could be developed. Either that or a 2.0 twin charged reciprocating engine, with VVT, pneumatic valve actuation. you'd be looking at race power outputs in the region of 1500-1800hp transferred via CVT (Williams had this almost race ready in 1991!).

KERS would be well established (Williams also had this nearly race ready in the mid 90's)

Full ground effect cars with relatively tiny wings & twin chassis technology a la Lotus 88.

Active suspension and 17"-20" wheels with low profile tyres.

Given the amounts of power and relatively tiny drag (ground effect is pretty much penalty free downforce and with active suspension it's ludicrously effective).

Basically, you're looking at cars with immense performance, way beyond what man can handle...

[Miatanut]

Twincharged (Turbo charged & supercharged) triple or quad rotor el engines running on ethanol or possibly hydrogen if a lightweight hydrogen storage system could be developed. Either that or a 2.0 twin charged reciprocating engine, with VVT, pneumatic valve actuation. you'd be looking at race power outputs in the region of 1500-1800hp transferred via CVT (Williams had this almost race ready in 1991!).
Is there a disadvantage to turbines? With unlimited hydroplanes, the turbines have completely dominated the piston engines.

[fizzicist]

In a word - inertia.

turbine engines are great at consistent high rpm's. In F1 it's all about acceleration and accelerating the mass of a turbine reduces flexibility. Secondly they have almost no engine braking.

CVT would get around half of this, but then there's also the weight. What works on water don't always work on land.

[Miatanut]

In a word - inertia.

turbine engines are great at consistent high rpm's. In F1 it's all about acceleration and accelerating the mass of a turbine reduces flexibility. Secondly they have almost no engine braking.

CVT would get around half of this, but then there's also the weight. What works on water don't always work on land.
That's why my scenario had a turbine which would run at 100% for the full lap, storing the energy (KERS) when it wasn't needed. The question would then be whether the weight of the energy storage system would be more than the weight savings from the turbine. The storage would be a different amount at each track, sized so it was exhausted when the car got to the end of the longest straight, to save weight.

Regenerative braking.

[fizzicist]

The whole problem with KERS systems is storing the energy in a weight effecient fashion. Gas turbine engines are heavy to start with and difficult to package, especially when you consider the heat management issues.

Combine this with the KERS system and you double the heat management problems: if you go for an electrical system, electrical resistance rises at the square of heat. Thus you need to find a way of hiding the KERS systems from the heat generated by the gas turbine.

If you were to go for a mechanical system (flywheel) then you have even more weight to manage.

When F1 teams can get nearly 1000horsepower from a 3.0 V10 and have it weigh in at under 80kgs, I just don't think Gas turbines are the answer.