# BMW F1 car to lap the 'ring!



## Stu-Oxfordshire (May 7, 2002)

I just read on Autosport's website that on 28th April, the BMW F1 car will be lapping the 'ring!

Can you imagine seeing a car like that through Schwedenkreuz and Foxhole! 
It would be awesome to be there; might try and make it over for the day if I can. Heidfeld will be driving I understand. Some more here: *http://thinkcar.org/?p=41*


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

This would be awesome but I can't help wondering about the safety. Modern F1 cars are nothing without downforce and as we know (and I know VERY well) there are some crests and bumps etc where air could quite easily get under the car.

Can't wait to see if this really is a go-er.

p.s. Thanks for posting the link. I think I'm in love [smiley=sweetheart.gif]


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Exhibition or do you think they are going to have a pop at Bellof's mark [smiley=smoking.gif]


----------



## Rhod_TT (May 7, 2002)

Exhibition without a shadow of a doubt. But it should still be pretty rapid.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

And what do we think the theoretical lap time could be.

Low 6mins ?


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

I reckon that's about right....but it all depends on if and where they can put the power down. The three fastest places and places where I can recall many bumps etc and some humps.

You'd need some huge gonads to push an F1 car around there.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> need some huge gonads to push an F1 car around there.


Agreed! 

There are some huge* humps and bumps in the surface, especially on the fast straights. An F1 going at full chat hitting one of those will just turn it into an aeroplane's wing, regardless of how much downforce it's producing!

*For an F1 car


----------



## Rebel (Feb 12, 2005)

no problem, they adjust the car-height 
I will be there the 28th of april 8)


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

More height = less down force = less benefit of having an F1 car :?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Isn't the risk the same with any of these supercars with aerodynamic undertrays? At that speed, the F1 may effectively weigh more than a "normal" supercar, so be less likely to "take off".


----------



## Rhod_TT (May 7, 2002)

maybe - or 



 (sorry about the europop backing track).


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > need some huge gonads to push an F1 car around there.
> ...


Not sure if that is an issue. F1 cars run low tyre pressures and if they run enough down force to drive on the ceiling, they should not take off - rather they may slam downwards and generate huge compression as per Eau Rouge etc, albeit within the space of the dips and bumps.

They also regularly bottom out on kerbs etc of many F1 circuits - where kerbing effectively often acts as huge big bumps n humps. Plus FIA regs have actually made F1 cars relatively high off the ground with clearance these days, in their efforts to slow lap times. I reckon the works Porsche 956Cs ran as low if not lower than current F1 cars.



















That Heidfield has large 'nads is not in question.

Should be fascinating.

Low sixes were being acheived in the early 80s with 650hp works Porsches.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=23&h=&t=193275
Stefan Bellof - Porsche 956 - 6m11secs in 1983 practice session for Group C race held there.>> 
   

<<


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> kmpowell said:
> 
> 
> > scoTTy said:
> ...


Upside down is fine but if in the ceiling there was suddenly ventilation grills it would fall off.

My concern is air getting under the car when they crest (and there's some big crests) and they could do a back flip.


----------



## Stu-Oxfordshire (May 7, 2002)

I think GaryC's on the right tack here. 
When Peter Dumbreck's Le Mans car flew off the circuit; rule changes were brought in whereby teams could no longer run completely flat undertray's.

Up until then, the theory on a sports/endurance racer had been similar to that of the banned side skirts in F1 in the 70's: a flat undertray will speed the passage of air under the car, effectively creating lower-pressure air (compared to that poassing over the top of the car). 
This lower-ressure air effectively sucks the car to the ground, creating downforce. The issue with that profile of sports car was that the car was overly dependent on the passage of air under the car to create downforce. ergo, when that is disrupted; the chances of some kind of aero-stall are much higher.

Modern F1 cars create "dirty" downforce. So much of the old-style downforce-generating diffusers and floors have been rulled illegal now so, the proportion of downforce provided by the top of the car (winglets, front & rear wing, swoops, etc) is significantly higher (more than double) that of the floor.

So, even if Heidfeld is flat over say.....Schwedenkreuz and mullers a bump, the aero pressure on the front wing would push the tyre straight back onto the tarmac: no issue about flipping at all. Unless of course, they get the damping all-wrong.
This is an interesting topic nevertheless. I wonder if we can get some kind of more informed comment from the ranks of F1? I have a friend I will email.


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

This has become a very interesting thread, what a shame these comments will be lost to the thinkCAR reader


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

More 'add topic' than 'off topic' but one thing which I have oft pondered about F1 related.........

Road cars tend to use low profile tires these days, partly for handling and partly (I'm sure) due to our ever ending desire for larger alloys!

So what is the story with F1 and their relatively small wheels and large profile tires.

I am thinking it will be a combination of using the tyre wall as pseudo suspension, something to do with operating temperatures, speed and stability, flatness and therefore grip of tread. Anyone care to explain with a sufficiently technical explanation which will take about 3 reads to understand?

TIA.


----------



## Stu-Oxfordshire (May 7, 2002)

John C said:


> More 'add topic' than 'off topic' but one thing which I have oft pondered about F1 related.........
> Road cars tend to use low profile tires these days, partly for handling and partly (I'm sure) due to our ever ending desire for larger alloys!
> So what is the story with F1 and their relatively small wheels and large profile tires.
> I am thinking it will be a combination of using the tyre wall as pseudo suspension, something to do with operating temperatures, speed and stability, flatness and therefore grip of tread. Anyone care to explain with a sufficiently technical explanation which will take about 3 reads to understand?
> TIA.


's a very good question!

Firstly, here are the construction differences: 
*Road tyres*: steel radial ply
*F1 tyre:* designed to be as strong, and light as possible. No steel ply; the underlying construciton is polyester, synthetic fusions of nylon and polyester weave. Ultimately, designed to withstand much heavier forces; about a tonne of downforce and up to 5G lateral loading.

Why are the sidewalls so different? 
Firstly, the regulations stipulate a 13" rim. 
Secondly, it's a combination of heat, and the need to "tune" the tyres.

A low-profile tyre on a road car works well as it provides improved change of direction (in theory the sidewall flexes less) however on an F1 car, it's the last thing they need: transitory aerodynamics are the cornerstone of how well a car performs (Autosport readers turn your eyes towards Mark Hughes' article on the BMW 2007 car) and a key part of this is the tyres. A taller sidewall provides a much wider operating window as each set of tyres can be tuned differently to each car; depending on what the inherent characteristics of the car are. The engineers can change the pressure, camber, toe etc....if the tyre was low-profile, then this tuning window is reduced. 
Also, a low profile rear tyre would reduce traction (when comapred to a tall sidewall), as well as overheat very quickly.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Rhod_TT said:


> maybe - or
> 
> 
> 
> (sorry about the europop backing track).


Was this just really bad luck? Slip streaming very close, and moving from travelling in a low pressure air created by the car in front to turbulent air as the car in front moved away just as the car reached the brow of the small rise in the track? Would it have happened without the car in front being there?


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Thanks for that Stu, very informative, always wondered about the profiles [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Surely we can get the subject of slip angles in this thread somewhere :wink:


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Stu - Many thanks for an interesting and informative reply - must spend more time over in thinkcar.org ....if I am invited ;-)


----------



## Stu-Oxfordshire (May 7, 2002)

John C said:


> Stu - Many thanks for an interesting and informative reply - must spend more time over in thinkcar.org ....if I am invited ;-)


Of course! The more the merrier. Esp if you want to make a guest blog


----------

