Wingless F1?

An outright ban on blowers (or turbos) isn't something I'd prefer: the more variation, the merrier.
I doubt you're going to get the degree of variation you seem to want; one or the other is going to be optimal. Even if you manage to balance the displacement limits to give equivalent power and/or power:weight ratio to blown versus NA cars, the NA is going to have an advantage in reliability due to fewer moving parts; in all other circumstances one or the other will have a performance advantage.

I'd actually prefer a ruleset that would incentivise or at least not overly penalize blown engines, as that's a technology I'd want to see advanced for the spillover benefits to street cars.

An Italian prewar experimental was powered with a two cycle 16 cylinder air cooled radial. Neat front-wheel drive car with NACA engine cowling. Ran, but never developed.
That's...I mean, it sounds cool, but the mind boggles a little bit. Radials are an absolutely godawful layout for a groundcar engine- greater frontal area and higher center of gravity than virtually any inline layout of equivalent displacement. Why would anyone actually do that? Was a radial just the best engine available to them so they decided to build a car around it?
 
They don't. That's the big advantage of gfx vs wings: less drag. Less drag means less turbulence. It boils down to the fluid flow. The smoother the flow the better ground effect you can get as gfx is a result of the pressure differential produced by high speed vs low speed flow on opposite faces of a body (Bernoulli's Principle), aided somewhat by a Venturi effect on the underbody by interaction with the ground. Ultimately, the smoother the flow the better gfx you'll get. This is exactly opposite of modern racing wings which use fluid deflection to produce a reactive force. All this together means higher potential top speed, especially on the straights (or, under your limitations, with which I am prone to agree, similar top speeds but attained with less power), and less of a turbulent wake behind the car which makes gaining and passing easier to those following.
:cool: Thx.

That suggests to me (given the cars are less powerful from the outset), as we approach the OTL introduction of wings, there may, instead, be two approaches followed: wings & gfx, & wings, both due to (early) over-flimsy mounts & higher drag (which the cars can't simply power through TTL) are seen as a dead end, where gfx proves to have comparable (if not exactly equal) gains with less penalty.

It also suggests, if somebody tumbles to *gfx a bit sooner than OTL, the pressure to increase displacements, &/or power, isn't as strong: the cars can run faster, & safer, without needing it. (Not to say teams wouldn't work toward it, but given a touch of handwavium, by way of rulemakers' decisions,:openedeyewink: it looks like a reasonable outcome.)
See above. Indy may still wih with wings, or go to them at some point, partially thanks to NASCAR influence. There is a tradition of common owners and common drivers in the big two American series and the principles of drafting, slingshotting, and pitting with likely be shared between them even ITTL. This helps set Grands Prix racing and Indy apart even more and I think the complexities of developing good grx cars will still keep F1 as the pinnacle of racing (although I, personally, think LMP1 is the real pinnacle).
It occurs to me there might end up a kind of "split series" in both cases. Given superspeedways are more conducive to gfx (more-regular surface), I wonder if you get an Indy-spec car (F1-spec, which they were for a long time after WW2), for superspeedways, which leads to a series of several big oval races (akin NASCAR), & a road course/small oval-spec car. Ditto NASCAR.

Of course, the Offys produced so much power, big wings wouldn't be a drawback...& the greater downforce & speeds would lead to some serious wrecks:eek: (Vuky, frex:mad:), & so improved tire tech...

And if F1 is making gfx work on road courses, there's no real reason USAC/CART & NASCAR can't...:oops:

I happen to like the "split series" idea, tho. Having a string of supespeedway Champ car events?:cool::cool:
 
Even if you manage to balance the displacement limits to give equivalent power and/or power:weight ratio to blown versus NA cars, the NA is going to have an advantage in reliability due to fewer moving parts;
Fuel limits can help. You can get more bang-for-your-buck (or gallon, in this case) with a Turbo--equal power with less consumption. You can improve on that even more by pushing turbo-compound instead of just turbocharging. In a TC system, pushing about 2 bar of boost you can expect about a 15-18% gain in brake horsepower and a 12-15% reduction in fuel consumption. Reliability will be a real issue with it but I think a decade or two of racing and development will find a happy middle ground.
 
That's...I mean, it sounds cool, but the mind boggles a little bit. Radials are an absolutely godawful layout for a groundcar engine- greater frontal area and higher center of gravity than virtually any inline layout of equivalent displacement. Why would anyone actually do that? Was a radial just the best engine available to them so they decided to build a car around it?
trossimonaco.jpg
 
IDK if that's crazy or brilliant.;)

One other approach:
stp 'super wedge' indycar (users.telenet.be {aerogi}).jpg

Don't know its pedigree, offhand.
I doubt you're going to get the degree of variation you seem to want; one or the other is going to be optimal. Even if you manage to balance the displacement limits to give equivalent power and/or power:weight ratio to blown versus NA cars, the NA is going to have an advantage in reliability due to fewer moving parts; in all other circumstances one or the other will have a performance advantage.
You may be right on the amount seen, but IMO you're missing the point. The goal isn't to enforce the best outcome; it's to allow choices. Teams should be allowed to innovate (or be wrong, if you'd rather). Is a 4-row 12cyl radial crazy? Maybe. Is a 2-row 14cyl "pancake" radial crazy? Probably. Should you be allowed to try it, if you want? Yeah.

If you want to ban things for being complicated, ban piston engines in preference to rotaries. IMO, the pressure to get the best leads to an all-rotary field. So be it. Teams should be entitled to choose pistons or not. Maybe they use a piston engine, which sucks, but hire the best drivers & have a spectacularly good chassis design, & win the World Championship anyhow. Or maybe not. BRM never got their H16 to work. In today's F1, they'd never even get to try. IMO, that's wrong.
I'd actually prefer a ruleset that would incentivise or at least not overly penalize blown engines, as that's a technology I'd want to see advanced for the spillover benefits to street cars.
Except the goal isn't (just) to serve as a research lab for street cars. (IMO, turbos are better anyhow; they don't draw power all the time.) Besides, if the scales are more/less even, blower/turbo research has an incentive
 
Last edited:
(IMO, turbos are better anyhow; they don't draw power all the time.)
I agree, though apparently my terminology is wrong. What, if anything, is the generic umbrella term for turbochargers/superchargers/some other form of mechanical air intake compression device?
 
What, if anything, is the generic umbrella term for turbochargers/superchargers/some other form of mechanical air intake compression device?
Supercharger or Compressor, in the broadest sense, but generally the umbrella is referred to by the goal, Forced Induction, rather than the technology (supercharger, turbo-supercharger/turbocharger, positive discplacent supercharger, etc).

I am in the same camp as phx in this. I think the goal is to allow experimentation and innovation in a never ending pursuit of "better" rather than settling on a single outcome as "best."

Regarding a POD to remove/prevent wings I think their early failures due to their poor mounts and designs is a perfect opportunity to mostly ban them. Another option could actually be to NOT ban them but make them potentially obsolete or at least minimized by simply NOT banning gfx in the early 80's.
 
Short note on Marathag's previously unknown to me cutaway of the Monaco et al GP project car.

The "U" cylinder is a mechanical simplification of the two piston straight through cylinder two stroke engine like the Junkers Jumo 205 or our Fairbanks-Morse submarine Diesel. Folding the gas path does increase boost pressure required for a given output, relative to the straight cylinder engines referenced above.

The folded cylinder engine was investigated by GM Research labs beginning in the late twenties , picked up by Allison in the thirties for an abortive 12 cylinder, 1200 HP aircraft engine, continuing to a demonstrated cruise missile powerplant in the middle of WW2.

In 1931 Indianapolis qualifying record holder "Leon Duray" (actually George Stewart) attempted to qualify a 16 cylinder Roots supercharged engine of this type that (I believe) he designed. With the usual 'running out of time' rush, the engine showed fast laps, but overheated badly and slowed during the (then) 25 mile qualification run.

The car shown was supercharged with rotary vane blower(s). It was fast on the straightaways, but ill handling in turns. Engine displacement was small- under 250 cubic inches I believe- and HP substantially lower than the much larger Mercedes and Auto Union engines.

The German Puch group may have produced this engine design for interwar motorcycles.

Dynasoar
 
Supercharger or Compressor, in the broadest sense, but generally the umbrella is referred to by the goal, Forced Induction, rather than the technology (supercharger, turbo-supercharger/turbocharger, positive discplacent supercharger, etc).
I'd agree with "forced induction".
I am in the same camp as phx in this. I think the goal is to allow experimentation and innovation in a never ending pursuit of "better" rather than settling on a single outcome as "best."

Regarding a POD to remove/prevent wings I think their early failures due to their poor mounts and designs is a perfect opportunity to mostly ban them. Another option could actually be to NOT ban them but make them potentially obsolete or at least minimized by simply NOT banning gfx in the early 80's.
IMO, the '69 trial is the most obvious POD, but, as noted, I wonder if there's a more subtle approach, with two paths (starting earlier, probably), as teams try to gain an edge in the face of power/displacement limits.

Finally, one last look at alternatives based on EverKing's proposal:
wingless f1 pic 6 (alternatehistory).jpg

Nose a bit shorter, airbox a little lower-profile (idea being it's same total inlet area). All it needs are some Imperial Tobacco signage & #13.
 
I will work up a better drawing with some these changes in a couple days when I get the chance.

I am curious what you think an earlier split work look like in the timeline. What causes it? Which series would be F1 and which would be the brach-off series? Perhaps most importantly, is there enough sponsorship, money, talent, and fanbase to support two separate top tier series?
 
And are there enough banked oval superspeedways in Europe or enough really excellent road courses in the US for it to be a split, or is each side of the Atlantic simply going to develop its own native top tier series accordingly?
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Why are we talking about a split series and super speedways for Formula One? Indy Car is separate from F1 and should stay separate. The standard super speedway is banked at a series of angles. The intersections of the angles plays holy heck with gfx by allowing the trapped air flow to escape with unexpected changes of downforce. The Indy Car fraternity has adapted by their use of winged cars and an entirely different set of construction guidelines. They use more low drag than high downforce on the banked tracks.
 
I will work up a better drawing with some these changes in a couple days when I get the chance.
If you feel like it. I've tuned up my copies to my satisfaction, & the suggestion of sponsor logos was more a joke than serious.:eek: (This last one was me doodling with the *Photoshop a bit; my inner artist cried out for recognition.:openedeyewink: )
I am curious what you think an earlier split work look like in the timeline. What causes it? Which series would be F1 and which would be the brach-off series? Perhaps most importantly, is there enough sponsorship, money, talent, and fanbase to support two separate top tier series?
I may have created a monster, here... The "split series" idea was a passing notion, not necessarily a likely one.

However... In the U.S. (only), I imagine an F1-spec road course series continuing after OTL stopped including Indy on the F1 calendar (1959?); maybe it starts around the time gfx start appearing (& AFAIK, that has to wait for Jim Hall & the 2J, around 1966). How it starts, I couldn't begin to guess...

Is there support for it? I have no real notion... My feeling is, an *Indy oval series would attract a fair number of NASCAR oval fans, & vice versa; *Indy road course, probably a few F1 fans, along with OTL Champ Car fans; *NASCAR road course may attract SCCA or DTM types. Given a greater variety of fans, IMO, sponsor money can always be found. (TV coverage, maybe less so...at least until ESPN is formed.)
And are there enough banked oval superspeedways in Europe or enough really excellent road courses in the US for it to be a split, or is each side of the Atlantic simply going to develop its own native top tier series accordingly?
Why are we talking about a split series and super speedways for Formula One?
Confusion is my fault. I meant that as a U.S.-only idea.

Are there enough superspeedways to make it work? Not now. I was thinking of something like a 6-8 race "major event" season, all of a status akin Daytona or Indy. For that, there might be enough superspedways--or might see enough built. To start, visits to Daytona, Ontario?, Talladega?, & Charlotte, beyond Indy.

Just in case that leaves additional confusion, on "two paths", I meant, in the sense of gfx or wings, with somebody seeing the 2J & trying gfx, while somebody else tries wings, & wings end up being a dead end (thanks to rulemakers, & to circumstance).
 
For wingless racing in Europe at lap speeds exceeding 176 mph in 1957. Kurtis Offenhausers versus Ferrari and Maserati- Juan Fangio versus the USA at Monza- look up "Race of Two Worlds" in Wiki etc. Twenty years after Berlin Avvus.

Dynasoar
 
Top