Comments on: How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing (part 3/3)

By: CJD

CJD — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:28:05 +0000

Thank you John, a most informative article.
It is amazing that so much money is going out of the sport that none is available for back to back tests using two specially constructed mules to explore overtaking while this present series plays out. There would still be room for competition in the detail design if it were known which part of the car contributed most effectively.

By: Leeroy

Leeroy — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:12:51 +0000

Carbon brakes are fitted to reduce unsprung weight and improve handling. Both types of construction could absorb the kinetic energy at the required rate. Costs aren’t too different given that iron based rotors would not be able to be re-used once heat cycled a couple of times (for safety reasons, ask any champ car mechanic).

My 2 cents…

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:27:28 +0000

I think KERS was only expected to have a secondary effect on the quality of the racing. Here's some more on it: KERS explained: how a mechanical Kinetic Energy Recovery System works

By: Vishu

Vishu — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:16:12 +0000

There hasn’t been a mention on KERS.
Excellent article though.

Would appreciate any detail on KERS

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:02:36 +0000

An excellent article. Thank you John

By: Chaz

Chaz — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:20:03 +0000

Good article yet again…

By: DG

DG — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:37:56 +0000

I will need to see the cars racing before I believe that the new shape actually helps with overtaking. Surely there is a defined speed/aero envelope where it just isn’t possible to get away from the dirty air created by the car in front? Having seen NASCAR, where admittedly the cars are more like bricks than missiles, but even they reach a point where if you leave the slipstream of the car in front you cannot go any faster.

By: John Beamer

John Beamer — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:48:19 +0000

The brake argument is the the carbon fibre discs result in braking points that are very close to the corner apex. Therefore it is harder to overtaking during braking. Moreover carbon fibre is a very durable and consistent material which reduces mistakes.

Steel requires the braking event to occur earlier, increasing the possibility over one car being able to out brake another. Also steel is less consistent requiring drivers to conserve their brakes better and, in theory, improving the show. In practice, at the level of competition we are taking about the teams would get the consistency right and the drivers would get the braking event right so no change!

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:50:40 +0000

F1 teams began replacing steel brakes with carbon fibre ones in the mid-1980s. Top speeds then were comparable to what they are now, but fuel stops were banned at the time so cars were much heavier earlier in the race. If steel brakes could cope with that, I assume they could work if brought back today.

The last time I remember an F1 team using them was in 1999 when Williams were trying to help Alessandro Zanardi re-acclimatise to F1 cars. He asked to try steel brakes, as they’d had in CART which he’d just moved over from.

I’ve heard the argument that steel brakes might help encourage overtaking and I don’t understand it. F1 cars struggle to overtake each other at moment because they can’t get close enough in the first place. That’s an aerodynamic problem, brakes have nothing to do with it. Looks like a red herring to me…

By: James

James — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:36:15 +0000

Williams tested them (steel disks) in 1995. I don’t think they made a significant difference, surprisingly.