4WD

[Faustus]

Has anyone else noticed that the new regulations for 2010 allow four-wheel drive?
I've always been fascinated by four-wheel drive racing cars. Alan Henry wrote a great book about 4WD racing cars, called 'THE 4-WHEEL DRIVES: RACING'S FORMULA FOR FAILURE?':

http://www.amazon.co.uk/4-WHEEL-DRIVES- ... 108&sr=1-1

I'd love to see someone try to design and build a 4WD F1 car again.

[CarlosFerreira]

Wouldn't that mean a change in tyre sizes? What do the rules say about tyres?

[Faustus]

Wouldn't that mean a change in tyre sizes? What do the rules say about tyres?

You wouldn't need a change of tyres at all. A true 4WD system would be a bit of a bastard to engineer, because you'd need the driveshaft to go somewhere and annoyingly there's a tank of petrol and a lump of meat in front of it. I supppose you could have it to one side, or both sides, but the best thing to do would to connect the KERS to the front wheels. Because the KERS will only be a boost of 120 bhp (or is 160, I can't remember), you only need tiny driveshafts, so the extra weight on the front axle wouldn't be too much of a problem. No need for a differential, because the KERS can be designed to output to both shafts, electronically.

[TomWazzleshaw]

Wouldn't 4WDs add an unacceptable amount of weight to the cars? If so how do you need to overcome this?

[CarlosFerreira]

Wouldn't that mean a change in tyre sizes? What do the rules say about tyres?

You wouldn't need a change of tyres at all. A true 4WD system would be a bit of a bastard to engineer, because you'd need the driveshaft to go somewhere and annoyingly there's a tank of petrol and a lump of metal in front of it. I supppose you could have it to one side, or both sides, but the best thing to do would to connect the KERS to the front wheels. Because the KERS will only be a boost of 120 bhp (or is 160, I can't remember), you only need tiny driveshafts, so the extra weight on the front axle wouldn't be too much of a problem. No need for a differential, because the KERS can be designed to output to both shafts, electronically.

Interesting. Maybe that could help with the weight distribution as well?

So: there would be no power from the reciprocating engine to the front wheels at all? Do you think it would pay off?

[Faustus]

The weight distribution could be an issue, but then that depends on the individual car design and tyre properties.

'So: there would be no power from the reciprocating engine to the front wheels at all? Do you think it would pay off?'

Yes, no physical connection between the engine and the front wheels and I think it would pay off. At the moment, I think KERS is only useful inthe exit of corners and in overtaking. At the exit of corners, the front wheels aren't particularly loaded anyway, so they can easily handle the torque from the KERS.

[CarlosFerreira]

The weight distribution could be an issue, but then that depends on the individual car design and tyre properties.

'So: there would be no power from the reciprocating engine to the front wheels at all? Do you think it would pay off?'

Yes, no physical connection between the engine and the front wheels and I think it would pay off. At the moment, I think KERS is only useful inthe exit of corners and in overtaking. At the exit of corners, the front wheels aren't particularly loaded anyway, so they can easily handle the torque from the KERS.

OK, but we'll need more KERS time, from 6.6 seconds to some more. The way it works right now, could not be an advantage.

[CarlosFerreira]

The weight distribution could be an issue, but then that depends on the individual car design and tyre properties.

'So: there would be no power from the reciprocating engine to the front wheels at all? Do you think it would pay off?'

Yes, no physical connection between the engine and the front wheels and I think it would pay off. At the moment, I think KERS is only useful inthe exit of corners and in overtaking. At the exit of corners, the front wheels aren't particularly loaded anyway, so they can easily handle the torque from the KERS.

OK, but we'll need more KERS time per lap - as I have defended elsewhere. 6.6 seconds might not be enough. Overall, I'm loving the idea. Is anyone from Williams reading this?

[Faustus]

The weight distribution could be an issue, but then that depends on the individual car design and tyre properties.

'So: there would be no power from the reciprocating engine to the front wheels at all? Do you think it would pay off?'

Yes, no physical connection between the engine and the front wheels and I think it would pay off. At the moment, I think KERS is only useful inthe exit of corners and in overtaking. At the exit of corners, the front wheels aren't particularly loaded anyway, so they can easily handle the torque from the KERS.

OK, but we'll need more KERS time per lap - as I have defended elsewhere. 6.6 seconds might not be enough. Overall, I'm loving the idea. Is anyone from Williams reading this?

Well, I've discussed it with mates from Force India and Brawn, who are looking into it.

[Debaser]

This is a fascinating concept,but wouldn't the cost of R & D and building the car around it make the car hideously expensive? I doubt a team would spend massive amounts on a car that could be seconds off the pace (though it could be seconds quicker as well). Great concept though, Williams flywheel KERS system is very interesting and this concept has its merits.

[johnston21]

The cost of R & D and building the car around it make the car hideously expensive?

...Only to have the FIA ban it between the 1'st & 2'nd season. "Ya, that's going to save a LOT of money Max!"

As for more KERS, "Capped" Teams get to run 12KJ next year instead of 6 (or 6.6...)

[RejectSteve]

The weight distribution could be an issue, but then that depends on the individual car design and tyre properties.

Intesting point to make, as Bridgestone are rumoured to increase the front tyre width next year due to complaints this year about grip levels. The fact that all wheel drive will be legal ties in nicely, doesn't it?

[WeirdKerr]

interesting idea....

maybe the kers could go on the front wheels........

[Alianora La Canta]

OK, but we'll need more KERS time per lap - as I have defended elsewhere. 6.6 seconds might not be enough. {CarlosFerreria - 6 posts ago}

The cost-regulated teams are allowed twice as much energy per lap. So if they decide not to go for the doubling in power, they could have 13.3 seconds of 2009-level power. This is one of those times when maximising performance does not necessarily mean maximising the use of every regulation simultaneously.

[CarlosFerreira]

OK, but we'll need more KERS time per lap - as I have defended elsewhere. 6.6 seconds might not be enough. {CarlosFerreria - 6 posts ago}

The cost-regulated teams are allowed twice as much energy per lap. So if they decide not to go for the doubling in power, they could have 13.3 seconds of 2009-level power. This is one of those times when maximising performance does not necessarily mean maximising the use of every regulation simultaneously.

Interesting, they can double either of them. That's nice.

[IntegratorTypeR]

The weight distribution could be an issue, but then that depends on the individual car design and tyre properties.

Intesting point to make, as Bridgestone are rumoured to increase the front tyre width next year due to complaints this year about grip levels. The fact that all wheel drive will be legal ties in nicely, doesn't it?

Really? I was under the impression they were going to DECREASE the front tyres widths, as the current ones need more load to make them work and make the car too oversteery. But yeah they do need changing one way or the other.

As for the KERS on the front wheels, this could make them a massive positive in the wet, even if on a dry track they still don't offer any benefit to laptimes.

[Faustus]

The weight distribution could be an issue, but then that depends on the individual car design and tyre properties.

Intesting point to make, as Bridgestone are rumoured to increase the front tyre width next year due to complaints this year about grip levels. The fact that all wheel drive will be legal ties in nicely, doesn't it?

Really? I was under the impression they were going to DECREASE the front tyres widths, as the current ones need more load to make them work and make the car too oversteery. But yeah they do need changing one way or the other.

As for the KERS on the front wheels, this could make them a massive positive in the wet, even if on a dry track they still don't offer any benefit to laptimes.

Currently, the front tyres require huge loads to get the most grip out of them. It's a tyre construction issue, that will probably not be radically changed for next year, because it would mean quite a radical change to the front suspension layout. Most teams are running ballast in the nose, to shift the weight distribution toward the front, to get the most out of the front tyres. Shifting the KERS to the front wheels would place even more load on the tyres.

[WeirdKerr]

By shifting kers to the front the teams would not need ballast there..... and also remember next yeat the fuel tanks will be bigger as refuelling is gonna be banned.... though i think races will be shorter but not by much.....

[LionZoo]

At the exit of corners, the front wheels aren't particularly loaded anyway, so they can easily handle the torque from the KERS.

Actually because they aren't really loaded, the torque coming from KERS is going to be less effective as all the weight is on the back. AWD cars have a reputation for understeer and using KERS to the front wheels to slingshot out of corners will be a benefit, but will increase exit understeer, which of course will be interesting from a driver compensation point of view.

Personally I think it's an interesting proposition. However, front CV joint failure will be a concern for me as the front wheels use a lot more steering angle than the rear (yes I'm sure the rear wheels steer on F1 cars as well). Combine that with pushing power through them out of corners and they'll see quite a bit of stress.