Multi-Car Comparison - Update!!

The McLaren is apparently the longest car, the bmw Sauber/Ferrari is very close, the Ferrari is next in the "stretch" car sweepstakes, and the Renault is pretty short. I wonder if this Renault is the car we will see in Bahrain or just a "dressed up" 2009. I do not honestly know, but the entire car launch process has been fascinating, and will continue to be so as testing starts tomorrow.

 
Thes pics were shared by

marq4porsche @

http://my.speedtv.com/go/thread/view/55846/22328033/2010_Car_Comparison?pg=2

and many were originally published by www.Gurneyflap.com

Note: Composite Pic By Large Eddie http://www.twitpic.com/11k3jc/full

Comments

[Large Eddie]

Good Jenson Button interview by Jonathan Noble went up on the Autosport website yesterday, and he talks pretty plainly about this:

Q. The McLaren seems to be very long compared to the Mercedes, could you feel it compared to the Brawn in the slow corners?

JB: You can't, no. I don't think it's right to compare it to last year's car. They have changed a lot since last year, especially with the smaller front tyres. But the Ferrari looks long as well. The Renault and the Williams look tiny - that looks the smallest car. So it's interesting that people have tried different lengths of cars. I think that's to do with the fuel tank but also other aero things I am sure.

When I saw the car initially I thought it was quite long, but when you see it on circuit, it doesn't look long and it also doesn't feel like a long-wheelbase car. And long-wheelbase cars seem to be working quite well if you look at the Ferrari's times and the Sauber's times and also what Lewis did yesterday.

[Flood1]

That is an interesting bit of insight. The cars are very different and I am interested to see who got it right. If it's not right there is nothing that can be done about it.

Of course it's possibe that both a short car and a long car could both be fast.

[Large Eddie]

I don't claim to be good at this, but playing around an image from your USF1/Racecar Engineering post...:

http://www.twitpic.com/11k3jc/full

[flood1]

Judging by that, Eddie, it looks as if it is a little shorter than the Ferrari. The wheels are proportional, so it makes sense to me. I would assume that the sketch by USF1 is proportional.

So, it looks as if their car is pretty compact, perhaps like the Renault R30 in that respect.

Thanks for the pic.

[Large Eddie]

Yes, short wheelbase but a very long nose! It looks like it might even be the longest car overall.

[flood1]

I hadn't noticed that! And it looks like the front wing is on backwards as well. That would put the elements about the same distance from the front wheels.

Fascinating!!

[Cipriano]

It'll be interesting to see how close to the launch car this rendering of the Type 1 is. The wheel base is considerable shorter. In the USF1 graphic, there is a section where it looks like it was cut off and put together again at the drivers legs (just at the bottom of the knees). Which brings into question if this will be the actual length of the car we'll see come launch day. I'm no techy - what are the advantages/disadvantages of a shorter wheel base?

[flood1]

You are right, the sketches revealed today are not final designs. They are useful for framing a discussion, but probably not definitive in terms of design. I notice the mismatch of the driver's leg below the knee. Perhaps they did that to obscure the length of the car? LoL!

The obvious advantage of a short wheelbase is when encountering sharp and twisty corners. Long-wheelbase cars are better at long radius high-speed corners.

The more complicated question is whether a long or a short wheelbase helps with the weight balance necessary with the huge fuel loads required for 2010.

It is a complicated discussion, but I believe that a short wheelbase allows an engineer to keep the center of gravity, the balance of weight between the wheels, more neutral than a long wheelbase does.

The weight of the car will change significantly between the start with a full fuel load (total car weight about 790kg) and the final laps with a small fuel load (about 630kg).

What is obvious is that the engineers have chosen different solutions. McLaren is long, Renault is short.

USF1 appears to have a short wheelbase, but it has a very long nose. So we will need to wait for further info to see who got it right.

[Large Eddie]

I'm a techie, just not an F1 techie! But I'll offer four thoughts on it:

1. All else being equal, shortening the wheelbase by moving the front wheels backward puts more weight on the front tires. This was what McLaren were after when they shortened the MP4-24's wheelbase by 75mm at Valencia last season.

2. For safety, the driver's feet must be behind the center of the front wheels. (I think that's still true.) So there's a packaging issue. Either his knees will be more bent or he'll be sitting more upright.

3. A longer wheelbase car should be more stable while a shorter wheelbase would be quicker but twitchier.

4. The front tires interact with the aerodynamics of every other part of the car. Moving them an inch one way or another can make a big difference, and it's very hard to know what that difference will be.

Example: The current IRL cars were designed with two different front suspension setups, a set of long-wheelbase parts for superspeedways and alternate short-wheelbase parts for shorter tracks. Teams were expected to run the LWB parts at Indianapolis for stability, but soon figured out that the other configuration gave better airflow over the sidepods at high speeds. So they all started running the less-stable configuration until a change was made in the rules to take away that option.

And yes indeed, Flood, I think that's about no bodywork being allowed behind "a transverse line 450mm forward of the front wheel centre line," from FIA Technical Regs, part 3.11.1. They'd probably go way closer to the tires if they could.

[Cipriano]

Thank you very much for the techo insights! And great graphics L. Eddie! Keep em coming.

[Large Eddie]

My pleasure, Cipriano. And I should add that I wasn't disagreeing with Flood1's last comment or trying to one-up him. He posted it while I was composing my own reply.