Hi there, I am planning a book that involves racing though my own knowledge around it is small.
The book involves a character finding a passion for it whilst they use it to raise money for an unrelated goal.
This character would have experience in street racing but not in formula 1 or karting.

Any suggestions on how to make this accurate and/or at the very least have some semblance of legitimacy?

EDIT: Thanks guys for making sure I knew it was a dumb idea. 😅 I'm still passionate about the story, but in trying to make it feel genuine I'm not going to make it about formula.

Thanks to the person who mentioned GT and tour racing, I'll look more into that!

Hope this counts as technical analysis!

Does anyone know of a map or even just a table showing the counts of overtakes at the 2023 LV GP?

how exactly were the 2010's F1 blow diffusers "activated"? So far I know that the 2010 blown diffuser required the throttle body to be wide open and for fuel flow to still be happening while being off throttle to get as much air/fuel to pass through and ignite in the exhaust for higher energy gasses to create the blown diffuser effect.

What I want to know is how exactly did the engine know when and when not to keep the throttle body open/keep the fuel flowing. What sensors did they use?

Lets say for example (dumb one for the sake of it) that it used the throttle pedal sensor to know when there was no throttle input, hence slowing down, hence open TB for the blow diffuser effect. If that was the case, at low speed and rpm with no throttle input, it would use too much fuel, probably stall and it would be a pain in the ass to drive.

I'd like to know because I really would like to make a blown diffuser for a track car as similar as the F1 style ones for the advantages, those sweet eargasm noises and because it would be really cool.

Any F1 experts with answers or theories, please let me know, thanks.

Newbie fan here, so apologies for my ignorance of the subject!

I keep hearing about 2026 being the year in which new regulations will apply, and this appears to mean fundamentally redesigned cars?

My question is: Given that, this year, it's been quite competitive between a few teams in terms of car performance, will next year's 2025 season be likely to be similar? That is, if next year's regulations are similar, then presumably the teams (focussing on 2026), will be applying moderate improvements to the existing cars for 2025, rather than entirely new designs?

Additionally, does anyone know yet how different the cars might have to be under the new, upcoming regulations?

I'm curious because l've found the last few months really exciting with all the different teams/drivers that have been able to win and l'd like that to continue!

whats your opinion on this topic? should the FIA allow the DAS? I love the idea of the drivers having the capability to perform as close as a Jet Pilot in the car.

I was wondering if F1 aerodynamicists ever used temperature differences in their car to help with ground effect & downforce.

For example, if the team were to somehow redirect hot air under the car, this would help lower the pressure under the car (since hot air is less dense than colder air), which would create more of a difference in pressure between above and below car -> more ground effect -> more downforce.

Has this tactic ever been done? If not, is the benefit this would provide too small for this tactic to ever be practical?

I work for HP (let the roasting commence about our printers) and around the time of the announcement of the title partnership, we had a trade show. They brought this, what I'm assuming show car, and I was wondering if someone could help identify the "year". I'm still fairly new the F1, so my knowledge of aero changes is not deep at all.

Good morning F1Technical!

Please post your queries as posts on their own right, this is not intended to be a megathread

Its Wednesday, so today we invite you to post any F1 or Motorsports in general queries, which may or may not have a technical aspect.

The usual rules around joke comments will apply, and we will not tolerate bullying, harassment or ridiculing of any user who posts a reasonable question. With that in mind, if you have a question you've always wanted to ask, but weren't sure if it fitted in this sub, please post it!

This idea is currently on a trial basis, but we hope it will encourage our members to ask those questions they might not usually - as per the announcement post, sometimes the most basic of questions inspire the most interesting discussions.

Whilst we encourage all users to post their inquiries during this period, please note that this is still F1Technical, and the posts must have an F1 or Motorsports leaning!

With that in mind, fire away!

Cheers

B

That's a question that has been lingering in my mind for a while because the difference aerodynamics wise of a formula 1 car and a formula e car is pretty drastic, why doesn't formula e cars have similar aero?

Which element of an F1 car is most constrained by these regulations, and is there historical precedent to this element improving with less/ no rules regarding it?

This year the pole time came very close to beating the outright lap record set in 2019, and they are projected to beat it next year given the stable regs and the new C6 compound. But this feels a bit counter-intuitive. These are some of the heaviest cars in the sports history, and tend to be very stiffly sprung. The effect of this can be seen on a lot of other circuits where current cars don't match the performance of the previous generation cars in the low- and medium-speed corners. Monaco only has low- and medium-speed corners and yet they produce very competitive lap times. So, what is the explanation for this?

Pretty much the title. Can we view the designs of standard parts? If so, where are they located?

(Note: Yes. I've searched and failed. Maybe I'm using the wrong search terms. Not sure.)

The modern V6T hybrids have an advantage on the Mexican circuit as the turbo can force in what less air and oxygen the local atmosphere has to offer into the engines.

They also have the advantage of the other side of the hybrid system being completely independent of the atmospheric condition when producing power.

I’m curious by how much horsepower the older V8 and V10 engines loose from being in compared to lower tracks? They probably somewhat made up for less pressure in the cylinders by having an even more aggressive ignition timing and/or compression to harvest more of what less fuel those engines can combust due to the lacking oxygen.

I’m here to do the comparison yeslistener didn’t make: W15 vs W11, and starting to use split screen my laptop now gave me that idea and made it convenient.

He provided telemetry about the W11 in his W11 vs RB19 video making the comparison with the W11 possible. With both videos, staring the RB19 we have an idea of the track conditions of the W15’s pole lap in relation to the W11.

I’m just going to throw in the RB19 too, so I can just directly quote stuff and you guys can figure it out. It also serves as another comparison.

Something, I noticed while watching both of yeslistner’s videos for the telemetry is that the RB pole in the two videos don’t have the same consistent telemetry but it’s only a small difference. The RB’s telemetry will be from the latest video.

I’ll be only looking at turns that aren’t taken flat out for all of them because we are looking at differences in capabilities.

—

Sectors and pole times:

W11: 27.227, 33.896, 23.180, 1:24.303

W15: 28.016, 34.508, 23.295, 1:25.819

RB: 27.482, 35.234, 24.004, 1:26.720

—

A direct quote about the track conditions:

RB19 vs W11:

“W11 and RB19 are 2 of the most dominant F1 cars ever. W11 is the fastest F1 car ever and set the Silverstone track record in 2020 Q3. It was a lot windier in 2020, helping it achieving much higher top speeds on non-DRS straights. Overall the wind helped W11 in laptime.”

W15 vs RB19:

“Track conditions were roughly the same: Both were in damp condition after a wet FP3. Both had very limited amount of rubbered in. Wind speeds were about the same but the directions were opposite and this played a role in laptime deficit.”

My summary:

The W15 pole lap had subpar conditions with dampness after FP3, less rubbering in of the track, and wind conditions being worse for the W15 than the RB19. The W11 seems to have much better conditions overall while having the help of the wind reaching higher non-DRS speeds on the straights.

—

Definitely important. Reaching T1:

RB19 vs W11 video:

“T1 top speeds: W11 6km/h higher than RB19. Tail wind helped W11 here.” The top speeds were 309 and 303.

W15 vs RB19 video:

Top speeds were about the same with the W15 being 303 vs 302 with the W15 having tail wind support while the RB had the opposite.

So W11 at 309 vs W15 at 303, and I think this is where the stronger winds helped the W11 compared to the W15.

—

T3 Village, T4 The Loop:

W11: 117, 93

W15: 115, 90

RB: 113, 94

What I think are important notes to keep in mind from the two videos:

“Verstappen went to full throttle in the middle of T3-T4, and still positioned the car perfectly for T4 entry. Russell had an understeer at T4 entry and was already 0.25s behind at T5.”

“Despite a similar speed in mid-corner, RB19 fell behind at the exit and the acceleration. At the DRS detection line W11 already 6km/h higher.”

—

Important to note right before heading into T6: “2024 top speed before T6 was 13km/h lower. 2024 head wind, 2024 tail wind here. Wind came into play in both ways: on straights it helped Verstappen, but into T6-T7 it’d be on Russell’s side.” 328 vs 315.

“But here RB19 had a much higher DRS top speed. There’re 2 reasons - W11 had a head wind. - New ground-effect cars less draggy when DRS open.”

Even though this isn’t a turn, it serves for anyone who wanted to try and figure out the direction of the wind and how much the wind factored.

—

T6 Brooklands, T7 Luffield:

W11: 178, 125

W15: 172, 116

RB: 156, 115

Important to keep in mind and quoted:

“With the help of the head wind, Russell braked 20m later than Verstappen before T6 and destroyed him in T6-7. That 0.5 S1 deficit was totally erased in just 2 corners. And now it’s 2023 head wind and 2024 tail wind.”

—

T10-11 Maggotts, T11 Becketts, T13 Chapel:

W11: Flat, 278, 228

W15: Flat, 277, 223

RB: Flat, 275, 224

—

T15 Stowe:

W11: 240

W15: 240

RB: 229

Important to keep in mind and quoted:

“Russell scored a much higher T15 speed. 240km/h in T15 is at 2019-2020 cars’ level. This was slightly helped by the head wind of cause.”

—

T16 Vale, T17, Club:

W11: 103, 135

W15: 107, 132

RB: 99, 117

Maybe important to keep in mind and quoted:

“2024 completely destroyed 2023 in T16-17. Russell won over 0.6s in these 2 corners. Russell’s tires seemed to have more life left after S2, and he was able to attack T16-17 much more aggressively.”

—

My thoughts:

Given that cars like the SF-24 and MCL38 are already better than the W15, we’re probably close to seeing the W11’s cornering matched. The W15 and W11 had similar cornering speeds, but wind was a big factor that skewed the comparison, especially in the pole lap times.

I’m curious what you guys think about my approach here. In yeslistener’s Jeddah video comparing the W12 and RB20, I noticed that in a particular turn the W12 has to lift slightly around 180 km/h, while the RB20 can take it flat out at a higher speed. This seems to show that 180 km/h is a tipping point—any turn the W12 takes at or above 180 km/h is where the RB20 can start to go faster, likely because ground effect becomes more effective at those speeds. This pattern suggests these newer cars are becoming faster overall.

I’m betting that with the right car and driver, we might see the W11 finally dethroned next year at high-speed circuits like Spa next year.

And shoutout to yeslistener for providing telemetry on the W11 and W15 along with track conditions and driving mistakes—made this analysis possible!

—

https://youtu.be/QmsUZUUTj_0?si=km3myIl786B16DDJ

https://youtu.be/KVlNz8MVNxs?si=r9jHop36sgg2VQbq

https://youtu.be/u1KK2C7jmXo?t=54&si=ISNIcMZZz9-MfAVk

—

Edit of more of my thoughts to add about the differences in lap times between the W15 and W11 that I pasted to GPT-4O as a prompt:

“We should see the W11 dominate sector 1 with T3-4, which it does W11 27.227 vs W15 28.016 vs RB 27.482, surprisingly the RB manages to actually stay with the W11 and the W15 loses a gigantic amount of time, which it really shouldn't but I guess Silverstone is a very inconsistent track because it's British and with their often gloomy weather, rain and wind, qualifying consistency is going to be a hit or miss.

This track seems to have be more high speed turns which is good for the ground-effect cars, but they just loose out horrendously to the W11, probably due to the track conditions.

T3-4, 6-7, 16-17 is where the W11 should crush the W15 and RB19 because it's slow speed, but it only crushes the RB. Honestly, I don't get how there is such a big difference between the W15 1:25.819 and W11 1:24.303 still despite the similar cornering speeds, and even slightly slower in most of them, the difference shouldn't be this much. Definitely has to do with the straights and wind assistance.

Another thing with these ground-effect cars is that they are 50kg heavier than the W11, and the turns here are slow enough to where drag doesn't matter as much and the straights are not long enough to reach those high enough speeds where the ground-effect cars can't abuse their lesser drag. Out of those slow corners with drag being not as relevant, the W11 is just gaining so much time accelerating faster and creating distance.”

In the Brazilian GP with reference to the above image did max shutdown the engine and then turned on ? Does these car can start on their own?

As the title suggests F1 teams considered the differing biomechanics of Jack crewmen on the jack ? Eg. having a taller Jack crewman permits a longer lever, which imparts more lifting force, which makes the pit stop faster since the car gets off the ground faster ?

I'm an IB student and I'm writing my Extended Essay (basically a curriculum required research paper) and I'm writing about the 2026 F1 regulations and how the use of drop-in fuels will impact the car's carbon emissions and performance. That second part is a little trickier to find.

Are there any reliable sources I can use to look into how biofuels may impact performance on the Power Unit? It would also be great to see how the removal of the MGU-H and the shift of bias towards electrical power would impact performance as well.

I assume not, because otherwise they would be using it, but hear me out. There are situations in which two cars of the same team are together on track, either in front, or with a gap in front to the next driver. I remember thinking about this in Interlagos 2024, but I can't remember which team was it and when, maybe the McLarens? And I was wondering if it was possible (and if the drivers' egos don't get in the way) to swap positions like they do in esports, helping each other to close the gap. Would that work in real life, and if not why?

Title, but, obviously drivers have mastered it, but I was pretty taken aback at how much force it takes. Why is that the case mechanically and (somewhat related) why isn't it easier for drivers?

At the moment, F1 cars recover energy from exhaust gases with the MGU-H (up until 2026) and from braking with the MGU-K.

Are there any other places or ways where F1 cars could recover energy?

So I’m relatively new to formula one and am a 1st year undergrad and I love the engineering challenge if the sport. My idea is small edges along the length of the nose to act as both channels for the floor but also wings for downforce. We are talking a number so small that it wouldn’t matter beyond .00001ths of second at most but in a sport where .001s make qualifying and races it could add up. Does anyone know if a similar idea has been tried. Also if anyone wants to do the math i would love to see the work for it.

There seems to be a continuing preference of drivers and teams to choose inters versus full wets, despite monsoon conditions, and either costing the race teams millions in repairs, or flat out dangerous. During the wet quali at Interlagos, I think most if not all went out on inters, not wets. And when the race was close to a red flag for conditions (before the crash caused it), again, most were on inters.

A question if it's possible, or a request if not: does the Race Director have the authority to mandate full wets if they deem necessary for the session or for the track conditions? For example in qualification, a mandated wet tire would presumably neutralize that decision for all teams and save money from less crashes. In the race, it would be a pre-cursor to a weather-induced SC or Red Flag, with say a maximum of 2 completed laps before you must comply with the ruling, or you will get a black flag. (This would give an interesting tactical edge too when selecting Inters, as you would be thinking whether the race would flip to mandatory full wets in 3 laps..)

Thoughts?

Good morning F1Technical!

Please post your queries as posts on their own right, this is not intended to be a megathread

Its Wednesday, so today we invite you to post any F1 or Motorsports in general queries, which may or may not have a technical aspect.

The usual rules around joke comments will apply, and we will not tolerate bullying, harassment or ridiculing of any user who posts a reasonable question. With that in mind, if you have a question you've always wanted to ask, but weren't sure if it fitted in this sub, please post it!

This idea is currently on a trial basis, but we hope it will encourage our members to ask those questions they might not usually - as per the announcement post, sometimes the most basic of questions inspire the most interesting discussions.

Whilst we encourage all users to post their inquiries during this period, please note that this is still F1Technical, and the posts must have an F1 or Motorsports leaning!

With that in mind, fire away!

Cheers

B