Someone Designed a Car Faster Than F1

Overview

A video discusses a “what-if” race car designed by Lucas Degrassi (former F1 driver, Formula E champion). The concept aims to be faster than modern F1 by using technologies that are not allowed or limited in F1 rules—especially to reduce drag while maintaining high downforce.

Claimed Headline Performance (Digital Testing)

From lap-time simulations, the video claims:

• The car can lap ~10 seconds faster per lap than a top F1 reference at Monaco (based on lap-time simulations).
• It uses a mix of aerodynamics and active aerotech to maintain ~constant downforce.
• The target build is described as using technology available today, not speculative long-term advances.
• Estimated prototype cost: ~$3 million, potentially far cheaper than a 2025 F1 car (claimed “tenth of the cost”).

Core Design Concept: Fix “Drag vs Downforce”

The vehicle is built around two major racing constraints:

1. The “drone paradox” / racing weight–power coupling Increasing power/battery increases weight, which increases energy demand. Heavier cars also generally need more downforce to corner at the same speed.

2. F1 wing drag penalty More downforce from wings creates significantly more drag. Drag rises sharply with speed, and a lot of that penalty occurs even on straights where wings aren’t truly necessary.

Why Constant Downforce Matters

Lucas argues the car’s grip stays effectively similar around the lap:

• Simulation/intent: ~constant “3G” corner acceleration
  • Compared with F1, where g-load varies more with corner speed due to variable downforce.

Claimed benefits of constant downforce

• No wasted mechanical strength: components optimized for a steady load rather than being overbuilt for peak-only corners.
• More consistent setup: reduced suspension/chassis compromise between slow and fast cornering demands.
• Easier driving / predictable grip: less sensitivity to wind and varying aero conditions, enabling more confident pushing.
• Better behavior when sideways: downforce is less dependent on perfect alignment with airflow than traditional wings.

Aerodynamic System: Three-Part Package

The system is described as combining:

1. Ground-effect floor (with tunnels + diffuser) Similar in spirit to modern F1 approaches.

2. Two electric fans (30 kW each, one per side) These create suction under the car.

3. Blown diffuser Fed by air extracted by the fans.

Fan control strategy (blending downforce)

• High speed (example: ~300 km/h): natural ground-effect downforce is already strong → fans switched off.
• Low speed (example: ~60 km/h): natural downforce drops near zero → fans run at maximum.
• In between: fans run at variable output to keep downforce constant.

Efficiency Claim: Fans vs Wings

The video claims fans are superior for downforce per unit energy:

• ~5× more efficient at generating downforce than a wing for the same energy input (or stated equivalently: ~1/5 the energy needed for the same downforce).

• A study is also cited for a 10:1 lap-time effectiveness ratio, including an analogy such as:

  • About 10 kW of motor power ≈ 1 kW of fan power in speeding up the lap.

Other Notable Features Aimed at Reducing Drag

• Covered wheels Exposed wheels are cited as ~35% of total F1 drag, and covering also reduces rain spray (suggesting full wets could be feasible).

• No sidepods Cooling is claimed to use air from the fan system rather than large radiator sidepods, reducing frontal area.

• Tiny rear wing Rear aero is minimized because the floor + fans + diffuser do most of the work.

• Electric advantage over exhaust-blown diffuser concepts Earlier blown diffuser ideas relied on exhaust and therefore depended on throttle state; fan power works regardless of throttle position.

Digital Wind Tunnel (CFD) Results (Reported)

The reported numbers are:

• Drag coefficient (Cd): 0.475 vs modern F1 ~0.85 (about half the drag)

• Downforce coefficient: 2.65 vs F1 ~3–4

• Frontal area: 1.27 m² vs F1 1.6 m²

Powertrain and Battery Strategy

• Twin motors (front + rear), total ~600–700 kW → described as four-wheel drive.

  • The video claims compatibility with future Formula E Gen4 hardware (referenced as coming in 2026), citing similar setups.

  • Modular distributed battery around the driver Goal: align center of pressure (aero load location) with center of mass (weight location) for neutral-balanced handling.

  • Modules can be removed for qualifying, reducing weight by ~170–180 kg for short runs (analogous to F1 fuel reduction for qualifying).

Simulation Methodology and Key Result

Lucas collaborated with his Formula E team (Lola) and used Canopy Simulations lap-time software (used by some F1 teams).

Monaco example (from the video)

• Monaco, “quickest mode” with:
  • maximum fan power
  • smallest battery
• Claimed lap time: ~59.5 seconds
• Comparison: Lando Norris pole lap: 1:09.9
  • Interpreted as implying the concept could be ~10 seconds faster under those simulated conditions.

Real-World Plausibility and Prototype Plan

• The claimed rationale is that the needed technologies “exist today,” reducing development time compared with creating entirely new systems.
• Lucas says he wants to build a prototype to start testing—supporting the claim that this is not science fiction.

Main Speakers / Sources

• Lucas Degrassi — former F1 driver, Formula E champion; designer of the concept
• Video narrator / interviewer voice — summarizing and asking Lucas questions