Why do F1 cars not have starters?

I would think weight *is* the issue because they're not mandated. If it were mandated then weight would not be the issue. But since you don't need to have a starter why add the extra weight necessary to have a starter?

 

^^ Yep to save weight. Though it might have saved Montoya's 4th position in the Indy race this year. He couldnt start his race car because the angle of the started pulley was not able to reach the engine. He thus ran to his spare car at the 11th minute and was penaluized as a result..

 

Yes, but the starter weight is more poorly positioned than the extra weight that they would simply put on the bottom of the car.

 

They would also have to have an extra battery or use a bigger one, no? There would be extra weight and wires to get in the way also. Not to mention another fire hazard.

 

Everyone above is right on the money, weight is the key, particularly low weight which helps the handling. Have you ever wondered why a couple of mechanics are needed to carry the undertray about? Because that is where all the weight that has been saved elsewhere is put back on, there is no lower place on the car.
The other reasons for leaving off a starter are as follows:
A starter is just another thing to go wrong, so leave it out.
A starter drains so much power it will knacker the small battery in a race car.
Most racing engines won’t run at low r.p.m. and thus need a serious starter to whip them up to speed, so the little bitty thing you could fit onto the flywheel just won’t cut the mustard.
Mind you, some racing cars do have starters. In endurance racing (Le Mans, Daytona) the car must start in the pits under its own power or it will be disqualified. And yes, they always give trouble.
Kram

 

There is so little reciprocating mass and very short stroke that I don't think the starter would really increase that much in size.

 

I'm really surprised to read that no one mentionned that on board starters are not allowed in F1 as per the regulations. I assume this to be the primary reason you do not see them on the cars. While weight is an important consideration, over the course of a season, if the starter were used just once, it would certainly net more good than any losses due to the static weight of a starter.

 

It was talked about in the first few posts.

 

Weight is a massive deal in F1. A problem for Williams' nose cone was too much weight over the front. It weighs nothing, but I guess that's too much! Teams are upset if they pit a car 1 lap early because the difference between an empty tank and a full one is massive. Weight/ fire/ more electronics are all reasons.

 

Maybe they don't have any money left over to buy one,once the car and crew are paid for..

 

I can attest to that!

 

There are also technical/logistic problems for a starter.

A modern F1 engine idles at around 5000rpm, some more. So you need to spin it to close to that, now the problem really starts....with most cars running 100mm diameter clutches, the gear ratio of the starter is quite tall, so speed is not impossible to achieve, but the load/effort to turn it is...massive current would be needed to power the starter and that is simply not provided for on a modern race car. Most electrical systems run on small voltages...5V for most circuits as far as I know.

Maybe a pnuematic starter could work, but again the air reservoir to operate it would be huge. And if you shared the valve pneumatic system you may run out of air for the valves to close rendering the starter useless!!

Anyway, only geese stall an F1 car, and if the driver won't admit it, he can always blame the software!

 

Phil nailed it. Throw in high compression and starting the thing becomes a major job.
Kram

 

Sure do have batteries...They are very minute, but very powerful and cost HUGE amounts of money. Normally carry about 10 spares and they are charged over night. 3 starter trolleys are looked after the "gearbox" mechanic. The cars is started via a laptop which is linked into a large dongle lead into the car. Your normally have two Systems Engineers on hand when a car is started. The engine is revved via a hand control and then the driver is left to do his stuff...The car can be started without a laptop-but still requires a crank of the starter trolley...

 

If and when F1 engines evolve to the point where they have computer-controlled valves, they'll be able to start themselves w/o a starter.

I read an article about Ford's research into an engine where valves were opened and closed directly by a solenoid. They built a working prototype and installed it in a Ranger. The engine was able to do some pretty amazing tricks including starting itself w/o a starter. After I read how they did it, I wondered if I would have been able to figure it out myself.

Anyone wanna guess?

 

Yup, that's basically it. The EMS picks a cylinder that's just past TDC, opens the intake valve(s), squirts in some fuel, closes the valves, and fires the spark. All it needs to do is crank the engine far enough over for the next cylinder, and within fractions of a second, the engine is running normally. The system supposedly works so well they could have it shut the engine off at red lights and start instantly when you step on the gas.

 

I have this old Indy car in my garage, and the damned starter can dam near rip my arms off. Considering how much that badboy weighs, I'd be happy to leave it out. Then again push starting the car is a b!tch

The idea of picking up where you left off seems neat in theory, somebody go build one, and use rotary valves please.

 

See page 32 of Sept F1 Racing magazine for an interesting opinion on F1 starters.