2017 F1 car- first impressions
Discussion
Scuffers said:
andyps said:
What F1 appears to need for 2017 is a completely new group of people setting the regulations. Just read this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35323338 - suggesting they are considering the return of refuelling. Because watching cars fill with fuel is exiting of course. I know it can add some unpredictability, but this is a crazy distraction which appears to be favoured by the dinosaur that is Ecclestone and also Todt. Change is needed.
Meanwhile cost cutting is discussed (and remember that refuelling was banned partly because of cost) but this is a disposable item:
exactly...Meanwhile cost cutting is discussed (and remember that refuelling was banned partly because of cost) but this is a disposable item:
just how much time and money did designing/testing/making that cost?
I simply can;t understand why they don't just mandate a single plane front wing, this would dramatically cut costs, and very effectively limit overall downforce.
Do you actually like F1? Or are you just intent on coming up with the best way of killing it?
The difference between straight line speed and cornering speed is something that can make racing great simply because some drivers would be better at exploiting grip under braking to make passing moves. Also, lower corner downforce gives the better drivers more chance to shine as the car does less of the work for them - it becomes related to real skill as much as bottle for holding on knowing the car will have the downforce to do it.
I'm not in anyway saying we should go backwards but the racing was pretty impressive to watch when cars had no wings or very simple ones, purely because the lack of downforce made the cars more entertaining to watch. It is the cost of things like the front wings which add the square root of bugger all to the "show" but might save a fraction of a tenth per lap at a cost of £1/4 million per wing that is crazy. Think of how many wings a team uses per season, how much each costs and take that away (or most of it if the wings were single plane) and the costs of the power units would not be an issue within current budgets I suspect.
I'm not in anyway saying we should go backwards but the racing was pretty impressive to watch when cars had no wings or very simple ones, purely because the lack of downforce made the cars more entertaining to watch. It is the cost of things like the front wings which add the square root of bugger all to the "show" but might save a fraction of a tenth per lap at a cost of £1/4 million per wing that is crazy. Think of how many wings a team uses per season, how much each costs and take that away (or most of it if the wings were single plane) and the costs of the power units would not be an issue within current budgets I suspect.
BarbaricAvatar said:
Goody, because that's exactly what F1 needs; less cornering speed - the one thing that F1 does better than a chunk of other motorsports.
Do you actually like F1? Or are you just intent on coming up with the best way of killing it?
no, that's where you have missed the point.Do you actually like F1? Or are you just intent on coming up with the best way of killing it?
the current cars are way too aero-grip dependant, this makes them extremely sensitive to all kinds of issues from wake turbulence to pitch sensitivity.
if you drop the aero and at the same time gave them decent tyres to make up for the lack of aero-grip, cars would be as fast (arguably faster as their straight line speed would increase), whilst reducing the issues of overtaking because of aero-disturbance.
if you then got rid of the historically stupid 'Plank' and allowed the under-floors to work along with a single diffuser, you could gain much more aero that does not lead to the same levels of wake turbulence the current over-body aero does.
thegreenhell said:
MissChief said:
I believe it was Steel discs, but other than that, yes, he used Brakes that weren't Carbon.
Steel is just a name for a specific group of alloys of iron. I believe that brake discs are usually made from a type of iron that is not specifically 'steel' due to the higher carbon content in the alloy. All steels are iron but not all iron is steel.Iron is an element, Fe. All steels are alloys of iron with carbon and other elements.
I don't know if mandating a single plane front wing is the right way to do it (it sounds sensible to me), but they definitely need to do something to reduce the reliance on over-body aero so the cars can actually be in sight of each-other without the back car being slowed to a crawl and/or destroying its tyres.
I know the minimum ride-heights and under-body aero restrictions were put in place for good reasons but surely there's got to be a way to keep cornering speeds roughly as they are now without these stupidly sensitive multi-element wings...
I know the minimum ride-heights and under-body aero restrictions were put in place for good reasons but surely there's got to be a way to keep cornering speeds roughly as they are now without these stupidly sensitive multi-element wings...
kambites said:
I don't know if mandating a single plane front wing is the right way to do it (it sounds sensible to me), but they definitely need to do something to reduce the reliance on over-body aero so the cars can actually be in sight of each-other without the back car being slowed to a crawl and/or destroying its tyres.
I know the minimum ride-heights and under-body aero restrictions were put in place for good reasons but surely there's got to be a way to keep cornering speeds roughly as they are now without these stupidly sensitive multi-element wings...
I wouldn't even pretend to know what effect a single plane wing would have in terms of aero, but do know that the racing is no better now they have the ludicrously complex ones than it was when they were simple, and is probably worse. What I am pretty sure of is that the cost that must be involved now has to be disproportionate to the benefits to the spectator and could either reduce costs or allow money to be spent elsewhere where it might improve the spectacle.I know the minimum ride-heights and under-body aero restrictions were put in place for good reasons but surely there's got to be a way to keep cornering speeds roughly as they are now without these stupidly sensitive multi-element wings...
F1 must remain the premier Motorsport category under the FIA's Umbrella. That means fastest lap times. While more power helps, lap times on a modern circuit are mainly gained through cornering speed and braking. Braking distances are pretty short already so you need corner speed. You can only get that effectively through downforce.
MissChief said:
You can only get that effectively through downforce.
Perhaps (I think some of the deficit could probably be found in the tyres if they weren't putting so much effort into making them degrade quickly), but that down-force doesn't have to be generated by over-body aerodynamics. I'm sure with the combination of the massive improvements in crash safety and the fact that circuits are smoother and flatter than in decades gone by, they could change to rules to allow moderate ground-effect without compromising safety significantly.
Edited by kambites on Saturday 16th January 20:05
MissChief said:
F1 must remain the premier Motorsport category under the FIA's Umbrella. That means fastest lap times. While more power helps, lap times on a modern circuit are mainly gained through cornering speed and braking. Braking distances are pretty short already so you need corner speed. You can only get that effectively through downforce.
Your conveniently ignoring tyres?Conventional wisdom says 30+% of a car's laptime is down to the tyres.
As long as race fuel allowance is limited, there is a theoretical maximum PU energy output which means that diminishing returns applies; it may take years but eventually we're likely to see the PUs becoming more evenly matched, as with the old V8s. This is why I think that the PU regs should remain stable for the foreseeable.
HustleRussell said:
As long as race fuel allowance is limited, there is a theoretical maximum PU energy output which means that diminishing returns applies; it may take years but eventually we're likely to see the PUs becoming more evenly matched, as with the old V8s. This is why I think that the PU regs should remain stable for the foreseeable.
Engine regs have been confirmed to remain the same until 2020.Adrian Newey is getting his excuses in very early - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35520719
andyps said:
Adrian Newey is getting his excuses in very early - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35520719
Huh?this is from Red Bull who were whining about the limits for the last 2 years?
Scuffers said:
andyps said:
Adrian Newey is getting his excuses in very early - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35520719
Huh?this is from Red Bull who were whining about the limits for the last 2 years?
Scuffers said:
Huh?
this is from Red Bull who were whining about the limits for the last 2 years?
Well, it seems they agreed to this: " the agreement at that point was that the engines would be frozen but teams that were behind would still be allowed to keep developing."this is from Red Bull who were whining about the limits for the last 2 years?
Does that mean RB's aero and chassis work should be frozen to let the other teams catch up too? Only seems fair!
http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/12...
Lewis has been making a similar point about the 2017 cars. It's pointless being 5 seconds faster in qually and still being slow during the race if you have not got sufficient fuel at high power circuits like Canada, Spa and Monza to keep a decent race pace.
I feel the original point of the 2017 changes were well motivated, now it's just another way of ensuring that those teams with lots of manufacturer's cash can keep well ahead of those reliant on sponsor funds.
Lewis has been making a similar point about the 2017 cars. It's pointless being 5 seconds faster in qually and still being slow during the race if you have not got sufficient fuel at high power circuits like Canada, Spa and Monza to keep a decent race pace.
I feel the original point of the 2017 changes were well motivated, now it's just another way of ensuring that those teams with lots of manufacturer's cash can keep well ahead of those reliant on sponsor funds.
Interesting article @ motorsport.com...
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analysis-5-5g-re...
I hope Pirelli will be given proper development cars by the FIA to simulate loads and develop proper tyres for next year soon. More importantly, hope the rules will be agreed and ratified soon.
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analysis-5-5g-re...
Motorsport.com said:
Looking at Turn 3 at Barcelona, the data reveals that the current generation of cars are taking the corner flat out in fifth gear at about 240 km/h, with a loading of around 3G throughout.
However, the 2017 cars are predicted to be taking that corner at 275 km/h, with a lateral force of 5.5G.
Such a step in loading is not only a big ask for the tyres, but it is also at the limit of what F1 drivers have ever experienced.(my emphasis)
Sounds good, in that we'll have drivers enjoying the challenge once again. However, I haven't seen this promise of 5 sec/lap decrease, explained anywhere. Is it 5 sec/lap decrease in qualifying pace and we'll have drivers trundling 4-5 seconds off max pace in the race to eke out tyre life for the race stints? Or is it 5 sec/lap overall increase in qualifying and race? If the former, then all this hype is nothing. The margin from qualifying to race pace needn't be so wide. I can accept ~1s above fuel load, but any more than that, the tyre supplier needs to own up.However, the 2017 cars are predicted to be taking that corner at 275 km/h, with a lateral force of 5.5G.
Such a step in loading is not only a big ask for the tyres, but it is also at the limit of what F1 drivers have ever experienced.(my emphasis)
I hope Pirelli will be given proper development cars by the FIA to simulate loads and develop proper tyres for next year soon. More importantly, hope the rules will be agreed and ratified soon.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff