2017 F1 car- first impressions

[stew-S160]

Saw this link via Leo Parente

http://www.ams-mag.com/news/2017-f1-car-details-an...




Looks similar to F1 cars of mid 2000's

[paulyv]

stew-S160 said:

Saw this link via Leo Parente

http://www.ams-mag.com/news/2017-f1-car-details-an...




Looks similar to F1 cars of mid 2000's

From the story: "The result is simply spectacular."

Something of an overstatement...

[IforB]

Errrrr. Is that it?

What a collossal waste of time.

[Catatafish]

IforB said:

Errrrr. Is that it?

What a collossal waste of time.

+1 seems a lot of media commentators are starting to lose their minds with the hyperbole due to nothing of interest to actually comment on.

The evolution of F1 into 2017 for me is heading towards a vague interest annually of the results of WDC and WCC.

[housen]

it is utterly dull ....big teams just squeezing everyone ...just like the rest of the worlds affairs

[HustleRussell]

What did you lot want, machine guns and smokescreens?

I'm not sure this source is credible, but taking it at face value I must voice my disappointment that the regulators haven't done more to reduce 'dirty air' effects.

Otherwise, game on- 200mm increase in width and 300/400mm tyres will look impressive.

Presumably this'll bring the cars towards lap record pace once again.

[n3il123]

Looks like a cross between an A1GP car and some sort of Indycar (or whatever it is called over there these days).

Now the Mclaren and Red Bull concepts that have been shown are spectacular...

[Scuffers]

so, they are going to increase the cars dependants on Aero?

mag said:

The new cars are expected to generate an additional 100 points of downforce - that's 30 percent more than the current cars.

and the front wing will be even more complex.

total fail is that is going to be the case.

Edited by Scuffers on Thursday 10th December 14:03

[Daston]

2017 will no doubt be a telling year for those fans who are on the fence. If they can't sort out the entertainment side of the sport then I imagine I will not be the only one turning off.

[Smollet]

Go back to 70s spec. At least that allowed a certain freedom. Ok I know it won't happen but at least they looked different. Too much emphasis on aero has killed F1

[HustleRussell]

Smollet said:

Go back to 70s spec... Too much emphasis on aero has killed F1

Too much 70s spec has killed F1 drivers

[DrDeAtH]

Still has tons of crap on the front wing. Just go for single element wings.

[swisstoni]

F1 cars need to look like the daddies - not easily mistaken for some junior formula. So this is going to help IMHO.
Not qualified to comment on anything else.

[Eric Mc]

HustleRussell said:

Smollet said:

Go back to 70s spec... Too much emphasis on aero has killed F1

Too much 70s spec has killed F1 drivers

You could build a 70s PERFORMANCE spec car without reverting to 70s SAFETY spec.

Not that I'm saying you should, of course.

[Munter]

Lower rear wing makes them look "meaner"
I agree with the wider track. More mechanical grip I'd hope.
I disagree with the wider front wing. I'd make that the width between the inner tyre walls.

2/3 not bad I suppose.

[rdjohn]

Having a car that is 5s per lap quicker in Q3 is worth nothing if they are then pottering around 10s per lap off that pace in order to conserve fuel.

The wider rear wing will reduce turbulence for a following car, but the multi-element front wing will still result in a following car will being somewhat slower than a team mate in clean air going through corners.

However the wider rear wing will give an even bigger DRS boost, so perhaps there could be increased overtaking, albeit only down the pit straight.

[stew-S160]

I think they should have minimised the front wing dependency, increased the ground effects, along with the wider track, lower rear wing, and maybe enclosed cockpits.

[kambites]

Eric Mc said:

You could build a 70s PERFORMANCE spec car without reverting to 70s SAFETY spec.

Not that I'm saying you should, of course.

Even if you wanted to do that, the problem is how you get there. If you change the rules back to what they were in the 70s, you'd end up with cars nothing like those of the 70s. I suspect with 70s regs and current understanding of aerodynamics and engine technology you could produce a car whose limits were defined by the ability of the driver to remain conscious.

I think there's probably something to be said for simplifying the aerodynamics in an attempt to make them less susceptible to dirty air - limit the number of wing elements whist increasing the size of the wings, that sort of thing. Maybe even severely limit the effectiveness of wings and allow more ground-effects if it can be done safety but that's a significant "if" unless you bring back full active suspension to maintain the ride height which isn't exactly going to help on the "cost" front.

Edited by kambites on Monday 14th December 19:26

[entropy]

Smollet said:

Go back to 70s spec. At least that allowed a certain freedom. Ok I know it won't happen but at least they looked different. Too much emphasis on aero has killed F1

Aero was at its infancy in the 70's and teams were still regarded as garagistas; they didn't have their own wind tunnels, no CFD, an army of aerodynamicts and designers as is now taken for granted today.

How do you take away that wealth of knowledge and yet still be innovative and retain performance that many crave?

[Scuffers]

entropy said:

Aero was at its infancy in the 70's and teams were still regarded as garagistas; they didn't have their own wind tunnels, no CFD, an army of aerodynamicts and designers as is now taken for granted today.

How do you take away that wealth of knowledge and yet still be innovative and retain performance that many crave?

easy, mandate a std front wing, job done.