2017 F1 car- first impressions
Discussion
MissChief said:
There was also pretty much unlimited testing and Bridgestone tyres were highly focussed towards the Ferrari when Michelin were also involved. I'm sure Pirelli actually said 'without more testing we can't make a tyre that will do what you want safely' and that got changed to 'Pirelli can't make a tyre that will allow the cars to go five seconds a lap faster. Pirelli are s
t!' By someone with an axe to grind.
Pirelli can test as much as they like, that's quite simply a bogus argument.t!' By someone with an axe to grind.MissChief said:
BarbaricAvatar said:
That's daft. It's F1, the designers will find a way around it to make the tyres work no matter how hard they are. 11 years ago we had tyres that lasted an entire race at similar speeds to what they're doing now. Are Pirelli just coming out and saying that their tyres are sttier than both Bridgstone's and Michelin's?
There was also pretty much unlimited testing and Bridgestone tyres were highly focussed towards the Ferrari when Michelin were also involved. I'm sure Pirelli actually said 'without more testing we can't make a tyre that will do what you want safely' and that got changed to 'Pirelli can't make a tyre that will allow the cars to go five seconds a lap faster. Pirelli are sttier than both Bridgstone's and Michelin's?t!' By someone with an axe to grind.I would think that Pirelli would soon put the record straight, were your assertion correct.
PhillipM said:
patmahe said:
Really, how so, I'm genuinely interested by the way not just being difficult, I'd have thought that heat buildup in the steel discs would have led to a deterioration of performance in race situation, whereas the current setup can sustain continued heavy braking without holding as much heat so brake performance degrades very little.
The heat disappation is handled by the brake ducts and cooling flow. They'll just use a bit more airflow to run at lower temperatures. Braking is limited by tyre grip, not the discs and pads.
lauda said:
Yet more stupidity...SpeedMattersNot said:
nteresting, are you suggesting every material has the same coefficient of friction?
I'm suggesting that perhaps F1 teams might , eventually, with some serious computer modelling and simulations - work out they can press the pedal harder if the friction is lower.PhillipM said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
nteresting, are you suggesting every material has the same coefficient of friction?
I'm suggesting that perhaps F1 teams might , eventually, with some serious computer modelling and simulations - work out they can press the pedal harder if the friction is lower.
No, because the braking is limited by the tyres. Friction coefficient is just another variable to work with (not even a fixed one) it doesn't dictate how hard you can brake unless you're force/pressure limited.
It's not even that high for carbon carbon brakes so I'm not sure why everyone is so obsessed about it, it's high when they're hot, but it's certainly possible to match it with steel discs, it's not the prime reason for using carbon carbon brake systems.
The tyre grip dictates your shortest stopping distance.
It's not even that high for carbon carbon brakes so I'm not sure why everyone is so obsessed about it, it's high when they're hot, but it's certainly possible to match it with steel discs, it's not the prime reason for using carbon carbon brake systems.
The tyre grip dictates your shortest stopping distance.
PhillipM said:
No, because the braking is limited by the tyres. Friction coefficient is just another variable to work with (not even a fixed one) it doesn't dictate how hard you can brake unless you're force/pressure limited.
It's not even that high for carbon carbon brakes so I'm not sure why everyone is so obsessed about it, it's high when they're hot, but it's certainly possible to match it with steel discs, it's not the prime reason for using carbon carbon brake systems.
The tyre grip dictates your shortest stopping distance.
So fitting better brakes to a car doesn't improve its braking? Better tell the engineers It's not even that high for carbon carbon brakes so I'm not sure why everyone is so obsessed about it, it's high when they're hot, but it's certainly possible to match it with steel discs, it's not the prime reason for using carbon carbon brake systems.
The tyre grip dictates your shortest stopping distance.
PhillipM said:
Tell you what, when you find another one, and he tells you the same thing I just did, come back and post so I can have a laugh, eh?
Trust me, I know what you're saying, but it's a bit cheeky just to calmly say that braking distances won't change if they swapped to steel brakes. If you know the unsprung mass, inertia, larger brake ducts (assuming they're static) and the ability to keep them at operating temperature will all work against you, it's controversial to state that the braking distances won't change. As I point out, there's a reason why they use them and their coefficient of friction being higher is just one of the reasons.
Higher than what?
It's high. It's not necessarily higher than you can achieve with steel discs. It's also little factor in stopping distances. Unless the increased stopping distances he was after to help with overtaking are in the order of a few extra millimeters?
And can I ask, but if we're being pedantic over things that have very little effect on the overall braking distance - are you honestly suggesting to me that bigger air ducts for more cooling flow would somehow lead to worse braking, rather than extra drag slowing the car faster?
Of course there's a reason they use them, they're the best material for the job, but the reasons have very little to do with the outright friction coefficient and much more to do with weight reduction, heat/shock resistance, low thermal expansion, good heat transfer and radiation, and wear characteristics at high temperatures.
It's high. It's not necessarily higher than you can achieve with steel discs. It's also little factor in stopping distances. Unless the increased stopping distances he was after to help with overtaking are in the order of a few extra millimeters?
And can I ask, but if we're being pedantic over things that have very little effect on the overall braking distance - are you honestly suggesting to me that bigger air ducts for more cooling flow would somehow lead to worse braking, rather than extra drag slowing the car faster?
Of course there's a reason they use them, they're the best material for the job, but the reasons have very little to do with the outright friction coefficient and much more to do with weight reduction, heat/shock resistance, low thermal expansion, good heat transfer and radiation, and wear characteristics at high temperatures.
Edited by PhillipM on Thursday 14th January 06:55
SpeedMattersNot said:
Trust me, I know what you're saying, but it's a bit cheeky just to calmly say that braking distances won't change if they swapped to steel brakes.
If you know the unsprung mass, inertia, larger brake ducts (assuming they're static) and the ability to keep them at operating temperature will all work against you, it's controversial to state that the braking distances won't change. As I point out, there's a reason why they use them and their coefficient of friction being higher is just one of the reasons.
essentially, he's right.If you know the unsprung mass, inertia, larger brake ducts (assuming they're static) and the ability to keep them at operating temperature will all work against you, it's controversial to state that the braking distances won't change. As I point out, there's a reason why they use them and their coefficient of friction being higher is just one of the reasons.
Assuming the steel disks are sized/vented/cooled sufficiently, they will 'work' just as well as carbon, the key difference is that they will have a lower operating temp and thus will require more cooling (and thus drag), as well as being significantly heavier.
in terms of drive-ability, most would argue that steel brakes are easier to manage.
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.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:
Meanwhile cost cutting is discussed (and remember that refuelling was banned partly because of cost) but this is a disposable item:
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.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff