2017 F1 car- first impressions
Discussion
jsf said:
The only thing that really matters is that the cars can race. If they are going faster, but getting within 1 second of the car in front means you lose all front end grip and cant get close, as has been the case since they lowered the noses, whats the point?
Is there a realistic solution to this problem? In my very basic aero knowledge, the rear diffuser has a big effect on turbulence. Mandate front wing designs that have a greater working range and completely negate the rear diffuser. Is it realistic? Then you also have the exhaust gases to take care of. Cars will be slower round corners. The high nose cars of 2014 were better than the current low nose regulations in this respect.
People who say use a single element front wing are far off the mark unfortunately, from the experience I have of running F1 flat bottom cars with that config they suffer from the same issue. The problem isn't so much the fact that the new wings generate a lot of front grip, its the shift in balance that occurs when you lose the front wings efficiency following a car closely, because you always optimise the balance in clean air to be competitive, if you don't do that you wont get near the car in front to then hit the balance shift point anyway.
The most likely way of helping this is to have an aero system that relies less on the front wing to generate the aero balance. Which most likely is in the realms of using under floor aero more and then giving the car the ability to adjust aero from the drivers cockpit so as the front grip reduces in turbulent air, you can then trim the centre of pressure to compensate for the balance shift.
I think it should be possible to engineer into the cars a system that allows you to alter the centre of pressure location on demand, it would need a fundamental change in F1 regs to build this in, but why not, it would certainly improve the racing. You could even automate it with some pressure sensing closed loop control of active under floor aero.
People who say use a single element front wing are far off the mark unfortunately, from the experience I have of running F1 flat bottom cars with that config they suffer from the same issue. The problem isn't so much the fact that the new wings generate a lot of front grip, its the shift in balance that occurs when you lose the front wings efficiency following a car closely, because you always optimise the balance in clean air to be competitive, if you don't do that you wont get near the car in front to then hit the balance shift point anyway.
The most likely way of helping this is to have an aero system that relies less on the front wing to generate the aero balance. Which most likely is in the realms of using under floor aero more and then giving the car the ability to adjust aero from the drivers cockpit so as the front grip reduces in turbulent air, you can then trim the centre of pressure to compensate for the balance shift.
I think it should be possible to engineer into the cars a system that allows you to alter the centre of pressure location on demand, it would need a fundamental change in F1 regs to build this in, but why not, it would certainly improve the racing. You could even automate it with some pressure sensing closed loop control of active under floor aero.
Dr Z said:
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.
Pirelli have already said that unless they have thousands of miles of testing with a similar car they cannot guarantee the tyres will be able to cope or last. How or when they'll be able to test when there is no such car at this time is beyond me. I'm sure the 'five second' thing has already been shelved or watered down to 2-3 seconds.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.
Dr Z said:
jsf said:
The only thing that really matters is that the cars can race. If they are going faster, but getting within 1 second of the car in front means you lose all front end grip and cant get close, as has been the case since they lowered the noses, whats the point?
Is there a realistic solution to this problem? In my very basic aero knowledge, the rear diffuser has a big effect on turbulence. Mandate front wing designs that have a greater working range and completely negate the rear diffuser. Is it realistic? Then you also have the exhaust gases to take care of. Cars will be slower round corners. Even if some of the time improvements came from under-body aero, this would be much less effected by turbulence and so would allow for closer racing.
Lewis Hamilton and Martin Brundle have been saying this for ages.
jsf said:
I think it should be possible to engineer into the cars a system that allows you to alter the centre of pressure location on demand, it would need a fundamental change in F1 regs to build this in, but why not, it would certainly improve the racing. You could even automate it with some pressure sensing closed loop control of active under floor aero.
F1 had front wings that were adjustable from the cockpit until fairly recently that was intended to allow for drivers to compensate for loss of aero while followning other cars. I can't recall it making a massive difference to the racing, but the drivers liked it.Edited by HarryFlatters on Thursday 31st March 08:19
^ What he said.
Any lap time improvement must come from mechanical grip or true ground effect to improve the racing.
Also, fast lap times and good racing are not comfortable bed fellows. Most people would agree that Moto GP provides much better racing than F1.
Martin Brundle made a very good point at the Camping F1 talk in Spa last year when he highlighted that around Barcelona a Moto GP bike is 30 seconds a lap off an F1 car.
30 seconds... in a 1:30 lap for a F1 car, the Moto GP bike would be lapped inside 4 laps.
Fast does not equal good racing.
Any lap time improvement must come from mechanical grip or true ground effect to improve the racing.
Also, fast lap times and good racing are not comfortable bed fellows. Most people would agree that Moto GP provides much better racing than F1.
Martin Brundle made a very good point at the Camping F1 talk in Spa last year when he highlighted that around Barcelona a Moto GP bike is 30 seconds a lap off an F1 car.
30 seconds... in a 1:30 lap for a F1 car, the Moto GP bike would be lapped inside 4 laps.
Fast does not equal good racing.
It's no good giving more mechanical grip if you don't have a system that allows you to compensate for the shift in aero balance when following a car. You always tune the car for balance in free air or you won't get near the car in front, even with double the mechanical grip that fundemental doesn't change.
Front wings are not efficient enough to actively shift balance and keep the laptimes up to stay close. It's going to need some active aero that is only available to the car when close that actually works. Not DRS as that's not fixing the balance issue. It will be something like the double diffuser actively switched on.
Front wings are not efficient enough to actively shift balance and keep the laptimes up to stay close. It's going to need some active aero that is only available to the car when close that actually works. Not DRS as that's not fixing the balance issue. It will be something like the double diffuser actively switched on.
jsf said:
It's no good giving more mechanical grip if you don't have a system that allows you to compensate for the shift in aero balance when following a car. You always tune the car for balance in free air or you won't get near the car in front, even with double the mechanical grip that fundemental doesn't change.
Front wings are not efficient enough to actively shift balance and keep the laptimes up to stay close. It's going to need some active aero that is only available to the car when close that actually works. Not DRS as that's not fixing the balance issue. It will be something like the double diffuser actively switched on.
We should have enough sensors on the car that it can tell if down force balance is being affected. Then just get it to self adjust the aero to the balance selected by the driver. It's not beyond the whit of man. Not sure it'll be cheap or light though.Front wings are not efficient enough to actively shift balance and keep the laptimes up to stay close. It's going to need some active aero that is only available to the car when close that actually works. Not DRS as that's not fixing the balance issue. It will be something like the double diffuser actively switched on.
MissChief said:
Pirelli have already said that unless they have thousands of miles of testing with a similar car they cannot guarantee the tyres will be able to cope or last. How or when they'll be able to test when there is no such car at this time is beyond me. I'm sure the 'five second' thing has already been shelved or watered down to 2-3 seconds.
That doesn't inspire much confidence, it seems the powers that be love to get fans moaning and getting negative press about the sport in general.HarryFlatters said:
Dr Z said:
jsf said:
The only thing that really matters is that the cars can race. If they are going faster, but getting within 1 second of the car in front means you lose all front end grip and cant get close, as has been the case since they lowered the noses, whats the point?
Is there a realistic solution to this problem? In my very basic aero knowledge, the rear diffuser has a big effect on turbulence. Mandate front wing designs that have a greater working range and completely negate the rear diffuser. Is it realistic? Then you also have the exhaust gases to take care of. Cars will be slower round corners. Even if some of the time improvements came from under-body aero, this would be much less effected by turbulence and so would allow for closer racing.
Lewis Hamilton and Martin Brundle have been saying this for ages.
HarryFlatters said:
jsf said:
I think it should be possible to engineer into the cars a system that allows you to alter the centre of pressure location on demand, it would need a fundamental change in F1 regs to build this in, but why not, it would certainly improve the racing. You could even automate it with some pressure sensing closed loop control of active under floor aero.
F1 had front wings that were adjustable from the cockpit until fairly recently that was intended to allow for drivers to compensate for loss of aero while followning other cars. I can't recall it making a massive difference to the racing, but the drivers liked it.But then again, with the performance differential created by the different tyre compounds in the current regulations, you could altogether get rid of DRS with just having adjustable FW. If cars were able to follow closely in 2009 and 2010, and still there was a overtaking problem, then I'll have to conclude aero was not the issue. Or I'm missing something here.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/f1/f1-...
There was a very good interview with Pat Symonds on SKY during pre-season testing. He was referring specifically about Bernie's time ballasting, or reverse grid proposals, but added " Until there is a need for the top teams to regularly overtake, nothing will change in the aero regulations." I got the impression that he was in favour of the change, but of course he does not vote in the Strategy Group. Toto tells Clare when to raise her hand when it's time to vote.
One of the original aims for the 2017 regs was to follow the GP2 aero principle and have deep side venturis to improve ground effect and reduce wing effect. This has now disappeared, they have wider wings and the rear is set back to make the cars aesthetically better. But they will still have a front wing that feeds the diffuser, which in turn excites the rear wing and makes overtaking near-impossible with cars of similar performance.
A good example was Lewis behind Max in Oz, despite a much more powerful engine and DRS, he had to call in for a strategy change as he could do nothing to pass. There were 24,000 fewer bums on seats from 2015. These are the fundamentals that stop us seeing cut-and-thrust racing. The teams never want to risk losing track position.
One of the original aims for the 2017 regs was to follow the GP2 aero principle and have deep side venturis to improve ground effect and reduce wing effect. This has now disappeared, they have wider wings and the rear is set back to make the cars aesthetically better. But they will still have a front wing that feeds the diffuser, which in turn excites the rear wing and makes overtaking near-impossible with cars of similar performance.
A good example was Lewis behind Max in Oz, despite a much more powerful engine and DRS, he had to call in for a strategy change as he could do nothing to pass. There were 24,000 fewer bums on seats from 2015. These are the fundamentals that stop us seeing cut-and-thrust racing. The teams never want to risk losing track position.
Yes, the FIA should write the rules with massive input from people like Brawn and Wurts. Bernie should make about 15% and rebate the rest to the circuit owners so they can reduce ticket prices, and the Manufacturers should make gobsmacking beautiful cars and pay the very best drivers. The paid drivers should just be able to drive their nuts off.
Lewis's view on the current state of play http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/12... He reckons driving karts in 2000 was actually more exciting than the current crop of F1.
Lewis's view on the current state of play http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/12... He reckons driving karts in 2000 was actually more exciting than the current crop of F1.
Allyc85 said:
So why have they ruled out ground effect, when some people in the sport have said it would help with cars following each other?
I don't think they have ruled it out as such. I refer you to an interesting BBC article dated May 2011:Formula 1 teams agree to abandon 2013 rules revolution
These ideas were on the table for the current regulation cycle (2014-Present), but teams pushed back on FIA citing money issues. It was apparently an 'unknown' for them to go into a 'drastic' change in regulations and I get the feeling that they were scared. The engine regulations were also changing and that was also a big commitment for them, in terms of budget. They could have introduced it for the 2017 regs but again I'm sure we'll get a more watered down, compromised version of the originally proposed changes. I see a pattern here. And it is not good. The GPDA letter in suggesting the sport was lacking direction and decisiveness is spot on.
As mentioned above, the high noses were better in this regard for following closely, but safety in accidents, in addition to aesthetics were cited as reasons for specifying low noses.
Edited by Dr Z on Thursday 31st March 22:40
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff