2017 F1 car- first impressions
Discussion
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?
Indeed, the problem of F1 is 'too much knowledge'. They can run perfect simulations of the race, all the teams have the same aero concept, and all know the optimum lap to pit the car. How do you take away that wealth of knowledge and yet still be innovative and retain performance that many crave?
You can't take away the knowledge, but you can do two things:
1) Introduce unpredictability - Safety cars, the new third tyre spec, race in more wet countries....all these things help.
2) Make communication of the knowledge difficult . Ban all car to pit communication.
This year, we had great races in Hungary and Silverstone (caused by Merc making bad starts)and Austin (weather and safety cars). The rest was like watching a masterplan being executed perfectly. Impressive, but dull.
Redlake27 said:
Indeed, the problem of F1 is 'too much knowledge'. They can run perfect simulations of the race, all the teams have the same aero concept, and all know the optimum lap to pit the car.
You can't take away the knowledge, but you can do two things:
1) Introduce unpredictability - Safety cars, the new third tyre spec, race in more wet countries....all these things help.
2) Make communication of the knowledge difficult . Ban all car to pit communication.
This year, we had great races in Hungary and Silverstone (caused by Merc making bad starts)and Austin (weather and safety cars). The rest was like watching a masterplan being executed perfectly. Impressive, but dull.
not so, if it's all so hard, please explain why GP2/GP3 do not have the same issues?You can't take away the knowledge, but you can do two things:
1) Introduce unpredictability - Safety cars, the new third tyre spec, race in more wet countries....all these things help.
2) Make communication of the knowledge difficult . Ban all car to pit communication.
This year, we had great races in Hungary and Silverstone (caused by Merc making bad starts)and Austin (weather and safety cars). The rest was like watching a masterplan being executed perfectly. Impressive, but dull.
90% of the lack of racing is because of the current aero rules, period.
kambites said:
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.
I know all these things and I wasn't suggesting for one minute that F1 should reduce itself to the technical performance it had in the 1970s - even if it did make the racing better.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
The one major overarching requirement of F1 is that it can never emasculates itself so much that other categories start outperforming it. This happened in the early 1960s and it is in danger of happening again.
Scuffers said:
not so, if it's all so hard, please explain why GP2/GP3 do not have the same issues?
90% of the lack of racing is because of the current aero rules, period.
It's a good point, but when the GP2/3 cars are identical it is easy to manage aero rules. I agree that F1 could have better racing if it was GP1, but then it opens up the old debate on F1 being the technical pinnacle..... Give freedom to designers and you get what we have.90% of the lack of racing is because of the current aero rules, period.
I do think it is worth F1 looking at the WEC and NASCAR pitstop rules. Limiting the number of people who can work on a car in a pitstop means teams often consider if it is worth changing tyres due to the time penalty....or sometimes just changing one or two. This, combined with a ban on driver-pit communication, could be enough to add spice. In both WEC and NASCAR you often get a car losing 30sec due to a stop, but lapping 1-2 sec faster. Just like Mansell at Silverstone 1987
Isn't this all just vague speculation at the moment - the rules are still being debated. Mercedes, for one, are being vocal that they don't think they're going in the right direction - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122215
A single plane and end plate with driver adjustable tabs would be a great start and easy to regulate, but the current wing also reduces drag but primarily feeds the diffuser, which, in turn, enhances the power of the rear wing, so limiting the diffuser would also be desirable. I would much prefer to see incredible straight line speed, hard braking and cars really struggling for grip around corners.
I also still think that setting a sensible budget cap still makes most sense, along with banning data links back to base and numbers of personnel in the garage. Most previous regulation has been based around matching power to weight ratios, but the PUs have blown that principle apart and I do not see equalisation happening in the next few years, by which time the sport could be dead.
The race should primarily be between drivers, helped by their single engineer and single tactician. At the moment the drivers are just an essential element needed to implement a pre-determined strategy. Only racing incidents, DNFs and rain tend to upset those strategies.
That ain't no racing bruv!
I also still think that setting a sensible budget cap still makes most sense, along with banning data links back to base and numbers of personnel in the garage. Most previous regulation has been based around matching power to weight ratios, but the PUs have blown that principle apart and I do not see equalisation happening in the next few years, by which time the sport could be dead.
The race should primarily be between drivers, helped by their single engineer and single tactician. At the moment the drivers are just an essential element needed to implement a pre-determined strategy. Only racing incidents, DNFs and rain tend to upset those strategies.
That ain't no racing bruv!
Eric Mc said:
The one major overarching requirement of F1 is that it can never emasculates itself so much that other categories start outperforming it. This happened in the early 1960s and it is in danger of happening again.
Unfortunately if you buy the idea that there is a maximum speed that's acceptably safe the only way to avoid it happening is to cripple the lower formulae more than you cripple F1. Scuffers said:
easy, mandate a std front wing, job done.
Not so simple. Mandating a front wing limits the front aero. That then fixes the rear aero, the weight distribution, suspension geometry, diffuser, and the wheelbase, since there are not many ways you can make the car handle properly with a standard wing. The correct answer is to significantly shrink the rear wings, allow much more of the downforce to come from a venturi (which spits out smooth air) and make one of the tests for the car that it must allow a spec front wing to produce a high proportion of its clear air downforce when placed close behind the car in a windtunnel.
davepoth said:
Not so simple. Mandating a front wing limits the front aero. That then fixes the rear aero, the weight distribution, suspension geometry, diffuser, and the wheelbase, since there are not many ways you can make the car handle properly with a standard wing.
That's exactly the point, it limits downforce in one simple stroke.What's the problem?
Plenty of scope for them to play with underfloor, etc.
"30% more downforce" yet they're allowing the return of the complex rear diffusers. Oh goody, dirty air all over again.
The tall rear wings have always looked crap, pity they're not doing anything about the wide front wings too though. I guess this is a vain attempt to maintain some front grip when following a car closely in cornering. Won't work.
I'm biased towards 1998-2008 as that was my favourite era, but F1 2017 should basically look similar to this, with slick tyres and no rear diffuser:
(They can do what they like with the engines to remain relevant - though i'd also lift the restriction on power-unit development)
The tall rear wings have always looked crap, pity they're not doing anything about the wide front wings too though. I guess this is a vain attempt to maintain some front grip when following a car closely in cornering. Won't work.
I'm biased towards 1998-2008 as that was my favourite era, but F1 2017 should basically look similar to this, with slick tyres and no rear diffuser:
(They can do what they like with the engines to remain relevant - though i'd also lift the restriction on power-unit development)
Scuffers said:
davepoth said:
Not so simple. Mandating a front wing limits the front aero. That then fixes the rear aero, the weight distribution, suspension geometry, diffuser, and the wheelbase, since there are not many ways you can make the car handle properly with a standard wing.
That's exactly the point, it limits downforce in one simple stroke.What's the problem?
Plenty of scope for them to play with underfloor, etc.
davepoth said:
No, there isn't. Limit the front wing's downforce and it means that the aero balance will dictate a limited amount of downforce at the rear too. All of the other aero devices on the car have to follow the lead of the front wing so having a spec one means you might as well spec the whole body.
you're not getting me.that's EXACTLY what I would want to achieve, limiting the overall down-force on the car by mandating the front wing, it;s easy to do, cheap, and easy to enforce.
I am suggesting we dump a lot of the current levels of down-force, period.
adding aero to the cars does nothing for the spectacle, in that it makes it almost impossible for the cars to run close and thus kills off wheel-to-wheel racing.
Look at GP2 cars, they can 'race', gibe a GP2 car an engine with F1 power levels, what's the problem?
And no, I don't subscribe to the "it's dangerous" rhetoric, high aero cars have always been more dangerous as they rely so heavily on the aero that anything happens, they are off the track at speed.
Mechanical grip is the way forwards.
The 'powers that be' say F1 should be the fastest Motorsport in terms of lap time and most of that comes from corner speed, not outright engine power. Corner speed either needs huge amounts of mechanical grip or aerodynamics. Large amounts of mechanical grip aren't hugely feasible unless you have tyres that are 18 inches wide or more. Sure it would make for a good show but people wold be moaning that the cars don't 'look fast'.
So that leaves huge amounts of downforce.
I agree though, they've started chasing lap times, forgetting that the old diffusers and wide, low wings front and back are what made for a rubbish spectacle a decade ago and cars can't follow each other closely.
So that leaves huge amounts of downforce.
I agree though, they've started chasing lap times, forgetting that the old diffusers and wide, low wings front and back are what made for a rubbish spectacle a decade ago and cars can't follow each other closely.
to be fair you're not far wrong, what you need to remember is the diffuser causes nothing like the level of turbulence behind the car that the rear wing does.
having said all of that a GP to car with F1 Levels of Power would be significantly faster as it is so why do we need have more aero than a GP2 cars got?
having said all of that a GP to car with F1 Levels of Power would be significantly faster as it is so why do we need have more aero than a GP2 cars got?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff