2017 F1 car- first impressions
Discussion
Scuffers said:
Allyc85 said:
Why don't you aero experts work in F1?
because the hours are better at Boeing & Airbus.Then there's the small issue of realising that the work you do is of benefit, unlike in F1 where it is generally a willy waving contest that eats money and resources for very little benefit to humankind.
BarbaricAvatar said:
"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)
That is the opposite of what we need. Wings are sensitive to turbulent air, the diffuser is not. One of the reasons Indycars can race so closely is because a much higher total percentage of their downforce is produced by the underbody, ground effect as well as the diffuser, so they are less reliant on wings.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)
Has anyone seen this quote from Pat Symonds in Autosport?
"It's going to leave a lot of people in my position with a lot of difficult decisions to make next year because life is different to 2009, which is when we last had a big change of rules," Symonds told Autosport.
"Back then you could say, 'I'm going to employ another 30 aerodynamicists, I'm going to run the tunnel a bit harder, I'm going to do this that and the other'.
"You can't do that now. You have your 70 runs-a-week and that is it. "
I do not know if the 70 runs is a typo, but, if true, it is about as restrictive as a open barn door. 10 runs per day, every day of the year.
There are just way too many people in charge of teams, FIA and FOM who are just way past their retirement age. Rather like the new tyre regs, if there is a straightforward and simple way of doing something, it will be rejected in favour of something super complicated that achieves nothing as the team's simulations will tell them which compound they need weeks before the event. But this symulations will all come up with a similar answer as to which is the quickest.
"It's going to leave a lot of people in my position with a lot of difficult decisions to make next year because life is different to 2009, which is when we last had a big change of rules," Symonds told Autosport.
"Back then you could say, 'I'm going to employ another 30 aerodynamicists, I'm going to run the tunnel a bit harder, I'm going to do this that and the other'.
"You can't do that now. You have your 70 runs-a-week and that is it. "
I do not know if the 70 runs is a typo, but, if true, it is about as restrictive as a open barn door. 10 runs per day, every day of the year.
There are just way too many people in charge of teams, FIA and FOM who are just way past their retirement age. Rather like the new tyre regs, if there is a straightforward and simple way of doing something, it will be rejected in favour of something super complicated that achieves nothing as the team's simulations will tell them which compound they need weeks before the event. But this symulations will all come up with a similar answer as to which is the quickest.
rdjohn said:
...
There are just way too many people in charge of teams, FIA and FOM who are just way past their retirement age. Rather like the new tyre regs, if there is a straightforward and simple way of doing something, it will be rejected in favour of something super complicated that achieves nothing as the team's simulations will tell them which compound they need weeks before the event. But this symulations will all come up with a similar answer as to which is the quickest.
This hits a lot of sports IMO. The professionalism and money get to a point where the differences between winning and losing are tiny. Which comes first - professionalism or the money - is debatable.There are just way too many people in charge of teams, FIA and FOM who are just way past their retirement age. Rather like the new tyre regs, if there is a straightforward and simple way of doing something, it will be rejected in favour of something super complicated that achieves nothing as the team's simulations will tell them which compound they need weeks before the event. But this symulations will all come up with a similar answer as to which is the quickest.
IMO, they need to open the rules right up. Start to let in room for true ingenuity, and do something simple within this to reduce the reliance on aerodynamics.
Murph7355 said:
This hits a lot of sports IMO. The professionalism and money get to a point where the differences between winning and losing are tiny. Which comes first - professionalism or the money - is debatable.
IMO, they need to open the rules right up. Start to let in room for true ingenuity, and do something simple within this to reduce the reliance on aerodynamics.
Any time anyone has come up with anything revolutionary or just plan ingenious the other teams bIMO, they need to open the rules right up. Start to let in room for true ingenuity, and do something simple within this to reduce the reliance on aerodynamics.
h and moan about how they'll now need to spend millions of pounds/euros developing their own version and lobbying for it to be banned, conveniently (or perhaps behind closed doors) trying to work out what it is, how it works and why their designers didn't come up with it in the first place. It's the same every year.When Red Bull were the class of the field it was all 'It's not up to us to be slowed down, it's up to them to speed up and catch us' but now they're lagging behind it's all 'it's not fair that we have a poor engine and they don't, there should be engine parity'. The problem, and it's a big one, is that each team only really cares for themselves and with unanimous support required for any changes without at least eighteen months notice (I believe, although safety and 'sporting' reasons are allowed I think) everyone will always vote (or not vote) for anything they believe will give them an advantage and give anyone else a disadvantage. The whole 'teams have a say in the regulations' bit is wholly misguided at best and utterly ridiculous at worst.
The FIA/FOM should be the ones who set the rules as they (should) have the best interests of the sport at heart. The teams don't, they only want what they can take advantage of. Even the 2017 rejig has been looked at by everyone as a chance to flex their aerodynamic muscles again so it got pushed through.
MissChief said:
Any time anyone has come up with anything revolutionary or just plan ingenious the other teams bh and moan about how they'll now need to spend millions of pounds/euros developing their own version and lobbying for it to be banned, conveniently (or perhaps behind closed doors) trying to work out what it is, how it works and why their designers didn't come up with it in the first place. It's the same every year..
More open rules, less opportunity to challenge things as "illegal". Less opportunity to bh and moan about how they'll now need to spend millions of pounds/euros developing their own version and lobbying for it to be banned, conveniently (or perhaps behind closed doors) trying to work out what it is, how it works and why their designers didn't come up with it in the first place. It's the same every year..h and moan.rdjohn said:
Has anyone seen this quote from Pat Symonds in Autosport?
"It's going to leave a lot of people in my position with a lot of difficult decisions to make next year because life is different to 2009, which is when we last had a big change of rules," Symonds told Autosport.
"Back then you could say, 'I'm going to employ another 30 aerodynamicists, I'm going to run the tunnel a bit harder, I'm going to do this that and the other'.
"You can't do that now. You have your 70 runs-a-week and that is it. "
I do not know if the 70 runs is a typo, but, if true, it is about as restrictive as a open barn door. 10 runs per day, every day of the year.
There are just way too many people in charge of teams, FIA and FOM who are just way past their retirement age. Rather like the new tyre regs, if there is a straightforward and simple way of doing something, it will be rejected in favour of something super complicated that achieves nothing as the team's simulations will tell them which compound they need weeks before the event. But this symulations will all come up with a similar answer as to which is the quickest.
Don't know what is meant by 'runs' but I think they are restricted to 60 hour per week in the tunnel whereas before they we in there continuously, also the computer aero work is limited to something not much more that a very powderful home computer (if it were running continuously)."It's going to leave a lot of people in my position with a lot of difficult decisions to make next year because life is different to 2009, which is when we last had a big change of rules," Symonds told Autosport.
"Back then you could say, 'I'm going to employ another 30 aerodynamicists, I'm going to run the tunnel a bit harder, I'm going to do this that and the other'.
"You can't do that now. You have your 70 runs-a-week and that is it. "
I do not know if the 70 runs is a typo, but, if true, it is about as restrictive as a open barn door. 10 runs per day, every day of the year.
There are just way too many people in charge of teams, FIA and FOM who are just way past their retirement age. Rather like the new tyre regs, if there is a straightforward and simple way of doing something, it will be rejected in favour of something super complicated that achieves nothing as the team's simulations will tell them which compound they need weeks before the event. But this symulations will all come up with a similar answer as to which is the quickest.
There is one fewer pre-season test next year ie. two week rather than three. so in all much less testing than in the previous years.
I read that in the un-restricted days they could spend £1M a year on electricity to keep it all going.
I guess compared to other racing series it's still loads but much less than what they were used to bearing in mind they have hundreds of people working for each team.
Edit: actually it might be even more restrictive than what I said above. F1Technical forum probably has a god explanation somewhere.
Edited by Mr Sparkle on Tuesday 29th December 20:05
Appendix 8. In the Sporting regs gives the true answer.
The absolute limits are 25 hours of air-on wind tunnel time and 25 Teraflops of CFD per week, but measured over a 8-week period - A top end home computer is about 4 flops per hour so we are talking supercomputers.
Additional wind tunnel time is allowed for calibration but not with a current year car. Setting up the half scale model with a windspeed less than 5m/s is unrestricted.
There is a formula that allows teams to adjust CFD time to wind tunnel time, but the absolute maximum is 65 runs per week - so obviously shorter runs can be accommodated.
I suppose this sets a logical limit as to the maximum number of designers needed for aero work. The worry is that a team like Mercedes could employ twice the number they actually need just to ensure other teams are denied their expertise. A far simpler way to do this Reg would be to say each team can have a maximum of X personnel assigned to aero work
These are the 2016 regulations so the 2017 car has to be designed while 2016 season bits are developed. So you can be fairly certain that not many new bits will arrive after the summer shut-down.
The absolute limits are 25 hours of air-on wind tunnel time and 25 Teraflops of CFD per week, but measured over a 8-week period - A top end home computer is about 4 flops per hour so we are talking supercomputers.
Additional wind tunnel time is allowed for calibration but not with a current year car. Setting up the half scale model with a windspeed less than 5m/s is unrestricted.
There is a formula that allows teams to adjust CFD time to wind tunnel time, but the absolute maximum is 65 runs per week - so obviously shorter runs can be accommodated.
I suppose this sets a logical limit as to the maximum number of designers needed for aero work. The worry is that a team like Mercedes could employ twice the number they actually need just to ensure other teams are denied their expertise. A far simpler way to do this Reg would be to say each team can have a maximum of X personnel assigned to aero work
These are the 2016 regulations so the 2017 car has to be designed while 2016 season bits are developed. So you can be fairly certain that not many new bits will arrive after the summer shut-down.
Edited by rdjohn on Tuesday 29th December 21:55
IforB said:
Scuffers said:
Allyc85 said:
Why don't you aero experts work in F1?
because the hours are better at Boeing & Airbus.Then there's the small issue of realising that the work you do is of benefit, unlike in F1 where it is generally a willy waving contest that eats money and resources for very little benefit to humankind.
SpeedMattersNot said:
at Symonds gave a lecture at our Uni where he spoke for an hour about how Motorsport has been a benefit to society.
The usual story given out is how the NHS can learn from how teams manage pit stops. This is a consultants response courtesy of Joe Sayward.Jonathan Glass is a consultant surgeon at Guy’s Hospital in London. He has just written the following blog for the British Medical Journal. It is called “If surgeons lived Lewis Hamilton’s life”. It is an interesting reflection on the insularity of F1 thinking.
Many of the medical conferences I have attended recently have included sessions suggesting that the NHS is failing in its processes and that there is lots we can learn from industry. Most recently, I have been educated by the aviation industry, the energy industry, and the oil industry — as well as being shown what Formula 1 sport has to teach us. The lecturers were good and the information was interesting, but is it of any benefit to me, as an NHS clinician?
We were shown how the Formula 1 team spend their life practising in order to execute the perfect pit stop: running and re-running the events and scenarios that may crop up in any race, briefing and debriefing with the whole team to learn how the training day went, and running human interactive simulation—all in preparation for a 90 minute race.
What struck me from the presentation was that the costs were huge, human resources were plentiful, time was allocated for all this activity, and the person at the pinnacle and other members of the team were paid handsomely. Furthermore, the chief focus of the team is on providing the perfect working environment for the driver—this from a team which was unlikely to change for the season.
So, considering all this, how much can we really take from each other? To illustrate the difference in our working lives, I’ve conjured up this role reversal: Lewis Hamilton as me and me as Lewis Hamilton.
So, Lewis working in the world I inhabit. Imagine the end of a race. After tearing around the track for about 90 minutes, Lewis would immediately have to write a report of the race and ensure it is scanned into the team computer. He would also have to submit details of the race to a national register, so his race performance can be compared to the performance of others. He would have to input the data himself. He would then talk to his junior colleague, who had just watched the last race, and explain that the junior colleague could start the next race, but if after a certain number of laps it wasn’t going so well, he would take over. They certainly wouldn’t risk a poor outcome, although they recognised that the junior needed to develop his skills. He would be told, before completing all the paperwork associated with the last race (including an assessment of his junior colleague), that the car was on the start line ready to start the next race and he needed to get back to the car immediately.
Incidentally, Lewis might be told that when he has a pit stop in the next race, unfortunately, the team will be agency pit staff who have never seen a tyre change on this car before, but they’ll have a go. Oh, and they may have to change the pit staff if the race goes on too long as some of them are only allocated until 5pm. Lewis would squeeze in a debrief as a further imposition on his day, although no time had been allocated for this when it was introduced as an additional mandatory part of the day. While in the second race, Lewis may get a call over his headphones asking him his opinion about another car in another race.
Meanwhile, I am living the life of Lewis. I have a programme with one operation every two weeks. Immediately after completing the op, I would pour the team some champagne, celebrating our successful execution of the procedure, while spraying the champagne over the anaesthetist and other members of the treatment team. I would then attend the timetabled debrief to look at how the op went. In the next two weeks, prior to the next op, we would run a virtual reality mock-up of the next procedure. The team, who would be the same all year, would practise getting the kit ready for the op again and again until they could do it in 45 seconds consistently. Every effort would be focused on the best possible outcome for the next op, after which the team would fly off to Monaco for a few days rest. We would run simulations of various scenarios that might occur during the op so there are no surprises. Of course, financing the supporting team would be no problem, with everyone getting paid extremely generously.
So you can see why I am not convinced that there is sufficient crossover between the life and financing of a Formula one team, and the life and financing of an NHS department, from which we can extrapolate from one “business” to the other. While both endeavour to deliver a high quality, focused performance I fear that our worlds are far apart. Theirs is a world of glamour, of endless practice, of minimal pressure on time (except at the moment of the race), and with limited intrinsic value. Ours is a world of severe financial pressure, of responsibility to the public (to care for the individual and to ensure best usage of resources for the community), of endless demand, constant criticism, and clear and simple value.
Lectures at medical conferences by industry are entertaining—they allow discussion to flourish and they provoke some thought, but is there a huge amount they can bring to our sphere? Perhaps instead we should start educating industry about how to offer excellence in a context of intense public scrutiny and very limited resource?
rdjohn said:
Appendix 8. In the Sporting regs gives the true answer.
The absolute limits are 25 hours of air-on wind tunnel time and 25 Teraflops of CFD per week, but measured over a 8-week period - A top end home computer is about 4 flops per hour so we are talking supercomputers.
Actually a modern home PC should easily be in the Gigaflops range. Raw FLOPS power for a decent 6-core processor is in the hundreds of Gigaflops now, so even with a good deal of efficiency lost to the specific program it should be capable of a handful of gigaflops without trouble.The absolute limits are 25 hours of air-on wind tunnel time and 25 Teraflops of CFD per week, but measured over a 8-week period - A top end home computer is about 4 flops per hour so we are talking supercomputers.
Krikkit said:
Actually a modern home PC should easily be in the Gigaflops range. Raw FLOPS power for a decent 6-core processor is in the hundreds of Gigaflops now, so even with a good deal of efficiency lost to the specific program it should be capable of a handful of gigaflops without trouble.
50-100 maybe, more than that your into serious OC stuff or multi-chip servers.rdjohn said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
at Symonds gave a lecture at our Uni where he spoke for an hour about how Motorsport has been a benefit to society.
The usual story given out is how the NHS can learn from how teams manage pit stops. This is a consultants response courtesy of Joe Sayward...My point was merely that F1 is not just a willy waving contest and does actually benefit society through; automotive, military, aerospace, medicine & pharmaceutical, marine, environmental, wind farm and many other consultancy solutions just from Williams alone.
SpeedMattersNot said:
ery entertaining, some inconsistencies and areas overlooked for Hamilton, but I'm not someone to disagree.
My point was merely that F1 is not just a willy waving contest and does actually benefit society through; automotive, military, aerospace, medicine & pharmaceutical, marine, environmental, wind farm and many other consultancy solutions just from Williams alone.
err... right..My point was merely that F1 is not just a willy waving contest and does actually benefit society through; automotive, military, aerospace, medicine & pharmaceutical, marine, environmental, wind farm and many other consultancy solutions just from Williams alone.
Most of your list is pretty tenuous to say the least.
Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
ery entertaining, some inconsistencies and areas overlooked for Hamilton, but I'm not someone to disagree.
My point was merely that F1 is not just a willy waving contest and does actually benefit society through; automotive, military, aerospace, medicine & pharmaceutical, marine, environmental, wind farm and many other consultancy solutions just from Williams alone.
err... right..My point was merely that F1 is not just a willy waving contest and does actually benefit society through; automotive, military, aerospace, medicine & pharmaceutical, marine, environmental, wind farm and many other consultancy solutions just from Williams alone.
Most of your list is pretty tenuous to say the least.
Scuffers said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
eally? For a company within the entertainment industry I'd disagree and I'd argue it's compelling.
OK, as you picked Williams, go on and list their innovation in the industries you listed.One example that stuck in my mind, was the implementation of their flywheel energy storage technology to remote communities to strengthen power grids and reduce emissions.
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2324801/willi...
I'd be happy to go through my notes and list as many sub-sections under each category if you desire. But like I said, for a company within the entertainment industry, I think the cross over of technology from a pointless sport to benefit society is beyond just willy waving.
Edited by SpeedMattersNot on Wednesday 30th December 14:41
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff