Car launch 2017
Discussion
markcoznottz said:
dr_gn said:
Crafty_ said:
Cars can't and won't look like they did 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, because we've progressed and learnt.
We're cleverer than we were back then. F1 is meant to represent progress, always pushing forwards.
I think that the cars reflect the rules they are designed to comply with far more than they reflect the progressive technology within them. Recently, those rules have produced some of the worst looking and sounding Grand Prix cars in history.We're cleverer than we were back then. F1 is meant to represent progress, always pushing forwards.
There have been some significant retrograde technical steps over the decades you stated; it's not been a consistent evolution: 1.5 litre turbos were banned for '89, even though they were more advanced than the 3.5 litre engines that followed. Cost was often cited, yet now it seems irrelevant. There was a huge retrograde step from '93 to '94, in fact you could argue that F1 was in some ways behind even road car technology for sometime following the start of the 1994 season. There are other examples such as the banning of skirts, certain high modulus materials etc etc, all of which - admittedly many for safety reasons - halted progress in those areas.
While the newer cars are undoubtedly massively impressive from an engineering perspective, they have generally poor aesthetics, and for many people who have troubled themselves to attend Grands Prix over the decades, are somewhat of a joke.
dr_gn said:
I think that the cars reflect the rules they are designed to comply with far more than they reflect the progressive technology within them. Recently, those rules have produced some of the worst looking and sounding Grand Prix cars in history.
There have been some significant retrograde technical steps over the decades you stated; it's not been a consistent evolution: 1.5 litre turbos were banned for '89, even though they were more advanced than the 3.5 litre engines that followed. Cost was often cited, yet now it seems irrelevant. There was a huge retrograde step from '93 to '94, in fact you could argue that F1 was in some ways behind even road car technology for sometime following the start of the 1994 season. There are other examples such as the banning of skirts, certain high modulus materials etc etc, all of which - admittedly many for safety reasons - halted progress in those areas.
While the newer cars are undoubtedly massively impressive from an engineering perspective, they have generally poor aesthetics, and for many people who have troubled themselves to attend Grands Prix over the decades, are somewhat of a joke.
I don't disagree with much of what you have said with regards to pauses in progression at times.There have been some significant retrograde technical steps over the decades you stated; it's not been a consistent evolution: 1.5 litre turbos were banned for '89, even though they were more advanced than the 3.5 litre engines that followed. Cost was often cited, yet now it seems irrelevant. There was a huge retrograde step from '93 to '94, in fact you could argue that F1 was in some ways behind even road car technology for sometime following the start of the 1994 season. There are other examples such as the banning of skirts, certain high modulus materials etc etc, all of which - admittedly many for safety reasons - halted progress in those areas.
While the newer cars are undoubtedly massively impressive from an engineering perspective, they have generally poor aesthetics, and for many people who have troubled themselves to attend Grands Prix over the decades, are somewhat of a joke.
If we look behind the reasons for that it comes down to politics most, if not all the time. Its the worst part of the sport and has done much harm over the years, unfortunately it won't be going anywhere soon, indeed there are things going on in the background right now for political reasons that I think are going to harm the sport.
There have been some massively ugly cars in the last 20 years or so. With the exception of this years Force India I don't think 2016/2017 (so far) cars are anywhere near that. I really like the swept back shape of the merc front wing (from overheard) and dare I say it, the car looks quite graceful to my eye.
I'm interested to see what Brawn does in his role, we won't see this for 2 or 3 years though. As much as I'll support current F1 I don't know if I'll still be following then.
Allyc85 said:
HustleRussell said:
Slightly more flattering angle on the Maybach IMO
Sorry to make a positive post in an F1 thread, but I think that looks bloody stunning!Article with Costa & Cowell http://pgf1.co.uk/2017/02/technical-de-brief-with-...
As suggested there, Merc will be testing more configurations, including a larger "sail" or fin as we might call it.
Apparently Ferrari are getting antsy about suspension rules and may ask for a clarification, this is because whilst others have mostly got their systems sorted over the past 2 years they are struggling with theirs. The thinking is they may ask for clarification at the first race just to try upset the applecart.
Lots of talk about 2nd versions of cars with different wheelbases, treat as rumour:
Merc are looking at one with a shorter wheelbase.
The as yet unreleased Ferrari is going to have a wheelbase 6cm longer than the 2016 car and are considering a longer one still.
Oh and it looks very much as if Mclaren are going orange with the livery, we find out tomorrow.
As suggested there, Merc will be testing more configurations, including a larger "sail" or fin as we might call it.
Apparently Ferrari are getting antsy about suspension rules and may ask for a clarification, this is because whilst others have mostly got their systems sorted over the past 2 years they are struggling with theirs. The thinking is they may ask for clarification at the first race just to try upset the applecart.
Lots of talk about 2nd versions of cars with different wheelbases, treat as rumour:
Merc are looking at one with a shorter wheelbase.
The as yet unreleased Ferrari is going to have a wheelbase 6cm longer than the 2016 car and are considering a longer one still.
Oh and it looks very much as if Mclaren are going orange with the livery, we find out tomorrow.
Crafty_ said:
DanielSan said:
Now you've had that rant, read my post again and acknowledge either of the points made in it.... Close racing and accessibility, F1 offers neither and more aero focused cars won't solver the former.
Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir
that better ?
Why so sanctimonious ? Get your kicks by telling others what do ?
Please, don't try and order me about, have more respect for fellow posters.
Back on topic..
There are many motorsports that are more accessible for the anorak and yes some historic racing is like that - I wouldn't say its universally so though.
I would actually suggest that the overriding appeal of historic racing is the nostalgia - people remember the cars from times gone by, good old Murray commentating, buying Autosport to read details of Clark's latest win, trip out with family to Brands Hatch in the 70s/80s and so on.
I wasn't "ranting" as you put it, just delicately pointing out that historic racing isn't meant to be like F1, nor is F1 meant to be like historic racing.
Both of these things are bad for racing action
ChemicalChaos said:
The point still stands though. The new cars are huge, physically limiting wheel to wheel action, and full of finnnicky aero which limits close drafting etc.
Both of these things are bad for racing action
And those cars are far faster and far easier to drive at the limit than older cars. Progress. Just like a late 80s/early 90s car is faster than a 60s car.Both of these things are bad for racing action
The current regulations are heavily aero dependent. The F1 Strategy group and then F1 commission have all voted these regs through.
Are they wrong ? maybe - we'll find out.
I disagree that the size of the cars will limit wheel to wheel action. We've had 2m wide cars before, the length itself isn't going to stop someone sticking their nose up the side if they sniff a move. I'd even suggest that work done over the last however many years has actually helped with wheel to wheel stuff, if the car is more driveable and the engine more usable it gives the driver opportunity. Brundle drove one of the last 2.4 V8s and couldn't believe the improvements they'd made from the early engines he'd driven some years before - and that was all done through an engine freeze! In his time they hung on to the turbo cars and hustled them through corners as best they could, a far cry from how the cars behave today.
Dirty air has, is and will continue to be a problem. There are solutions that can help, but wouldn't you know it, those pesky politics get in the way again. As I said before lets see what Brawn does.
Crafty_ said:
The current regulations are heavily aero dependent. The F1 Strategy group and then F1 commission have all voted these regs through.
Are they wrong ? maybe - we'll find out.
In a word, yes. Are they wrong ? maybe - we'll find out.
Motorsport December '16 (issue 92/12) has a very good take on this backed up by opinions from Stefan Johannson and Hamilton. The FIA seeks to limit the car speeds..... then allows more aero but strangles engines? Limiting cornering speeds is the best way to limit average lap speeds, and the safest way as corners are infinitely more dangerous (according to number of crashes occuring) than high speed straights.
So now we have massively restricted racing because of a reduced differential between the high cornering speeds and capped top speeds. So less chance for slingshot runs out of corners and far less braking duels into corners due to both capped speed and increased downforce. There's also no challenge left in corners like Eau Rouge - once it was a game of how much speed you dared to carry through with your limited grip, now its simply a flat out kink with no opportunity to make or lose ground.
The increased downforce this year (+25% at season open to predicted 45% by end of season) is also going to put more stress on the tyres, which brings us full circle back to the problem of needing high pressures with small contact patches that very quickly thermally degrade and fall off a cliff.
I wish I could copy and post up the whole article without being banned for copyright infringement, because there is so much common sense in it. Why can seemingly everyone but the FIA see this?
RosscoPCole said:
Please excuse my ignorance and laziness in not reading every post, but what is the purpose of the shark fin? And why does the Mercedes have a tiny little one compared to the other teams?
Its not how big it is, its what you do with it that counts. Well thats what i keep being told anyway.....Crafty_ said:
Article with Costa & Cowell http://pgf1.co.uk/2017/02/technical-de-brief-with-...
As suggested there, Merc will be testing more configurations, including a larger "sail" or fin as we might call it.
Apparently Ferrari are getting antsy about suspension rules and may ask for a clarification, this is because whilst others have mostly got their systems sorted over the past 2 years they are struggling with theirs. The thinking is they may ask for clarification at the first race just to try upset the applecart.
Lots of talk about 2nd versions of cars with different wheelbases, treat as rumour:
Merc are looking at one with a shorter wheelbase.
The as yet unreleased Ferrari is going to have a wheelbase 6cm longer than the 2016 car and are considering a longer one still.
Oh and it looks very much as if Mclaren are going orange with the livery, we find out tomorrow.
That makes it sound like Ferrari already know they have built another dud that will be a second off the pace... I mean if they are already talking about making that kind of revision it can't be good can it?As suggested there, Merc will be testing more configurations, including a larger "sail" or fin as we might call it.
Apparently Ferrari are getting antsy about suspension rules and may ask for a clarification, this is because whilst others have mostly got their systems sorted over the past 2 years they are struggling with theirs. The thinking is they may ask for clarification at the first race just to try upset the applecart.
Lots of talk about 2nd versions of cars with different wheelbases, treat as rumour:
Merc are looking at one with a shorter wheelbase.
The as yet unreleased Ferrari is going to have a wheelbase 6cm longer than the 2016 car and are considering a longer one still.
Oh and it looks very much as if Mclaren are going orange with the livery, we find out tomorrow.
In the pictures of the Ferrari released today it doesn't even look as fast as the Mercedes!
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff