Car launch 2017

Car launch 2017

Author
Discussion

PhillipM

6,515 posts

188 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
ChemicalChaos said:
Why DO the cars have to be so huge? No wonder drivers have a hard time overtaking the traditional way. How the hell are you supposed to see the extremities?

Here's how to neatly package a driver, a 1.5 engine, gearbox, cooling and fuel for a full race distance:

Aero. And regulations that favour aero performance above all else.

Allyc85

7,225 posts

185 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
The Merc was looking great....right up until they added that stupid little wing in front of the rear one!

thegreenhell

15,115 posts

218 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
PhillipM said:
ChemicalChaos said:
Why DO the cars have to be so huge? No wonder drivers have a hard time overtaking the traditional way. How the hell are you supposed to see the extremities?

Here's how to neatly package a driver, a 1.5 engine, gearbox, cooling and fuel for a full race distance:

Aero. And regulations that favour aero performance above all else.
Safety - crush structures, drivers' feet behind the front axle line, fuel cell behind the driver instead of down the cockpit sides etc
Packaging - cooling for 1000 bhp instead of just 180, batteries and ERS gumph, multiple ECUs etc

Mostly the same reasons that a modern family car is so much bigger than its 1960s equivalent.

HustleRussell

24,602 posts

159 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
Slightly more flattering angle on the Maybach IMO


Mr_Thyroid

1,995 posts

226 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
thegreenhell said:
PhillipM said:
ChemicalChaos said:
Why DO the cars have to be so huge? No wonder drivers have a hard time overtaking the traditional way. How the hell are you supposed to see the extremities?

Here's how to neatly package a driver, a 1.5 engine, gearbox, cooling and fuel for a full race distance:
Aero. And regulations that favour aero performance above all else.
Safety - crush structures, drivers' feet behind the front axle line, fuel cell behind the driver instead of down the cockpit sides etc
Packaging - cooling for 1000 bhp instead of just 180, batteries and ERS gumph, multiple ECUs etc

Mostly the same reasons that a modern family car is so much bigger than its 1960s equivalent.
And people kept banging on about how cool 90's cars were, how they were really beautiful and the racing was much better.

Even before brexit I said that listening to the public was stupid.

DS240

Original Poster:

4,637 posts

217 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
Mini1275 said:




Looks interesting! Something totally different by the look of it.

I think next weeks autosport will actually be worth buying if they properly analyse each car in detail.

Really hoping for a good looking Ferrari tomorrow.

Crafty_

13,248 posts

199 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
F1 season must be upon us, because threads here are full of whinging again.

I think that Merc looks awesome.

The regs have been changed to favour an aero formula, thanks to RBR, so this is what you get.

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. If you don't like that then maybe watching some historic racing series would be more fun for you.

ncr69

15 posts

85 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
At least Mercedes had a fruitful day. Toro Rosso went for a low key filming day in advance of launch - perhaps they knew something..

The Renault engine lasted - what - five minutes?

Ok an unfair exaggeration but it did curtail their allotted 100km run out.

ERS issue.

Edited by ncr69 on Thursday 23 February 18:33

DanielSan

18,747 posts

166 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
There's a reason in historic racing is getting more and popular though, it offers close racing and accessibility to the the teams and cars, yet another area F1 could learn a lot from... Just because something is new doesn't make it better.

Crafty_

13,248 posts

199 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
DanielSan said:
There's a reason in historic racing is getting more and popular though, it offers close racing and accessibility to the the teams and cars, yet another area F1 could learn a lot from... Just because something is new doesn't make it better.
The point is that F1 has always been the same. In the 80s people were moaning about turbo engines and how the coventry climax was much better and how all the wings were ugly. Now, we moan that V10s were better and that 80s/90s cars looked better with their "simple" wings.

Doesn't matter which era you pick on, it was always better "in the old days".

I like (almost) all motorsport, including the classics but to bh and moan about a 2017 F1 car because it doesn't look like a Lotus 49 or a F92A Ferrari is plain daft.

bobbo89

5,151 posts

144 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
Crafty_ said:
to bh and moan about a 2017 F1 car because it doesn't look like a Lotus 49 or a F92A Ferrari is plain daft.
I was just about to say the same. I think the cars look awesome, not pretty, but awesome and purposeful!

DoubleD

22,154 posts

107 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
Crafty_ said:
The point is that F1 has always been the same. In the 80s people were moaning about turbo engines and how the coventry climax was much better and how all the wings were ugly. Now, we moan that V10s were better and that 80s/90s cars looked better with their "simple" wings.

Doesn't matter which era you pick on, it was always better "in the old days".

I like (almost) all motorsport, including the classics but to bh and moan about a 2017 F1 car because it doesn't look like a Lotus 49 or a F92A Ferrari is plain daft.
This is very true

Megaflow

9,347 posts

224 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
Allyc85 said:
The Merc was looking great....right up until they added that stupid little wing in front of the rear one!
I think that is a red herring. I can't believe it produces much downforce, and it is so easily copied they'd be mad to show it so early. I think they are trying to divert eyes from something else, possible the trick front suspension mounts highlighted earlier.

Some Gump

12,671 posts

185 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
Is it wrong that I like the fin? So much hate for em, but they serve an aero purpose.
These cars are function over form. So were the beautiful cars of the past. F1's entire history has never had cars designed with aesthetics in mind, this season is no different.

I love new rules, purely because they come with new ideas. The concepts on the merc and sauber couldn't be more different in the barge board area, that crazy brake duct looks interesting, and if the xzibit wing isn't just a testing aero rake /camera noiunt, then that's very new and different.

Plenty to like if you're of geeky persuasion smile

DanielSan

18,747 posts

166 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
Crafty_ said:
DanielSan said:
There's a reason in historic racing is getting more and popular though, it offers close racing and accessibility to the the teams and cars, yet another area F1 could learn a lot from... Just because something is new doesn't make it better.
The point is that F1 has always been the same. In the 80s people were moaning about turbo engines and how the coventry climax was much better and how all the wings were ugly. Now, we moan that V10s were better and that 80s/90s cars looked better with their "simple" wings.

Doesn't matter which era you pick on, it was always better "in the old days".

I like (almost) all motorsport, including the classics but to bh and moan about a 2017 F1 car because it doesn't look like a Lotus 49 or a F92A Ferrari is plain daft.
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.

Crafty_

13,248 posts

199 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
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.
laugh
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.


Dr Murdoch

3,427 posts

134 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
Megaflow said:
I think that is a red herring. I can't believe it produces much downforce, and it is so easily copied they'd be mad to show it so early. I think they are trying to divert eyes from something else, possible the trick front suspension mounts highlighted earlier.
It might throw some internet 'engineers' off the scent, but I doubt it'll throw F1 engineers off of it.

Allyc85

7,225 posts

185 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
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!

dr_gn

16,140 posts

183 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.







markcoznottz

7,155 posts

223 months

Thursday 23rd February 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.


Agreed. Good proportions never go out of style. These cars are hideous.