The Official 2017 Australian Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**
Discussion
thegreenhell said:
Fire99 said:
DanielSan said:
jsf said:
They are still 150mm narrower than a 1982 F1 car.
It's more length that's the issue, a single seater really doesn't need to be a similar length to a long wheel base Mercedes Sprinter yet that's how massive they look.Longer wheelbase than a Rolls Royce Phantom limo... http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2...
Longest wheelbase used on a 1982 F1 car was 2794mm, front wing overhang allowed was the same as this year at 1200mm, rear wing overhang allowed was larger than this year at 800mm (90mm longer than 2017 rules).
Driller said:
Leggy said:
I've never understood why they develop the cars to run in clean air..
It's the million dollar question that no-one seems to be able to answer. Presumably it's all about money 
Leggy said:
I've never understood why they develop the cars to run in clean air. Most are driving in the wake of another. Only the guy leaving or has a massive gap ahead actually run in the clean air.
The DRS or something similar should be allowed to compensate for this and used anywhere on the track.
If they could use DRS everywhere I'm sure they'd still use it in such a way that improves their performance when running in clean air. I wonder if it is down to the importance of qualifying and maybe not being allowed to admit that you have no chance of being first even when developing the car.The DRS or something similar should be allowed to compensate for this and used anywhere on the track.
Yawn !! Watched the race on catch-up. Basically the race was decided on pit strategy. Vettel staying out, LH's inability to overtake Verstappen - game over. Over many years I've tried to work out what F1 is for ? Is it for the manufacturers ? Are the cars just billboards for the sponsors ? Is it just a sport which Sky can make money off subscribers ? Is it just about the egos of the drivers or is it just another of these celebrity gravy trains where the hype of the 'event' is more important than the event itself ?
Hats off to Bernie for making it what it has become but good races these days are few and far between.
Hats off to Bernie for making it what it has become but good races these days are few and far between.
Yawn !! Watched the race on catch-up. Basically the race was decided on pit strategy. Vettel staying out, LH's inability to overtake Verstappen - game over. Over many years I've tried to work out what F1 is for ? Is it for the manufacturers ? Are the cars just billboards for the sponsors ? Is it just a sport which Sky can make money off subscribers ? Is it just about the egos of the drivers or is it just another of these celebrity gravy trains where the hype of the 'event' is more important than the event itself ?
Hats off to Bernie for making it what it has become but good races these days are few and far between.
Hats off to Bernie for making it what it has become but good races these days are few and far between.
bobbo89 said:
Driller said:
Leggy said:
I've never understood why they develop the cars to run in clean air..
It's the million dollar question that no-one seems to be able to answer. Presumably it's all about money My assumption is that this feeds a whole lucrative industry evolved to develop aerodynamics including all the financial offshoots or something similar in principle.
(Actually, after rereading your answer it doesn't make sense as surely you'd need to overtake to get to the front and because of the aero you can't overtake?)
EDLT said:
Leggy said:
I've never understood why they develop the cars to run in clean air. Most are driving in the wake of another. Only the guy leaving or has a massive gap ahead actually run in the clean air.
The DRS or something similar should be allowed to compensate for this and used anywhere on the track.
If they could use DRS everywhere I'm sure they'd still use it in such a way that improves their performance when running in clean air. I wonder if it is down to the importance of qualifying and maybe not being allowed to admit that you have no chance of being first even when developing the car.The DRS or something similar should be allowed to compensate for this and used anywhere on the track.
Driller said:
Leggy said:
I've never understood why they develop the cars to run in clean air..
It's the million dollar question that no-one seems to be able to answer. Presumably it's all about money A fraction of the profits made by FOM could easily have procured the team and cars for use in test bed development to figure out the best way to ensure close racing.
But that would have taken the kind of foresight that Brawn possess and Ecclestone didn't.
In theory Manor could be used now, but It would take a lot of work to build up into a test team, and arguably starting from scratch might be easier.
IMHO only physically testing two or more cars racing on track in close proximity and then adapting the rules accordingly will sort this.
You cant make a car that works better in dirty air than it does in clean air, its a physical impossibility.
What you can do is allow active aero, that negates the effect of dirty air, only allowing that to be enabled when the car is running in dirty air.
That's what DRS does on the straights, but its of no use in the corners.
What you can do is allow active aero, that negates the effect of dirty air, only allowing that to be enabled when the car is running in dirty air.
That's what DRS does on the straights, but its of no use in the corners.
Leithen said:
But that would have taken the kind of foresight that Brawn possess and Ecclestone didn't.
Ross Brawn alluded to that fact when interviewed by Martin Brundle in the back of a limo during the build up on the Sky coverage. Ross very diplomatically said that with three of them now sharing the duties that Bernie used to do all on his own, he (Ross) can concentrate on matters that Bernie could not. And that Bernie had been very reactive in technical changes and voiced what he didn't like (which was a pretty diplomatic way of saying that Bernie used to b
h and moan about technical changes and talk down F1 as a result) whereas he (Ross) can be more reactive and attempt to guide & steer the technical changes. It's all sounding rather positive.
I've always thought that the racing would be closer if they all had worse brakes. Most passing in motorsport occurs when one driver take a handful of brave pills and goes in deeper than the other. How are you supposed to do that in F1 when all the cars car stop from 300kph in a couple of car lengths? Don't suppose they'll play with that area though from a safety perspective.
Driller said:
I think you misunderstood (or was it me?). I took took Leggy's question to mean "why does the technical specification agreed with the FIA mean the cars run better in clean air".
My assumption is that this feeds a whole lucrative industry evolved to develop aerodynamics including all the financial offshoots or something similar in principle.
(Actually, after rereading your answer it doesn't make sense as surely you'd need to overtake to get to the front and because of the aero you can't overtake?)
My point was that if you create a car that runs well in dirty air, it'll be sMy assumption is that this feeds a whole lucrative industry evolved to develop aerodynamics including all the financial offshoots or something similar in principle.
(Actually, after rereading your answer it doesn't make sense as surely you'd need to overtake to get to the front and because of the aero you can't overtake?)
te in clean air so even once you've managed an overtake, your just going to get overtaken again. jsf said:
You cant make a car that works better in dirty air than it does in clean air, its a physical impossibility.
What you can do is allow active aero, that negates the effect of dirty air, only allowing that to be enabled when the car is running in dirty air.
That's what DRS does on the straights, but its of no use in the corners.
Basically this ^^^What you can do is allow active aero, that negates the effect of dirty air, only allowing that to be enabled when the car is running in dirty air.
That's what DRS does on the straights, but its of no use in the corners.
Why would a team design a car to run well but only when its running behind another car?
bobbo89 said:
Driller said:
I think you misunderstood (or was it me?). I took took Leggy's question to mean "why does the technical specification agreed with the FIA mean the cars run better in clean air".
My assumption is that this feeds a whole lucrative industry evolved to develop aerodynamics including all the financial offshoots or something similar in principle.
(Actually, after rereading your answer it doesn't make sense as surely you'd need to overtake to get to the front and because of the aero you can't overtake?)
My point was that if you create a car that runs well in dirty air, it'll be sMy assumption is that this feeds a whole lucrative industry evolved to develop aerodynamics including all the financial offshoots or something similar in principle.
(Actually, after rereading your answer it doesn't make sense as surely you'd need to overtake to get to the front and because of the aero you can't overtake?)
te in clean air so even once you've managed an overtake, your just going to get overtaken again.bobbo89 said:
jsf said:
You cant make a car that works better in dirty air than it does in clean air, its a physical impossibility.
What you can do is allow active aero, that negates the effect of dirty air, only allowing that to be enabled when the car is running in dirty air.
That's what DRS does on the straights, but its of no use in the corners.
Basically this ^^^What you can do is allow active aero, that negates the effect of dirty air, only allowing that to be enabled when the car is running in dirty air.
That's what DRS does on the straights, but its of no use in the corners.
Why would a team design a car to run well but only when its running behind another car?
It just needs the necessary spec from the FIA enforcing surely? They seem very good at enforcing all sorts of other specification, some of which seems either pointless or downright mad.
Again it could be technical ignorance on my part but I still don't see a good explanation as to why this can't be done.
Processional, but ever so slightly refreshing. That feeling will wear off in a couple of races.
Something that annoyed me mildly was lack of commentary relating to Max's brakes. The director was focusing on Max for quite a while and even showing a number of close ups of the brake dust, yet nether of the commentary team mentioned it at all? Were they even watching the feed they are commenting on? Edit: this was during the Sky live commentary.
Something that annoyed me mildly was lack of commentary relating to Max's brakes. The director was focusing on Max for quite a while and even showing a number of close ups of the brake dust, yet nether of the commentary team mentioned it at all? Were they even watching the feed they are commenting on? Edit: this was during the Sky live commentary.
Edited by Andy S15 on Monday 27th March 09:17
Caught the highlights last night. I would say I was disappointed, but I sort of expected it to turn out as it did. I had hoped that the race was interesting. It wasn't.
I'll see if it improves at the next few races. If it doesn't, I doubt I'll bother with it anymore.
Seems the powers that be have made things even worse. Bizarre that they have done this.
I'll see if it improves at the next few races. If it doesn't, I doubt I'll bother with it anymore.
Seems the powers that be have made things even worse. Bizarre that they have done this.
Andy S15 said:
Processional, but ever so slightly refreshing. That feeling will wear off in a couple of races.
Something that annoyed me mildly was lack of commentary relating to Max's brakes. The director was focusing on Max for quite a while and even showing a number of close ups of the brake dust, yet nether of the commentary team mentioned it at all? Were they even watching the feed they are commenting on?
The Channel 4 team picked up on the brakes.Something that annoyed me mildly was lack of commentary relating to Max's brakes. The director was focusing on Max for quite a while and even showing a number of close ups of the brake dust, yet nether of the commentary team mentioned it at all? Were they even watching the feed they are commenting on?
Oh yes, in terms of commentary teams. I caught a bit of the Sky feed for qualifying. Crofty (if that's his name) is annoying. Constantly trying to make jokes that he thinks are funny.
On the C4 side of things, Ben Edwards really grates me now. I put up with his shouty style for a while. However, last year and now this year it's really noticeable and really annoying.
Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 27th March 09:05
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff