The Official 2017 Australian Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**

The Official 2017 Australian Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**

Author
Discussion

CraigyMc

16,299 posts

235 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
HustleRussell said:
I was amazed how amateurish Stroll looked behind the wheel. Either he really doesn't like his Williams' steering or front axle or he is terrified to the point of pissing his pants throughout.
He's sawing at the wheel all the time, which really grates with me.

I used to do that a lot - I was trying to feel the front grip by putting the car into understeer and pulling it back out repetitively to find the balance point of the limit of the front tyres. It's awful for performance, but not awful for learning on a lot of cars.

You can't do it with a proper aero-platform car as you're constantly disturbing the wake off the front wheels. You end up causing hysteresis and chasing your own inputs. Awful.

He'll learn. As you say, it was amazing; I was amazed that he's already had a lot of time in a recent-ish car round lots of tracks due to his dad funding a Williams-run test program.

CraigyMc

16,299 posts

235 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
ash73 said:
Z3MCJez said:
Underfloor downforce is still regulated and limited. I can't help but think that more of this would lead to smaller rear wings automatically, to increase top speed. But remember that ground effect cars were once banned, because when there was any sort of problem with the skirts, the car would immediately end up deep into the scenery. Which isn't that desirable, generally.
Just regulate it, with better diffusers and venturis instead of the plank they could have a smaller area for wings to achieve the same lap times, and they could follow the lead car more easily.

Getting rid of aero is a non starter, they need to be fast, and most of the staff are aero engineers!
One of the reasons why the cars have been hard to get to really fast speeds is that they are getting really tubby.
When I first watched F1 (mid-80s), the cars had a weight limit of 540kg plus fuel.
They are up to 722kg now. Even with 1000bhp, that's heavy for F1.

Reason for tubby cars? Safety for sure, but really it's because the PUs weigh a lot and take up a lot of room.

Modern F1 cars are built like tanks.

Z3MCJez

531 posts

171 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
George29 said:
Then they will be slower than GP2 (or F2 as it is now)

The entire car is designed around the front wing airflow. You can't just take one off and stick a standard design on, it wouldn't work. And then all new cars would look pretty much identical.

I'm not intending to come across abusive I just get frustrated by armchair experts who think there is some magic standardised part that will somehow transform F1 whilst having minimal knowledge of how they actually work
Do the wider front wings help downforce while in a wake? Or do they just help with airflow over the wheels? I'm no aerodynamicist but what would your proposal be for limiting the difference between being in clear air and in a wake? Could they bring the floor forwards to provide underfloor downforce to the front?

I'm sure that the bit further back will be worked out in the context of a different front plane.

rallycross

12,742 posts

236 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
There are plenty of simple things that could be done to improve things

1. steel brakes, giving longer braking zones more chance to pass
2. manual gear change, let the drivers work harder, more mistakes = more passing
3. standardized front and rear wings, choice of 3, cuts down ridiculous waste of time and money in wind tunnels

CraigyMc

16,299 posts

235 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
rallycross said:
There are plenty of simple things that could be done to improve things

1. steel brakes, giving longer braking zones more chance to pass
2. manual gear change, let the drivers work harder, more mistakes = more passing
3. standardized front and rear wings, choice of 3, cuts down ridiculous waste of time and money in wind tunnels
1. Yes
2. Yes, but it's anachronistic. You could also argue that the semi-autos are anachronistic too.
3. They'd just spend the money on everything else to work around the wings.

George29

14,706 posts

163 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
Z3MCJez said:
Do the wider front wings help downforce while in a wake? Or do they just help with airflow over the wheels? I'm no aerodynamicist but what would your proposal be for limiting the difference between being in clear air and in a wake? Could they bring the floor forwards to provide underfloor downforce to the front?

I'm sure that the bit further back will be worked out in the context of a different front plane.
My proposal would be to look at the air coming off the car in front rather than making the following car have to deal with it.

How you would control that with regulations though I'm not sure

Edited by George29 on Monday 27th March 17:31

CraigyMc

16,299 posts

235 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
George29 said:
Z3MCJez said:
Do the wider front wings help downforce while in a wake? Or do they just help with airflow over the wheels? I'm no aerodynamicist but what would your proposal be for limiting the difference between being in clear air and in a wake? Could they bring the floor forwards to provide underfloor downforce to the front?

I'm sure that the bit further back will be worked out in the context of a different front plane.
My proposal would be to look at the air coming off the car in front rather than making the following car have to deal with it.

How you would control that with regulations though I'm not sure
Indycar tried that somewhat successfully with the hanford wing, but it was really about ovals.

HustleRussell

24,602 posts

159 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
CraigyMc said:
HustleRussell said:
I was amazed how amateurish Stroll looked behind the wheel. Either he really doesn't like his Williams' steering or front axle or he is terrified to the point of pissing his pants throughout.
He's sawing at the wheel all the time, which really grates with me.

I used to do that a lot - I was trying to feel the front grip by putting the car into understeer and pulling it back out repetitively to find the balance point of the limit of the front tyres. It's awful for performance, but not awful for learning on a lot of cars.

You can't do it with a proper aero-platform car as you're constantly disturbing the wake off the front wheels. You end up causing hysteresis and chasing your own inputs. Awful.

He'll learn. As you say, it was amazing; I was amazed that he's already had a lot of time in a recent-ish car round lots of tracks due to his dad funding a Williams-run test program.
yep

In Stroll's case I reckon he's had the team turn the power assistance on the steering up to 11 in order to reduce the effort / fatigue?

pc.iow

1,879 posts

202 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
George29 said:
Z3MCJez said:
Do the wider front wings help downforce while in a wake? Or do they just help with airflow over the wheels? I'm no aerodynamicist but what would your proposal be for limiting the difference between being in clear air and in a wake? Could they bring the floor forwards to provide underfloor downforce to the front?

I'm sure that the bit further back will be worked out in the context of a different front plane.
My proposal would be to look at the air coming off the car in front rather than making the following car have to deal with it.

How you would control that with regulations though I'm not sure

Edited by George29 on Monday 27th March 17:31
How about the car in front, by lets say 2 seconds has its DRS activated when its not in one of the DRS zones?

Ahonen

5,015 posts

278 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
rallycross said:
There are plenty of simple things that could be done to improve things

1. steel brakes, giving longer braking zones more chance to pass
Williams did a test, probably over 15 years ago, where they did a direct back to back of steel vs carbon. The result was that the difference in braking performance was tiny and far smaller than expected. The big gain from carbon disks is weight - more importantly unsprung weight.

Vaud

50,282 posts

154 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
Ahonen said:
rallycross said:
There are plenty of simple things that could be done to improve things

1. steel brakes, giving longer braking zones more chance to pass
Williams did a test, probably over 15 years ago, where they did a direct back to back of steel vs carbon. The result was that the difference in braking performance was tiny and far smaller than expected. The big gain from carbon disks is weight - more importantly unsprung weight.
In a recent podcast Pat Symonds commented that the difference was a lot less than you might think.

The Moose

22,820 posts

208 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
Ahonen said:
Williams did a test, probably over 15 years ago, where they did a direct back to back of steel vs carbon. The result was that the difference in braking performance was tiny and far smaller than expected. The big gain from carbon disks is weight - more importantly unsprung rotational weight.

The Moose

22,820 posts

208 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
rubystone said:
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Personally think Sky's F1 team are pants.

Brundle is very good but I feel too much time with David Croft is starting to take it's toll.

The VERY annoying presenter Simon Lazenby is as annoying at that X Factor numpty Dermot O'Leary.

Natalie Pinkham and Rachael Brookes I must say are good. As Lewis says the more woman in F1 the better.

The ex F1 drivers Anthony Davidson, Damon Hill and Johnny Herbert are all pretty poor. Even David Coulthard on Channel 4 is better than these guys.

To be fair I would rather pay to watch Sky if the presenters and experts were the C4 team as they are much easier to watch and listen too.

Eddie Jordan is not everyone's cup of tea but I like his mad comments and shirts.

I will get my coat frown
I watched C4 highlights for the first time yesterday evening. The only people who knew anything were DC and Lee McKenzie. Welsh bloke clearly knows nothing and is out of his depth, Karun's voice sent me to sleep and I don't recall any nuggets from him during the race. Webber was, just Webber. EJ is a straight up buffoon - I provide evidence herewith...



As to Sky - Lazenby is a decent anchor but I reckon Rachael Brookes could do the job better. Croft is no worse than Ben 'I won the inaugural Formula First championship in 1878' Pinkham adds nothing to the show and 'Sort of" Johnnie is a spare part too, as is Di Resta. Hill, Davidson and Brundle are intelligent and provide interesting insights. Pat's like Gary Anderson - total boffin but with a personality to match. Ted is, just Ted.

Between both channels we could end up with a great team.
You should try watching a feed from over here! Sky/C4 guys are epic in comparison!

Had to watch the Oz race with the Sky guys as I just couldn't put up with ours!

FourWheelDrift

88,375 posts

283 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
Ahonen said:
Williams did a test, probably over 15 years ago, where they did a direct back to back of steel vs carbon. The result was that the difference in braking performance was tiny and far smaller than expected. The big gain from carbon disks is weight - more importantly unsprung rotational weight.
Isn't that why some went to inboard steel brakes in the 70s?

Lotus 72


Could that be a modern option, it would increase the width of the nose of the car, perhaps increase drag/aero too all things to cut back on the aero effect of channelling it all over and under the car that effects following cars? /mad_idea

Z3MCJez

531 posts

171 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
The Moose said:
You should try watching a feed from over here! Sky/C4 guys are epic in comparison!

Had to watch the Oz race with the Sky guys as I just couldn't put up with ours!
Will Buxton is alright. Good even. Diffey is ok as an anchor (I might take him over Simon Lazenby, but not Jake Humphries). Hobbs and Matchett are past it. Matchett in particular refers a lot to the 1990s Benettons that he was involved with while failing to notice that things have moved on a lot. And he goes, "Woooaahhh" as a standard response to anything close on screen.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
CraigyMc said:
Personally I don't like processional races, so I would ban carbon brakes - give them steel ones that are too small to lean on every lap.
For the record, my company logo is on the side of one of the cars, and it's because they are using our stuff, which I've written books on...
Now that is cool biggrin

skeggysteve

5,724 posts

216 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
That Lotus 72 is so much more beautiful than today's cars!

O/T have any non Sky subscribers been able to watch Ted's Notebook via the Sky website? I used to be able to watch them but they don't work now and no reason is given.
Is it me or have Sky blocked them form non subscribers?

thegreenhell

15,103 posts

218 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
Vaud said:
Ahonen said:
rallycross said:
There are plenty of simple things that could be done to improve things

1. steel brakes, giving longer braking zones more chance to pass
Williams did a test, probably over 15 years ago, where they did a direct back to back of steel vs carbon. The result was that the difference in braking performance was tiny and far smaller than expected. The big gain from carbon disks is weight - more importantly unsprung weight.
In a recent podcast Pat Symonds commented that the difference was a lot less than you might think.
I'm sure they actually raced with them on Alex Zanardi's car. Iirc he was struggling to adjust to the carbon brakes after racing with iron brakes in Indycar.

FourWheelDrift

88,375 posts

283 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
thegreenhell said:
I'm sure they actually raced with them on Alex Zanardi's car. Iirc he was struggling to adjust to the carbon brakes after racing with iron brakes in Indycar.
During practice for the 1999 Austrian GP at the A1 Ring, carbon back in for qualifying.

Crafty_

13,248 posts

199 months

Monday 27th March 2017
quotequote all
I agree with whoever said that we shouldn't make kneejerk changes, especially based on one race that doesn't generally give good overtaking anyway - especially when there is no safety car period (which we usually get here).

I did think at the time it was odd we got no safety car and not even a VSC for Danny's car. The cynic in me suggests its because a Ferrari rather than a Merc was leading, but I digress.

DrZ is right in that as teams gather data they'll start to push the limits of the tyres, they might even start gambling on different strategies. At the same time the aero guys will be looking at how they can improve performance, that might include performance in dirty air.

I think the current regs have more to offer than what we've seen so far. Note I'm not saying they are perfect (whatever that is - we don't know that either) - just that they have more potential than what we saw on Sunday.

Lets give it a few races - 4 or 5 to settle down and see where we go. I expect Brawn will be talking to all the teams to get their outlook on the regs. Brawn is open to making changes and LM will be keen too if it improves their product.

Revolution (banning wings or this/that) isn't a smart way to go - they've just done that, lets see some evolution of the current base and see what happens.

I think the biggest regulation change that needs taking care of is the halos, still billed for introduction in 2018. I think LM are going to find them a big negative blow as far as spectators and I'm very dubious on the actual reasons for the FIA imposing the change. I think its a big threat to the sport.