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

[Munter]

VladD said:

Munter said:

Impose standard wing designs, that create cleaner air than currently. Given them an option of say 10 to pick from at any race. But open up the engine /fuel regs to allow more power, and keep the lap times low.

A 2000BHP F1 car with the grip of a formula ford should sort the men from the boys...

The problem with standard items is that they stifle innovation.

I think McLaren Honda are proving that there are enough innovation issues to create between the wings to keep the teams busy.

[thegreenhell]

They already have some standardised parts in other areas of the car. Who cares about innovation in F1 aerodynamics anyway? It's completely irrelevant to any other field of engineering. Let them innovate more in the powertrain stuff instead, an area that actually has some potential benefits to other vehicles.

[VladD]

thegreenhell said:

They already have some standardised parts in other areas of the car. Who cares about innovation in F1 aerodynamics anyway? It's completely irrelevant to any other field of engineering. Let them innovate more in the powertrain stuff instead, an area that actually has some potential benefits to other vehicles.

But this takes us back to the fact that F1 claims to be the fastest and most advanced motor racing in the world. If you stop innovating with aero, maybe another series overtakes you and you lose that label. I think that lebel is very important to the people who own and run F1.

[Z3MCJez]

VladD said:

But this takes us back to the fact that F1 claims to be the fastest and most advanced motor racing in the world. If you stop innovating with aero, maybe another series overtakes you and you lose that label. I think that lebel is very important to the people who own and run F1.

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.

It seems to me that the front wings are more problematic. I personally hate all of the twiddly bits and would prefer a single or double blade with flat end plates. But really, what the aim should be is for a type of front wing that produces similar downforce irrespective of whether the air is clean or not. Like a bigger tyre (that we have now got).

If we want them to run faster, I suspect that another 10kg of fuel will help with that. In fact, why run limited? It seems to me that you should either limit the amount of fuel and tell manufacturers to go and produce an engine or limit the design of the engine and give them the energy they need to run the car fast. Ultimately if one car can manage with 90kg of fuel where another needs 110kg, the first car is going to be quicker at the start of the race, so there's a trend to efficiency one way or another.

Jez

[Driller]

glazbagun said:

jsf said:

Driller said:

Why would you not want this? Brilliant, that's what we want to see, positions changing all the time, they should enforce this kind of aero immediately.

They tried that in Indycar, it was utterly tedious cars passing then re-passing lap after lap after lap after lap after lap............ an overtake meant absolutely nothing. They scrapped that idea when they realised how crap it was.

I think it would end up as tedious as DRS overtakes. The thing which makes racing exciting is that you don't know who's going to win. With DRS you know that the faster cars will all breeze past the slow ones. Without DRS you can end up with a procession, but that's always been the nature of F1- it was never all Hakkinen on Schumacher 3-abreast overtakes and Gilles vs Arnoux for 50 laps.

This formula looks like it will be a return to the days of winning via pitstop.

I disagree wholeheartedly with that!

You know very well that what invariably happens is that the best cars get on the front row of the grid most of the time and then the first 2 or 3 of them hare off into the distance but stuck behind each other for the rest of the race unless, as you mentioned, they can get past in the pits.

On the contrary, if they were regularly changing places with each other, you wouldn't know who was going to win until the finish line.

As for Indycar, they mostly appear to run on oval circuits so in that instance I could imagine it would be a bit tedious with no variation in the circuit to affect things.

bobbo89 said:

Driller said:

Why would you not want this? Brilliant, that's what we want to see, positions changing all the time, they should enforce this kind of aero immediately.

As jsf says, this would just be manufactured racing and a false spectacle.

But it's just the opposite of manufactured racing : you remove all the silly wings which stop the car performing in turbulent air and then when it gets close enough behind the car in front you let the natural laws of physics do their work and the car can overtake.

[Dr Z]

Derek Smith said:

Dr Z said:

I found it intriguing that the total race time yesterday of 1hr 24min 11.672s is the fastest GP recorded for the Melbourne track, won at an average speed of ~215 km/h. The fastest ever before this was in 2004: 1hr 24min 15.757. The lap record for the 2004 race is still some way off the fastest lap yesterday, however going into my lap time archive, it looks like Schumacher 3-stopped his way to winning the race, which would explain why he could run close to the car's ultimate pace through the race (plus refuelling). There was one less race lap yesterday, and the average speed for the 2004 race winning time was ~219 km/h. It's unbelievable that these new cars are so close to the 2004 car while not doing refuelling and on a 1-stop. Staggering.

Going from what was, in essence, four sprint races butt-ended to yesterday's fuel limited endurance run is remarkable.

Mind you, people still complained of the lack of overtaking back then.

True, but I'm not sure yesterday was much of an endurance run. The first stint was proper racing between the drivers who finished top 2, and both were averaging only 4 clicks slower than the fastest ever car, finishing ten seconds apart in the end (rather than a dominant 1-2 for a team and the nearest challenger finishing half a minute adrift). I'd take the 2017 Australian GP over the 2004 one, TBH.

I think as teams get more of an understanding of how much the tyres can take, we will have more of them pushing to the limits. I'm looking forward to it.

Karun summed it up well here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Apx8z6nOg

[CraigyMc]

thegreenhell said:

They already have some standardised parts in other areas of the car. Who cares about innovation in F1 aerodynamics anyway?

I do. I'd be pretty surprised if I'm the only one.

thegreenhell said:

It's completely irrelevant to any other field of engineering.

Except for aerodynamics of everything else, CFD and the IT that is required to support it all. In fact, F1 teams do a lot to advance lots of fields whether as customers of COTS products, or as innovators of new things.

thegreenhell said:

Let them innovate more in the powertrain stuff instead, an area that actually has some potential benefits to other vehicles.

Why not let them innovate in all ways?

[anonymous-user]

When us experts on PistonHeads can't agree no wonder F1 is too hard to solve.

F1 has taken a step in the right direction but still needs a lot of work which will happen with the new owners.

One huge issue is that you have to pay for F1 and new young fans, unless their parents are into F1, are not seeing it on TV.

Make this free for everyone instead of a pay per view and your audience WILL grow which in turn WILL add more money to F1.

Again many will not agree but F1 needs to be LESS technical.

1200 bhp
Manual gearbox
Standard front and rear wing and no additional aero
No DRS
Refuelling
Less or no "systems" which cost the Earth.
Keep the new bigger tyres. Result by the FIA

This will attract more new teams and give a more fair level playing field.

[CraigyMc]

ELUSIVEJIM said:

When us experts on PistonHeads can't agree no wonder F1 is too hard to solve.

F1 has taken a step in the right direction but still needs a lot of work which will happen with the new owners.

One huge issue is that you have to pay for F1 and new young fans, unless their parents are into F1, are not seeing it on TV.

Make this free for everyone instead of a pay per view and your audience WILL grow which in turn WILL add more money to F1.

Again many will not agree but F1 needs to be LESS technical.

1200 bhp
Manual gearbox
Standard front and rear wing and no additional aero
No DRS
Refuelling
Less or no "systems" which cost the Earth.
Keep the new bigger tyres. Result by the FIA

This will attract more new teams and give a more fair level playing field.

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...

[amokwa]

Crafty_ said:

Giovinazzi driver of the day ? 1 hour of practice yesterday, ends up 12th in a Sauber. Not a bad weekend for your debut.

Seconded.

[CraigyMc]

amokwa said:

Crafty_ said:

Giovinazzi driver of the day ? 1 hour of practice yesterday, ends up 12th in a Sauber. Not a bad weekend for your debut.

Seconded.

Thirded. Not his first time in an F1 car, but he settled in extremely well at no notice.

Compare/contrast with Lance Stroll.

[George29]

robinessex said:

Now slower down the straights, faster through the corners, thus braking distance almost gone, hence no overtaking. Ever. Can't follow another car (nothing changed there then). So a boring procession. Solution. Dump all the fancy aero. Simple front with for minor aero trim, ditto rear wing.

Clearly you know fk all about aero then as the multi element front wings we have now are actually less affected by turbulent air than a large single element wing.

[HustleRussell]

Vocal Minority said:

Ok, I have to say I am feeling pretty bloody smug. I'm sorry, I know it's frightfully unbecoming, but I have been saying the Ferrari has looked good in race trim since testing, and most people said merc would sod off into the distance come the first race - simply because that's how it worked last year.

Then people we're ready to give the title to Hamilton after 2 sessions.

I'm very glad to see a different car winning but I'm not convinced that we're going to see a whole season of tit-for-tat Mercedes and Ferrari victories.

IMO Lewis had his head up his arse on Sunday. He realised early on that something wasn't perfect on the car and spent the rest of the race moaning about everything. It was a Hamilton 'off' day, as we tend to see a handful of times every season.

The Ferrari is indeed very quick in race trim, possibly the quickest- and gentle on its tyres. However I believe the Mercedes has an advantage in qualifying. The Tifosi may be in for a frustrating season if Bottas starts out-qualifying Vettel, the very fast Ferraris bottled up behind the Mercedes.

It's not what I want to see, just a prediction.

P.S. Yes, that was smug- and don't pretend you're 'sorry' about it...

[deadslow]

Does anyone know why Hamilton got booed on the podium? Very poor form.

[HustleRussell]

CraigyMc said:

amokwa said:

Crafty_ said:

Giovinazzi driver of the day ? 1 hour of practice yesterday, ends up 12th in a Sauber. Not a bad weekend for your debut.

Seconded.

Thirded. Not his first time in an F1 car, but he settled in extremely well at no notice.

Compare/contrast with Lance Stroll.

Gio was great all weekend, So close to out-qualifying Ericsson and superb in the race.

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.

I wonder what's going on with Wehrlein, it all seems very strange to me... I wonder if allowing Gio to get his foot in the door will go down as the biggest own goal of the season.

[rubystone]

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

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.

[CraigyMc]

George29 said:

robinessex said:

Now slower down the straights, faster through the corners, thus braking distance almost gone, hence no overtaking. Ever. Can't follow another car (nothing changed there then). So a boring procession. Solution. Dump all the fancy aero. Simple front with for minor aero trim, ditto rear wing.

Clearly you know fk all about aero then as the multi element front wings we have now are actually less affected by turbulent air than a large single element wing.

If the front wing itself isn't generating much downforce, then all the cars will be more mechanical-grip biased in order to have some sort of aero balance, consequently it will be less difficult to follow the car in front.

An aside: your tone is really abusive. I dunno why.

[HustleRussell]

deadslow said:

Does anyone know why Hamilton got booed on the podium? Very poor form.

Agreed. Although if you ask an Australian I bet they'll say something like 'Whining pom' or something very similar.

[George29]

CraigyMc said:

If the front wing itself isn't generating much downforce, then all the cars will be more mechanical-grip biased in order to have some sort of aero balance, consequently it will be less difficult to follow the car in front.

An aside: your tone is really abusive. I dunno why.

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

[glazbagun]

deadslow said:

Does anyone know why Hamilton got booed on the podium? Very poor form.

Don't know tbh but he is a very polarising driver and with Nico gone is pretty much the sole face of "the establishment". Nico was booed a lot by (I presumed) Hamilton fans last year. F1 does seem to be going quite tribal these days.