Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

2017 Rule Changes


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3999 replies to this topic

#3951 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 09 April 2016 - 15:28

Teams have the 2017 wind tunnel tyre now

 

http://it.motorsport...ca-2017-685608/

 

Charlie Whiting says: 'we've done I believe the best we can'

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I find that completely reassuring.

 

:)



Advertisement

#3952 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 2,992 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 09 April 2016 - 15:39

I think these changes need to be abandoned.



#3953 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 09 April 2016 - 15:43

It's amusing to see that everyone, like Wolff today, realizes that the changes are bullocks, but yet they will be introduced....I'm stil hoping for some last minute tweaks, but that's hopeless I guess....



#3954 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 09 April 2016 - 15:54

I think the cars run more rake nowadays (some of them anyway), so in practice the front wing can be very close to the ground.

This is true.  There is an optimal rake angle for the cars though and today there's a compromise between front wing height and rake angle.



#3955 superden

superden
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 09 April 2016 - 16:11

It's crap.

They know it's crap.

They'll do it anyway.

Asshats.

#3956 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 09 April 2016 - 16:43

It's crap.

They know it's crap.

They'll do it anyway.

Asshats.

 

I see no need to be so polite.



#3957 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 09 April 2016 - 16:58

Totally agree, these changes are so incredibly stupid, and they'll only hurt the smaller teams, AGAIN.

 

I can't believe the teams are okay with the changes not being finalized so late into the year, the 2009 regs were agreed upon over a year before they were to be introduced. 



#3958 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 09 April 2016 - 22:31

The cars will look a tad better. I'm all for the end of the pole vault rear wing, just that is a great improvement IMHO.



#3959 RedOne

RedOne
  • Member

  • 2,449 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 09 April 2016 - 22:54

If they introduced Michelin tyres then all the work is nearly done without having to make any aero changes.

The solution is staring them right in the face but somehow the idea Pirelli tyres produced better racing has been nailed into someone's head for a long time when clearly nobody is racing each other because the tyres can't take following another car so adding more aero is the conclusion. :drunk:

Edited by RedOne, 09 April 2016 - 22:56.


Advertisement

#3960 superden

superden
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 09 April 2016 - 23:12

The cars will look a tad better. I'm all for the end of the pole vault rear wing, just that is a great improvement IMHO.


Well, so long as it looks nice.

FFS.

#3961 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 09 April 2016 - 23:28

Fight over the from Pirelli demanded test car to test the new tyres: It would cost 10 m and nobody want to build one. Furthermore many engineers said in Bahrain that the current cars have simply not enough scope to increase the downforce as much as Pirelli want for the test and to put wider tyres on it. The cars are simply not builed for that.

 

The people who are not in favour of these changes are now hoping that without a test car Pirelli wont be able to produce the tyres, hence the rule changes wouldn't happen.

 

http://www.auto-moto...lli-770140.html

 

You know, if the FIA and the teams were competent they would have decided the new regulations last year and then Pirelli would have had time to build a test car.

 

But of course this is F1 so they're going to change the cars in 9 months without testing any of it beforehand and it looks like Pirelli is going to have to just guess and take all the flack again if the tyres are wrong.

 

Why isn't there a NASCAR Car of Tomorrow style program that the F1 teams invest in so they can test their different concepts for the sport, it would save the sport so much money in the long run.



#3962 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 4,492 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 April 2016 - 13:51

Did CoT rely on teams or tire supplier paying for its development? Probably not. FOM should be paying for the test car or whatever Pirelli needs. Or they should contract tire supply from a more capable company.



#3963 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 10 April 2016 - 13:56

Well, so long as it looks nice.

FFS.

No, it's at least they will look nicer.



#3964 superden

superden
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 10 April 2016 - 17:25

No, it's at least they will look nicer.


Did you miss my sarcasm?

I should have made it more obvious ...

#3965 917k

917k
  • Member

  • 2,957 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 10 April 2016 - 17:31

I've said it before - we already have what the 'fans' have clambered for, for years - low downforce, lots of hp and huge torque and less grip. The cars, in qualie, are as quick as anything in the past.

 

All we need is better tires and scrap the fuel-flow limit.



#3966 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 10 April 2016 - 19:40

You know, if the FIA and the teams were competent they would have decided the new regulations last year and then Pirelli would have had time to build a test car.

 

But of course this is F1 so they're going to change the cars in 9 months without testing any of it beforehand and it looks like Pirelli is going to have to just guess and take all the flack again if the tyres are wrong.

 

Why isn't there a NASCAR Car of Tomorrow style program that the F1 teams invest in so they can test their different concepts for the sport, it would save the sport so much money in the long run.

Perhaps they have no money to invest.



#3967 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 10 April 2016 - 21:30

Perhaps they have no money to invest.

 

The teams? They are paying a combined $2.5 billion+ a year to compete.

 

They'd need to invest just 0.5% of their annual budgets to create a reference platform for companies like Pirelli to use.

 

0.5% on making sure the tyres don't suck sounds like a sound investment.



#3968 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,402 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 10 April 2016 - 21:42

I've said it before - we already have what the 'fans' have clambered for, for years - low downforce, lots of hp and huge torque and less grip. The cars, in qualie, are as quick as anything in the past.

 

All we need is better tires and scrap the fuel-flow limit.

 

No, you need to scrap the race fuel limit, not the fuel flow limit.



#3969 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,740 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 April 2016 - 07:07

Does anyone have any acceleration plots for the current cars vs previous incarnations of the regs? Would be interesting to see where the new cars lose out due to the extra 100kg.



#3970 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,393 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 11 April 2016 - 10:04

My guess is braking and mid corner speed.

#3971 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,740 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 11 April 2016 - 10:54

My guess is braking and mid corner speed.

 

Sure. It's the straight line speeds I care about. We know the current cars have lower downforce than previously and more mass -> automatically slower in the corners.



#3972 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 5,750 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 11 April 2016 - 12:25

I've said it before - we already have what the 'fans' have clambered for, for years - low downforce, lots of hp and huge torque and less grip. The cars, in qualie, are as quick as anything in the past.

 

All we need is better tires and scrap the fuel-flow limit.

 

This.  :up:



#3973 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 11 April 2016 - 13:47

I could understand the 2017 proposals in light of where the current formula started in 2014. But the cars are so much faster this year that I can see why they may abandon it all together.

 

ONLY because they are "cheating" the rules with the rake and elaborate front wings.

 

Let's: Ban rake ("front and rear ride heights, relative to the reference plane, must be within 1mm of each other" - simple) and ban elaborate front wings ("max 2 elements and flat endplates")

 So they should do that! It would be amusing.  :lol:   :up:

 

Sadly the proposed changes pander to the teams and don't force them to redesign their aero from scratch  :mad:


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 11 April 2016 - 13:49.


#3974 LiftAndCoast

LiftAndCoast
  • Member

  • 2,398 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 12 April 2016 - 10:59

Paddy Lowe on the science of F1 overtaking. A very worrying read for those of us who are concerned that the 2017 changes will make the racing worse -

http://www.espn.co.u...king-means-2017

Edited by LiftAndCoast, 12 April 2016 - 10:59.


#3975 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 April 2016 - 11:30

He's still supporting his findings that what's there (the pole vault rear wing, the snow plower front wing) are the right choices. After 7 years of seeing it failing - while GP2 and Indy cars, which run GE tunnels, can pass.

 

He's just spinning it IMHO, just like the obnoxious Williams' guy.

 

Not saying the 2017 rules are good for overtaking, just saying this guy is full of manure.



#3976 Kristian

Kristian
  • Member

  • 4,365 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 12 April 2016 - 11:35

I would like bigger tyres, but leave the aero as it is. We don't need more. 

 

I'm assuming DRS is staying in these regs? 



#3977 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,393 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 12 April 2016 - 11:43

The OWG said before the 2009 changes that they found underbody aero to be more sensitive which is why they concentrated on the new wings. Most series that run tunnels and other underbody devices are either full spec like GP2 or have control floors like IndyCar. Is it too hard for F1 to regulate venturi tunnels now without following a similar control path??



#3978 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 April 2016 - 11:58

And what exactly would be the problem with controlling it? That's why it doesn't change: you get the aero techs from the top teams to suggest what will be done, they will hold on tight to their advantages.


Edited by saudoso, 12 April 2016 - 11:59.


#3979 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,402 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 12 April 2016 - 12:02

And what exactly would be the problem with controlling it? That's why it doesn't change: you get the aero techs from the top teams to suggest what will be done, they will hold on tight to their advantages.

 

It needs to be a whole of car design review.

 

Probably just adding tunnels (more likely just adding a bigger diffuser, which is what GP2, Indy have) won't change too much for overtaking.

 

It needs an FIA technical committee to define the rules, using resources such as CFD and wind tunnels to check how it all works.



Advertisement

#3980 superden

superden
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 12 April 2016 - 13:18

Make the front wings simpler for a start FFS.

It's not difficult in the slightest, unless of course somebody decided to try and make it so. I can't imagine who might have a vested interest in ensuring the continuance of massive over dependence on front wing aero ...

#3981 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 23,378 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 12 April 2016 - 14:42

Not sure if this has been posted before, but saw it linked at F1technical: http://www.motorspor...in-2017-676318/



#3982 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 5,750 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 12 April 2016 - 16:55

Paddy Lowe on the science of F1 overtaking. A very worrying read for those of us who are concerned that the 2017 changes will make the racing worse -

http://www.espn.co.u...king-means-2017

 

Paddy is spot on, plus he has scientific data to back up his opinion.

I'd like to see a journo put Newey and Horner on the spot regarding their opinion.



#3983 TF110

TF110
  • Member

  • 3,068 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 12 April 2016 - 17:10

He's not spot-on. He's preaching from the top. He denies that underbody aero would help but it's proven otherwise. People don't get it, he's protecting his and his team's interests. Mercedes are at the front and will stay that way without change. The 2009 rules were not a cure. Blaming double diffusers is a joke as well. The overtaking didn't magically increase when they were banned. Like the article said, overtaking jumped with gimmicky rules like drs and tires that can't be run at full pace. I'd rather no passes on the straight than a dumb wing opening. It's hardly that big of a deal now. The guy getting past using drs is usually the faster car anyway. Then they pull away. That could happen without drs if the front wing wasn't the sole producer of downforce on the car.



#3984 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 5,750 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 12 April 2016 - 17:39

He denies that underbody aero would help but it's proven otherwise.

 

Standardized underbody and aero on spec cars are your example of proven otherwise? 



#3985 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 April 2016 - 19:48

Exactly.



#3986 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 April 2016 - 19:50

It needs to be a whole of car design review.

 

Probably just adding tunnels (more likely just adding a bigger diffuser, which is what GP2, Indy have) won't change too much for overtaking.

 

It needs an FIA technical committee to define the rules, using resources such as CFD and wind tunnels to check how it all works.

I agree with you. But someone else has to do it. You can't leave it to Newey & Co.



#3987 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 12 April 2016 - 21:01

He's still supporting his findings that what's there (the pole vault rear wing, the snow plower front wing) are the right choices. After 7 years of seeing it failing - while GP2 and Indy cars, which run GE tunnels, can pass.

 

He's just spinning it IMHO, just like the obnoxious Williams' guy.

 

Not saying the 2017 rules are good for overtaking, just saying this guy is full of manure.

 

The OWG said before the 2009 changes that they found underbody aero to be more sensitive which is why they concentrated on the new wings. Most series that run tunnels and other underbody devices are either full spec like GP2 or have control floors like IndyCar. Is it too hard for F1 to regulate venturi tunnels now without following a similar control path??

 

The difference between GP2 and Indycar to F1 is that their wings are very simple. F1 cars do have a diffuser, and had a bigger one through 2008 and then a different and still large iteration in 2009, 2010 due to an exploit, yet they could not follow each other at all. Like he says, everyone can be an amateur aerodynamicist but the answer is not as simple as "use big diffuser". 



#3988 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,700 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 12 April 2016 - 21:07

Lowe is essentially correct. Underbody aero is often less susceptible to turbulence but it isn't an absolute given, especially if open development is allowed. Obviously he's going to favour keeping his team's advantage, but he isn't lying.



#3989 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 April 2016 - 21:22

The difference between GP2 and Indycar to F1 is that their wings are very simple. F1 cars do have a diffuser, and had a bigger one through 2008 and then a different and still large iteration in 2009, 2010 due to an exploit, yet they could not follow each other at all. Like he says, everyone can be an amateur aerodynamicist but the answer is not as simple as "use big diffuser". 

And that's exactly the point: Increased underbody aero, the end of the dumb behind the rear axle diffuser rule and simpler wings. Better racing, better looking cars.

 

Perfect. IMO.



#3990 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 April 2016 - 21:23

Lowe is essentially correct. Underbody aero is often less susceptible to turbulence but it isn't an absolute given, especially if open development is allowed. Obviously he's going to favour keeping his team's advantage, but he isn't lying.

He isn't lying. He's  just spinning the hell out of the truth.



#3991 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,402 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 13 April 2016 - 00:18

I agree with you. But someone else has to do it. You can't leave it to Newey & Co.

 

Yes, it's a job for an FIA working group.

 

I'm sure that they could get a group of talented aerodynamicists, who aren't currently involved in teams, that could work up some concepts.



#3992 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,402 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 13 April 2016 - 00:22

He isn't lying. He's  just spinning the hell out of the truth.

 

Paddy Lowe also said this will be the first time in F1 history where the intention was to increase downforce with a regulation change.

 

And that the OWG found that lower downforce cars allowed for better overtaking.

 

And that the cars now have reached a point where their downforce really ought to be cut. So he is actually arguing for lower downforce.



#3993 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,740 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 13 April 2016 - 06:22

Does anyone pushing for more underbody aero have any data to demonstrate it would improve things by either reducing the wake size or decreasing sensitivity when running in wake?

 

The OWG findings for 2009 regs state the opposite.



#3994 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 April 2016 - 11:52

Does anyone pushing for more underbody aero have any data to demonstrate it would improve things by either reducing the wake size or decreasing sensitivity when running in wake?

 

The OWG findings for 2009 regs state the opposite.

At least two whole series running like that count or not? That's theory versus practice, and theory is taking a beating.


Edited by saudoso, 13 April 2016 - 11:53.


#3995 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,740 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 13 April 2016 - 12:40

At least two whole series running like that count or not? That's theory versus practice, and theory is taking a beating.

 

Too many other variables. I want to see wind tunnel data - that's fundamentally required to make a decision. 

 

Lower series tend to have closer racing due to driver inexperience (more mistakes, less consistency) and less fine-tuned cars for any given race.



#3996 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 5,750 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 April 2016 - 12:55

At least two whole series running like that count or not? That's theory versus practice, and theory is taking a beating.

 

Those are spec series. The cars are less than a second per lap of each other. Furthermore the downforce is limited and substantially less than what an F1 car currently generates.

Try again.



#3997 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 April 2016 - 14:23

No one will never see such data. Because if they have it, they don't want it seen.

#3998 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 April 2016 - 14:25

Those are spec series. The cars are less than a second per lap of each other. Furthermore the downforce is limited and substantially less than what an F1 car currently generates.
Try again.


Iff all things spec or highly regulated in F1 I just don't give a damn if aero development freedom gets the axe. Try again.

#3999 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 5,750 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 April 2016 - 14:46

Iff all things spec or highly regulated in F1 I just don't give a damn if aero development freedom gets the axe. Try again.

 

Good luck getting the teams to agree to axe aero development after having spent fortunes on wind tunnels and infrastructure. If that's what you want then perhaps there are more suitable viewing options other than F1 for you, because IMO it's never going away. The best way forward is to minimize aero impact, not increase it like the morons are proposing.



Advertisement

#4000 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 24,465 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 13 April 2016 - 20:02

Closed due to the thread reaching its maximum size. The thread discussion continues here: http://forums.autosp...hanges-part-ii/