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.
Posted 09 April 2016 - 15:28
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.
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....
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.
Posted 09 April 2016 - 16:11
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.
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.
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.
Posted 09 April 2016 - 22:54
Edited by RedOne, 09 April 2016 - 22:56.
Advertisement
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted 10 April 2016 - 13:56
Well, so long as it looks nice.
FFS.
No, it's at least they will look nicer.
Posted 10 April 2016 - 17:25
No, it's at least they will look nicer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted 11 April 2016 - 10:04
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.
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.
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.
Sadly the proposed changes pander to the teams and don't force them to redesign their aero from scratch
Edited by V8 Fireworks, 11 April 2016 - 13:49.
Posted 12 April 2016 - 10:59
Edited by LiftAndCoast, 12 April 2016 - 10:59.
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.
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?
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??
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.
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
Posted 12 April 2016 - 13:18
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/
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.
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.
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?
Posted 12 April 2016 - 19:48
Exactly.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted 13 April 2016 - 14:23
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.
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
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/