19 replies to this topic

[MatsNorway]

Short summarising:

 

1. Bigger rear tires

2. Longer diffuser

3. Lower rear wing

4. No more straight profile front wing..(When seen from above)

5. a more sculpted and spesified shape of rear wing endplates++

6. Slightly different sidepods.

 

Edited by MatsNorway, 02 January 2016 - 12:35.

[gruntguru]

About 50:50 - half the changes to make the cars faster, half to make them look faster.

[desmo]

It's for 2017, not 2016.  I'm not really sure making the cars seconds faster in lap times (necessarily making them more aero dependent) would improve the spectacle appreciably and the goal itself seems strange to me when the whole purpose of regulating the design is to constrain the performance for the sake of safety. Some of the changes seem based in restyling the cars by redefining their shape whereas having rulemakers closely defining the shapes is to me antithetical to the historic spirit of motorsport where form is primarily defined by function rather than by rule. This path of close definition of the cars' form by rule seems like a wrongheaded way to approach regulating "the pinnacle of motorsport".  F1 should have the smallest rule book in motorsport, rather than the largest, the cars shouldn't be "styled" at all by the rules beyond safety considerations. Mandating the precise angle of the leading edges of the sidepods or the shape of the RWEPs to make them "look" racier is symptomatic of a fundamentally flawed approach to regulating the sport.  F1 needs a clean sheet rethink of the regulations, not further iterations of the current path.   

[MatsNorway]

Oh.. Can i blame that i just woke up when i posted and that i heard 2016? Anyway.. I agree with Karun.. That front wing should be a forced simpler design.  Indeed a missed opportunity.

Desmo.. Edit to 2017 if you can/want to. also why can't we chance the header? Post postem.. (heh..)

Edited by MatsNorway, 02 January 2016 - 19:45.

[Chubby_Deuce]

How practical would a return to full on ground effects and no wings at all be?

 

If over-reliance on downforce from wings is what's killing F1 then why do we keep getting these incremental reductions in wing size that are almost immediately negated by a year of work in the wind tunnel?

[desmo]

I've wondered the same. Seeing open wheelers with no visible wings would be odd, I wonder if you could get enough underbody df to keep them faster than GP2 regardless of tires and engine?  I also wonder if it's true, as is commonly asserted, that underbody df would be less degraded by following in the wake of another car (or maybe less dirty air in the wake, same effect)? Might it be a good idea to then leave some little vestigal airfoils to tune f/r aero balance more easily?  The six figure front wings with seven or more stacked elements and various flips and flaps are screaming at me that the current rules are broken.

[imaginesix]

I've wondered the same. Seeing open wheelers with no visible wings would be odd, I wonder if you could get enough underbody df to keep them faster than GP2 regardless of tires and engine?  I also wonder if it's true, as is commonly asserted, that underbody df would be less degraded by following in the wake of another car (or maybe less dirty air in the wake, same effect)? Might it be a good idea to then leave some little vestigal airfoils to tune f/r aero balance more easily?  The six figure front wings with seven or more stacked elements and various flips and flaps are screaming at me that the current rules are broken.

AKA nose cams.

[Greg Locock]

I vaguely remember that the current underbody diffuser system gives about half the downforce of the car , so you'd need a bit more area and a bit more efficiency, maybe we need to go to sliding skirts again if you want to lose most of the front wing. The rear wing is part of  the rear venturi, it could easily be replaced by a longer floor

[saudoso]

The rules mandate flat fooor between axles and imposes a pretty shalow extractor angle. There's plenty of room for increasing downforce and bringing the COP foward before resorting to skirts.

[MatsNorway]

Drop the weight limit and you won't be needing massive wings to achieve the same laps. They are running with tungsten lumps in the bottom of the car anyway.. at least they did. Not sure anymore with the forced battery stuff.

[Fat Boy]

Make them sound like a real racecar.

 

Wheelspin available in the first 4-5 gears....7 gears max.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Cut the downforce by a ton and you'll get the same effect. Limit it a lot but within certain boxes free it up.

 

But no one wants to. NASCAR is finally understanding the drivers want less grip and it actually looks pretty good so they're going to try a version of it. 

 

I think Indycar should up the lol-factor and make them run the Indy 500 spec everywhere. Hilariously long brake zones, lower corner speeds, wheelspin everrrrrrywhere. 

 

Or, I dunno, could we go back to bias-ply? If they had slip angles the layman could see, that'd do a lot psychologically. 

[saudoso]

I could live with that.

[Fat Boy]

Cut the downforce by a ton and you'll get the same effect. Limit it a lot but within certain boxes free it up.

 

But no one wants to. NASCAR is finally understanding the drivers want less grip and it actually looks pretty good so they're going to try a version of it. 

 

I think Indycar should up the lol-factor and make them run the Indy 500 spec everywhere. Hilariously long brake zones, lower corner speeds, wheelspin everrrrrrywhere. 

 

Or, I dunno, could we go back to bias-ply? If they had slip angles the layman could see, that'd do a lot psychologically. 

 

Here's the problem I see with many of the faster cars. They're an amazing spectacle, but one that people have a very difficult time relating to. When a normal fan watches an Indycar or F1 car go around a track it's just speed. They don't see the subtle movements. They don't see the car slide. They'll say something along the lines of "The car's on rails" or "stuck like glue". A trained eye will watch a car go around Indy and say, "That car is F-ing LOOSE!" Normal fans just can't see it.

 

They have to be fast, but they have to move around as well. It's tough to produce that. Bias-ply tires might get you partially there. They suck to work with and they aren't as safe as a radial. We'd have to somehow bridge the gaps between the spectacle and the technology. I think it could be done, though.

 

After all, if you don't think this is cool to watch, you can't be my friend.

Edited by Fat Boy, 04 January 2016 - 17:27.

[MatsNorway]

If you want the laptimes to remain the same and also want less aero dependent cars the only true options is less weight, more hp and more tire.

 

They are looking into more rear tire..

 

And i agree, the entire car should be a flat bottom. They would not run them as low as now if they had flat underside.

 

They would need that downforce.. And that aero from the underfloor would be choked if they where scraping the cars around... i guess that would be benefitial on the straights but yeah.. still better than scraping the ground everywhere else as well...

 

One Question: what chances would the bigger rear tire mean for balance, packaging and Weight Distribution? are the WD still locked by the rules?

 

Im assuming they would put some more weight there but not neccesarily?

Edited by MatsNorway, 04 January 2016 - 20:43.

[Ross Stonefeld]

 

After all, if you don't think this is cool to watch, you can't be my friend.

 

About 10 years ago on a UK sat channel I saw a Lauda era F1 race, I think it was Brazil or something. The track was roughly the same so it had identifiable corners. My first thought was "jesus, these cars are *awful*"  They looked so poorly designed and put together vs the kind of speeds they were doing. Then again you go watch an F1 car from the late 90s/early 00s and you'd think they didn't have any dampers. 

 

I wonder how much is knowledge you can't go back from. The last great year of MotoGP was 2006 when they were 990cc with a tire war, relatively unsophisticated electronics, and no fuel restrictions. Rossi would come out of a corner with smoke genuinely coming off the rear. Nicky Hayden was every angle but straight. And it didn't slow them down. 

 

But I wonder if 10 years on even if you gave them that rules package again, they'd still go around the corners at these frankly baffling lean angles, try to get the power down smoothly, etc, et al. Like you can never unrefine these things. 

 

I think these days NASCAR is the only series with cars that are actively moving in the corner, but you can't really see the wheels or the steering at work. And Rallycross is almost too extreme, after a while I start to feel immune to how sideways they are in a hairpin. 

[Nanouk73]

I am not sure about all these changes. They probably are going in the right direction but I think the real problem is the reliability. Make the cars and drivers prone to failures  - that will spice things up, because it will increases the chance of some changes towards the end of the race. 

To achieve that is not so easy unfortunately. The engines (power units) and gearboxes have to last several races so they are all designed on the safe side. And single race engines and gearboxes would probably fall foul of being to expensive. Though I believe that costs regulate themselves in the sense that if nobody is prepared to pay the sums then they will find cheaper solutions.... but that is for another day.

As for the drivers, I think banning ALL (voice and data) radio communication would be a start. Also modifying the runoff areas to really punish a driver would be a good idea. I think it is more elite if a driver is just about out of the race when he/she drives off the circuit. These days they hardly even loose laptime.... As for driving the car, not sure what can be done there. a "proper" clutch and manually shifting is not going to come back, same with the throttle, so I admit I don´t really have an idea, maybe somebody else?

But I would be very happy if at least the circuit boundaries would present a decent threat to the drivers race (meaning being lucky to continue and loosing around 30secs)

Edited by Nanouk73, 04 January 2016 - 22:19.

[MatsNorway]

Hush Ross! Rallycross is looking pretty good today. Another fun class i wish i saw more of is those silly stadium trucks been raced on asfalt. Threewheeling and jumping etc.

 

Best motorsport moment for me was when i found an old race from Rallycross where Alamaki was driving 4wd 700-800hp Porsche and Schanche was in his little Escort. I remember Alamaki passing a car on on the outside.. on three wheels.. with a slide.. with smoke steaming out of the wheel arches.. im still looking for that clip on occation.

 

What motorsport needs is a Dana White type to make entertaining race series again.

 

We need:

Proper touring cars with proper stock bodies with very angry naturally aspirated engines and a more variable formula for the cars.. Fuel flow limited?++ why have a rev limit if ideal power is at 6-7k rpm.

Proper GT cars that actually outruns their street car equivalent in a straight line.. Less carbon fiber and with more of a static formula than that balance of performance crap.

Proper Open wheeler series (as often discussed here, not going in detail)

Nascar more back to their roots.

Top fuel/dragsters to run the 1/4 mile.

Group A rally again.. B is never going to happen again.. to wild!

LMP to ditch the "passenger" seat (looks silly anway) and let them keep going where they are going with minor tweaks to adjust costs on a regular basis.

Edited by MatsNorway, 04 January 2016 - 22:23.

[Fat Boy]

If you want the laptimes to remain the same and also want less aero dependent cars the only true options is less weight, more hp and more tire.

 

They are looking into more rear tire..

 

And i agree, the entire car should be a flat bottom. They would not run them as low as now if they had flat underside.

 

They would need that downforce.. And that aero from the underfloor would be choked if they where scraping the cars around... i guess that would be benefitial on the straights but yeah.. still better than scraping the ground everywhere else as well...

 

One Question: what chances would the bigger rear tire mean for balance, packaging and Weight Distribution? are the WD still locked by the rules?

 

Im assuming they would put some more weight there but not neccesarily?

 

Who cares if they run the same lap times? The visual difference between what they are running and a couple seconds slower is negligible. In many ways, slowing them down would make for a more engaging show.

 

The cars are going to be run on the deck regardless of what the bottom looks like. Make them run Ti pucks so they throw sparks.

 

Generally, a bigger rear tire means a bit more rearward weight bias and a little less front aero %.

 

Talking about what physical changes to make to the car is silly. Talk about what you want the show to look like, then work backwards. High slip angles, legitimate passing and the correct sound is all directionally correct. They're not apt to do any of it.

[Wuzak]

Generally, a bigger rear tire means a bit more rearward weight bias and a little less front aero %.

 

They are increasing teh front tyre width also, so the change in weight balance is probably not going to be much, if at all.