planetf1.com

Here's the statement:

http://www.fia.com/news/fia-statement-f ... a-one-cars

This is the overview of the bodywork changes:


Overall, I'm cautiously optimistic..

It is whatever for me I guess. I'll wait and see before I pass judgement but I am a bit concerned about the added aero.

My main gripe and what I cannot stand atm is the fuel capacity and fuel flow. They might do something about the capacity as I am reading on autosport today but fuel flow has to be removed as well.

Happy they've increased the weight, that'll help the bigger guys. Hate the unnecessary changes to the qualifying format.

I'll reserve judgement on the rest until I see it in action.

Lotus49 wrote:Happy they've increased the weight, that'll help the bigger guys. Hate the unnecessary changes to the qualifying format.

I'll reserve judgement on the rest until I see it in action.

I don't like that they are constantly increasing minimum weight. They have added 122 kg since 2010. That's 20% increase.

Most of the '17 regs seem fine. I just wish they would do away with the ridiculous front wings, they're just a hugely expensive drawback. But the teams have invested so much time and money into perfecting them over the years that they can't see any other way.

Give me this wing any day over the current monstrosities

http://www.f1racinggrid.co.uk/mclaren-mp44/

mcdo wrote:Most of the '17 regs seem fine. I just wish they would do away with the ridiculous front wings, they're just a hugely expensive drawback. But the teams have invested so much time and money into perfecting them over the years that they can't see any other way.

Give me this wing any day over the current monstrosities

http://www.f1racinggrid.co.uk/mclaren-mp44/

It's not just front wing. It's whole car aero that depends on front wing design.

https://tianyizf1.files.wordpress.com/2 ... us9f6h.gif

You can read more about it here: https://tianyizf1.wordpress.com/tag/y250-vortex/

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:Most of the '17 regs seem fine. I just wish they would do away with the ridiculous front wings, they're just a hugely expensive drawback. But the teams have invested so much time and money into perfecting them over the years that they can't see any other way.

Give me this wing any day over the current monstrosities

http://www.f1racinggrid.co.uk/mclaren-mp44/

It's not just front wing. It's whole car aero that depends on front wing design.

https://tianyizf1.files.wordpress.com/2 ... us9f6h.gif

You can read more about it here: https://tianyizf1.wordpress.com/tag/y250-vortex/

I know that, but what should it matter? Do away with the crazy front wings and let a simple wing dictate the aero further downstream.

Less emphasis on aero, more emphasis on mechanical grip is the way to go.

dizlexik wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:Happy they've increased the weight, that'll help the bigger guys. Hate the unnecessary changes to the qualifying format.

I'll reserve judgement on the rest until I see it in action.

I don't like that they are constantly increasing minimum weight. They have added 122 kg since 2010. That's 20% increase.

Don't these PU's weigh considerably more than the V8's?.

Doesn't bother me anyway really. I'm just happy the bigger guys won't be penalized as much as they are now(hopefully anyway).

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:Most of the '17 regs seem fine. I just wish they would do away with the ridiculous front wings, they're just a hugely expensive drawback. But the teams have invested so much time and money into perfecting them over the years that they can't see any other way.

Give me this wing any day over the current monstrosities

http://www.f1racinggrid.co.uk/mclaren-mp44/

It's not just front wing. It's whole car aero that depends on front wing design.

https://tianyizf1.files.wordpress.com/2 ... us9f6h.gif

You can read more about it here: https://tianyizf1.wordpress.com/tag/y250-vortex/

I know that, but what should it matter? Do away with the crazy front wings and let a simple wing dictate the aero further downstream.

Less emphasis on aero, more emphasis on mechanical grip is the way to go.

How would you increase mechanical grip to maintain the same cornering speeds?

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:Most of the '17 regs seem fine. I just wish they would do away with the ridiculous front wings, they're just a hugely expensive drawback. But the teams have invested so much time and money into perfecting them over the years that they can't see any other way.

Give me this wing any day over the current monstrosities

http://www.f1racinggrid.co.uk/mclaren-mp44/

It's not just front wing. It's whole car aero that depends on front wing design.

https://tianyizf1.files.wordpress.com/2 ... us9f6h.gif

You can read more about it here: https://tianyizf1.wordpress.com/tag/y250-vortex/

I know that, but what should it matter? Do away with the crazy front wings and let a simple wing dictate the aero further downstream.

Less emphasis on aero, more emphasis on mechanical grip is the way to go.

How would you increase mechanical grip to maintain the same cornering speeds?

Their bigger tyre plans are a good start. Focusing on underfloor aero while restricting wings would be better.

Anyway... why are cornering speeds important? Making F1 cars faster by no means makes them better to watch or makes the racing any way more entertaining. People are putting focus on the wrong areas. Cornering speeds... I couldn't give a toss about them myself

Bargeboards should be banned as well. It's yet another item that is stuck on the car and can have a huge effect on the car. The teams with all the money run different ones all the time whereas the smaller teams simply can't do this. They don't have any real overlap to road cars, (I personally don't think F1 should to be honest, but F1 teams seem to want this) plus they are something than can easily be broken off causing a the car to perform badly and leaving some nice sharp carbon to spoil someone else's race.

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:Most of the '17 regs seem fine. I just wish they would do away with the ridiculous front wings, they're just a hugely expensive drawback. But the teams have invested so much time and money into perfecting them over the years that they can't see any other way.

Give me this wing any day over the current monstrosities

http://www.f1racinggrid.co.uk/mclaren-mp44/

It's not just front wing. It's whole car aero that depends on front wing design.

https://tianyizf1.files.wordpress.com/2 ... us9f6h.gif

You can read more about it here: https://tianyizf1.wordpress.com/tag/y250-vortex/

I know that, but what should it matter? Do away with the crazy front wings and let a simple wing dictate the aero further downstream.

Less emphasis on aero, more emphasis on mechanical grip is the way to go.

How would you increase mechanical grip to maintain the same cornering speeds?

Their bigger tyre plans are a good start. Focusing on underfloor aero while restricting wings would be better.

Anyway... why are cornering speeds important? Making F1 cars faster by no means makes them better to watch or makes the racing any way more entertaining. People are putting focus on the wrong areas. Cornering speeds... I couldn't give a toss about them myself

But this is why F1 cars are quick on single lap. On straight some road Lambos or Ferraris are faster.

Asphalt_World wrote:Bargeboards should be banned as well. It's yet another item that is stuck on the car and can have a huge effect on the car. The teams with all the money run different ones all the time whereas the smaller teams simply can't do this. They don't have any real overlap to road cars, (I personally don't think F1 should to be honest, but F1 teams seem to want this) plus they are something than can easily be broken off causing a the car to perform badly and leaving some nice sharp carbon to spoil someone else's race.

Are you talking about front wing endplates? I don't recall ever seeing bargeboards being broken that often.

If you do mean bargeboards then you're going to be disappointed because the area where they are is going to be less restricted with the 2017 rules according to the link in the OP so they'll probably get bigger.

Front wing endplates are going to simplified according to the same press release.

RaggedMan wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:Bargeboards should be banned as well. It's yet another item that is stuck on the car and can have a huge effect on the car. The teams with all the money run different ones all the time whereas the smaller teams simply can't do this. They don't have any real overlap to road cars, (I personally don't think F1 should to be honest, but F1 teams seem to want this) plus they are something than can easily be broken off causing a the car to perform badly and leaving some nice sharp carbon to spoil someone else's race.

Are you talking about front wing endplates? I don't recall ever seeing bargeboards being broken that often.

If you do mean bargeboards then you're going to be disappointed because the area where they are is going to be less restricted with the 2017 rules according to the link in the OP so they'll probably get bigger.

Front wing endplates are going to simplified according to the same press release.

I do mean bargeboards, I know they are not often knocked off, but they seem a pointless addition. They have no relevance anywhere else which F1 wants things to be, and they are another area the big teams can exploit more than the smaller teams. Just look at the ones Merc are testing!

Wider tyres are good, not simply because we need the cars to corner faster, but a move to more mechanical grip over aero grip should help cars follow closer to each other in the corners. This will allow for more passing chances.

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:It's not just front wing. It's whole car aero that depends on front wing design.

https://tianyizf1.files.wordpress.com/2 ... us9f6h.gif

You can read more about it here: https://tianyizf1.wordpress.com/tag/y250-vortex/

I know that, but what should it matter? Do away with the crazy front wings and let a simple wing dictate the aero further downstream.

Less emphasis on aero, more emphasis on mechanical grip is the way to go.

How would you increase mechanical grip to maintain the same cornering speeds?

Their bigger tyre plans are a good start. Focusing on underfloor aero while restricting wings would be better.

Anyway... why are cornering speeds important? Making F1 cars faster by no means makes them better to watch or makes the racing any way more entertaining. People are putting focus on the wrong areas. Cornering speeds... I couldn't give a toss about them myself

But this is why F1 cars are quick on single lap. On straight some road Lambos or Ferraris are faster.

The car in the photo above went plenty fast over a single lap and, by comparison to today, that is pretty basic aero. They don't need the current monstrous front wings to pump out the laptimes.

We can always give them something similar to the front wing of the car that still holds a few lap records


http://www.statsf1.com/en/ferrari-f2004.aspx

Obviously more complex than the McLaren above but nothing like what we have today. Took the corners just fine

I loathe regulations designed to produce good aesthetics. I also think the cars at 722kg are getting quite fat. Personally I have no issue with smaller drivers having a slight advantage. Certainly being heavier set or taller is advantage in most other sports and I see no action to equalize there.

mcdo wrote:The car in the photo above went plenty fast over a single lap and, by comparison to today, that is pretty basic aero. They don't need the current monstrous front wings to pump out the laptimes.

We can always give them something similar to the front wing of the car that still holds a few lap records


http://www.statsf1.com/en/ferrari-f2004.aspx

Obviously more complex than the McLaren above but nothing like what we have today. Took the corners just fine

This isn't exactly the same wing as that McLaren. It's probably closer to how wings looks now than the McLaren.

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:The car in the photo above went plenty fast over a single lap and, by comparison to today, that is pretty basic aero. They don't need the current monstrous front wings to pump out the laptimes.

We can always give them something similar to the front wing of the car that still holds a few lap records


http://www.statsf1.com/en/ferrari-f2004.aspx

Obviously more complex than the McLaren above but nothing like what we have today. Took the corners just fine

This isn't exactly the same wing as that McLaren. It's probably closer to how wings looks now than the McLaren.

Nothing to do with my point but whatever

Text "driver of the day is (driver number)" to Gimmimoremoney. Texts cost £1 plus your normal network rate, and millions of morons will text.

Just make the frontwing narrower, and less plowlike. Generally the rear wing should be made wider and lower, the frontwing should not be the wider wing. The cars should be shorter and wider overall, atleast we get wider with the new tyres.

Pretty much like the F2004 and those aerospeccs looks good.

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:The car in the photo above went plenty fast over a single lap and, by comparison to today, that is pretty basic aero. They don't need the current monstrous front wings to pump out the laptimes.

We can always give them something similar to the front wing of the car that still holds a few lap records


http://www.statsf1.com/en/ferrari-f2004.aspx

Obviously more complex than the McLaren above but nothing like what we have today. Took the corners just fine

This isn't exactly the same wing as that McLaren. It's probably closer to how wings looks now than the McLaren.

Nothing to do with my point but whatever

How so? I thought you wanted simple wings?

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:The car in the photo above went plenty fast over a single lap and, by comparison to today, that is pretty basic aero. They don't need the current monstrous front wings to pump out the laptimes.

We can always give them something similar to the front wing of the car that still holds a few lap records


http://www.statsf1.com/en/ferrari-f2004.aspx

Obviously more complex than the McLaren above but nothing like what we have today. Took the corners just fine

This isn't exactly the same wing as that McLaren. It's probably closer to how wings looks now than the McLaren.

Nothing to do with my point but whatever

How so? I thought you wanted simple wings?

Look at that and look at this monstrosity




Ideally I would prefer a single or double element front wing with simple endplates. And the width to be within the front two tyres. But at a push I'd take the F2004-style as a compromise.

The current wings are expensive, silly looking and do the opposite of everything they're always harping on about with regards to overtaking

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:The car in the photo above went plenty fast over a single lap and, by comparison to today, that is pretty basic aero. They don't need the current monstrous front wings to pump out the laptimes.

We can always give them something similar to the front wing of the car that still holds a few lap records


http://www.statsf1.com/en/ferrari-f2004.aspx

Obviously more complex than the McLaren above but nothing like what we have today. Took the corners just fine

This isn't exactly the same wing as that McLaren. It's probably closer to how wings looks now than the McLaren.

Nothing to do with my point but whatever

How so? I thought you wanted simple wings?

Look at that and look at this monstrosity




Ideally I would prefer a single or double element front wing with simple endplates. And the width to be within the front two tyres. But at a push I'd take the F2004-style as a compromise.

The current wings are expensive, silly looking and do the opposite of everything they're always harping on about with regards to overtaking

Silly looking, maybe, but the cars are still much simpler than the 2008 ones. My point is that F1 teams are incredibly good at finding ways to spend a lot of money. Look they simplified aero regulations in 2009 and guess what teams spend even more or aero than before.


Source: wikipedia commons

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:The car in the photo above went plenty fast over a single lap and, by comparison to today, that is pretty basic aero. They don't need the current monstrous front wings to pump out the laptimes.

We can always give them something similar to the front wing of the car that still holds a few lap records


http://www.statsf1.com/en/ferrari-f2004.aspx

Obviously more complex than the McLaren above but nothing like what we have today. Took the corners just fine

This isn't exactly the same wing as that McLaren. It's probably closer to how wings looks now than the McLaren.

Nothing to do with my point but whatever

How so? I thought you wanted simple wings?

Look at that and look at this monstrosity




Ideally I would prefer a single or double element front wing with simple endplates. And the width to be within the front two tyres. But at a push I'd take the F2004-style as a compromise.

The current wings are expensive, silly looking and do the opposite of everything they're always harping on about with regards to overtaking

I'm with you on this. I think the front wings more than anything give lie to the claim that F1 wants to make things road relevant. I'm sure I read somewhere that they are one of the most expensive parts on the car and are incredibly sensitive to dirty air. They work best with nothing in front of the car, which just gives the car in front an advantage in any overtaking scenario.

I think simpler front wings are desirable, but I know the teams are against it as they form one of the biggest differentiators between the cars

All looks good to me. Wider tyres, wider floor, wider body work. Lots of little simplifications. Smart move I think. I don't really see anything that I don't like. Hairpins in Monaco might be a little tight two cars wide.

I'm another one for simple front wings.

Ex-driver pundits who know what they're talking about, as well as current drivers for that matter, have been saying for years that they are probably the biggest reason for the difficulty in following the car in front.

Simplify the front wing and make up for the grip lost with under-body aero and wider tyres, it's not a difficult thing to do.

moby wrote:Text "driver of the day is (driver number)" to Gimmimoremoney. Texts cost £1 plus your normal network rate, and millions of morons will text.

Pity Maldo's gone, you just know there would be a facebook campaign to make him driver of the day every weekend.

mcdo wrote: Look at that and look at this monstrosity

I don't really understand what's so monstrous about that. It is fantastically detailed and fit for purpose. I like it.

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:This isn't exactly the same wing as that McLaren. It's probably closer to how wings looks now than the McLaren.

Nothing to do with my point but whatever

How so? I thought you wanted simple wings?

Look at that and look at this monstrosity




Ideally I would prefer a single or double element front wing with simple endplates. And the width to be within the front two tyres. But at a push I'd take the F2004-style as a compromise.

The current wings are expensive, silly looking and do the opposite of everything they're always harping on about with regards to overtaking

Silly looking, maybe, but the cars are still much simpler than the 2008 ones. My point is that F1 teams are incredibly good at finding ways to spend a lot of money. Look they simplified aero regulations in 2009 and guess what teams spend even more or aero than before.


Source: wikipedia commons

That maybe be so but it has very little to do with my point. Yes, the teams are very good at finding aero and spending a lot of money in doing so. Give them a simple front wing and let them find all the aero they want behind it

mcdo wrote:That maybe be so but it has very little to do with my point. Yes, the teams are very good at finding aero and spending a lot of money in doing so. Give them a simple front wing and let them find all the aero they want behind it

In this case it doesn't seem to serve any purpose, other than ascetics. Even with simple wing, other parts of the car as a whole will probably be still very sensitive to any distribution cause by following other cars. Beside that as someone said they wings look well with all the details. The front wing look as such is very minor issue now anyway.

Just a thought on front wings, but why should a car go round a corner like its on rails? That is where driver skill comes into its own. You want entertainment..

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:That maybe be so but it has very little to do with my point. Yes, the teams are very good at finding aero and spending a lot of money in doing so. Give them a simple front wing and let them find all the aero they want behind it

In this case it doesn't seem to serve any purpose, other than ascetics. Even with simple wing, other parts of the car as a whole will probably be still very sensitive to any distribution cause by following other cars. Beside that as someone said they wings look well with all the details. The front wing look as such is very minor issue now anyway.

As stated by Zoue and JohnnyGuitar above, they're too sensitive to dirty air. They're detrimental to following in the wake of a car in front. And God forbid a driver taps off another car - 4/5 elements lost in an instant. They're overdeveloped, big and clunky and do nothing for actual racing

Make them out of aluminium. Problem solved.

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:That maybe be so but it has very little to do with my point. Yes, the teams are very good at finding aero and spending a lot of money in doing so. Give them a simple front wing and let them find all the aero they want behind it

In this case it doesn't seem to serve any purpose, other than ascetics. Even with simple wing, other parts of the car as a whole will probably be still very sensitive to any distribution cause by following other cars. Beside that as someone said they wings look well with all the details. The front wing look as such is very minor issue now anyway.

As stated by Zoue and JohnnyGuitar above, they're too sensitive to dirty air. They're detrimental to following in the wake of a car in front. And God forbid a driver taps off another car - 4/5 elements lost in an instant. They're overdeveloped, big and clunky and do nothing for actual racing

They're beautifully detailed, fit for purpose and help make the car go as fast as possible within the regulations.

mds wrote:

mcdo wrote: Look at that and look at this monstrosity

I don't really understand what's so monstrous about that. It is fantastically detailed and fit for purpose. I like it.

I agree with you 100% they are beautiful and an incredible peice of engineering. Infinitely more impressive than a flat angled plank.

That wing is one of the main reasons we have abominations like DRS

mcdo wrote:That wing is one of the main reasons we have abominations like DRS

No, the regulations are. That wing is the best solution to the current regulations.

mds wrote:

mcdo wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

mcdo wrote:That maybe be so but it has very little to do with my point. Yes, the teams are very good at finding aero and spending a lot of money in doing so. Give them a simple front wing and let them find all the aero they want behind it

In this case it doesn't seem to serve any purpose, other than ascetics. Even with simple wing, other parts of the car as a whole will probably be still very sensitive to any distribution cause by following other cars. Beside that as someone said they wings look well with all the details. The front wing look as such is very minor issue now anyway.

As stated by Zoue and JohnnyGuitar above, they're too sensitive to dirty air. They're detrimental to following in the wake of a car in front. And God forbid a driver taps off another car - 4/5 elements lost in an instant. They're overdeveloped, big and clunky and do nothing for actual racing

They're beautifully detailed, fit for purpose and help make the car go as fast as possible within the regulations.

No-one's arguing they're not detailed - quite the contrary. They are impressive pieces of engineering. The question is how much they add to or detract from the actual racing. They may well make the cars go faster but the more complicated they are the more sensitive to airflow they become and the more difficult they make overtaking.

As far as regulations go, that's the point, surely. Of course they will be made if the regulations allow it, but when everyone in F1 is bemoaning costs as well as the difficulties encountered in overtaking, it seems a no-brainer that things like this, which are both ridiculously expensive and contribute quite heavily to overtaking difficulties, are put under the spotlight and questions asked as to whether they are actually fit for purpose

mds wrote:

mcdo wrote:That wing is one of the main reasons we have abominations like DRS

No, the regulations are. That wing is the best solution to the current regulations.

What thread do you think this is?