FIA Changes for 2017

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
Herb
Posts: 2292
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm

FIA Changes for 2017

Post by Herb »

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..

User avatar
guardiangr
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:43 pm
Location: Greece

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by guardiangr »

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.

User avatar
Lotus49
Posts: 5248
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by Lotus49 »

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.
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by dizlexik »

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.
eeee

User avatar
mcdo
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by mcdo »

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
Image
http://www.f1racinggrid.co.uk/mclaren-mp44/
Last edited by mcdo on Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by dizlexik »

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
Image
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/
eeee

User avatar
mcdo
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by mcdo »

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
Image
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.
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost

User avatar
Lotus49
Posts: 5248
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by Lotus49 »

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).
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by dizlexik »

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
Image
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?
eeee

User avatar
mcdo
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by mcdo »

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
Image
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
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost

Asphalt_World
Posts: 4605
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by Asphalt_World »

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.
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by dizlexik »

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
Image
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.
eeee

RaggedMan
Posts: 4825
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by RaggedMan »

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.
{Insert clever sig line here}

Asphalt_World
Posts: 4605
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by Asphalt_World »

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!
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics

Asphalt_World
Posts: 4605
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by Asphalt_World »

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.
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics

User avatar
mcdo
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by mcdo »

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

Image
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 don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost

mikeyg123
Posts: 17162
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by mikeyg123 »

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.

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by dizlexik »

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

Image
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.
eeee

User avatar
mcdo
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by mcdo »

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

Image
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
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost

User avatar
moby
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by moby »

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

Warheart01

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by Warheart01 »

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.

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by dizlexik »

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

Image
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?
eeee

User avatar
mcdo
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by mcdo »

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

Image
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

Image


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 don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by dizlexik »

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

Image
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

Image


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.
Image

Source: wikipedia commons
eeee

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by Zoue »

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

Image
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

Image


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

User avatar
Blackhander
Posts: 1849
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:22 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: FIA Changes for 2017

Post by Blackhander »

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.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Podiums: 1st Spa '16, 1st Bahrain '15, 1st China '14, 1st Malaysia '14
Championship position 2014: 13th | | 2015: 10th (heading the right way)
PF1 Autosport GP Predictor 2014: Second 2015: Second

JohnnyGuitar
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:37 am

Re: FIA Changes for 2017

Post by JohnnyGuitar »

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.

ALESI
Posts: 2412
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by ALESI »

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.
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by mds »

mcdo wrote:Look at that and look at this monstrosity

Image



I don't really understand what's so monstrous about that. It is fantastically detailed and fit for purpose. I like it.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

User avatar
mcdo
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by mcdo »

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

Image


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.
Image

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
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by dizlexik »

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.
eeee

User avatar
moby
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017

Post by moby »

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..

User avatar
mcdo
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by mcdo »

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
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost

ALESI
Posts: 2412
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm

Re: FIA Changes for 2017

Post by ALESI »

Make them out of aluminium. Problem solved.
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by mds »

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.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

User avatar
Blackhander
Posts: 1849
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:22 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by Blackhander »

mds wrote:
mcdo wrote:Look at that and look at this monstrosity

Image



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.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Podiums: 1st Spa '16, 1st Bahrain '15, 1st China '14, 1st Malaysia '14
Championship position 2014: 13th | | 2015: 10th (heading the right way)
PF1 Autosport GP Predictor 2014: Second 2015: Second

User avatar
mcdo
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: FIA Changes for 2017

Post by mcdo »

That wing is one of the main reasons we have abominations like DRS
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: FIA Changes for 2017

Post by mds »

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.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: FIA Changes for 2017 (and '16 Qualification)

Post by Zoue »

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

User avatar
mcdo
Posts: 10289
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: FIA Changes for 2017

Post by mcdo »

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?
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost

Post Reply