2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Post Reply
User avatar
FW17
168
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

Do not understand F1............

Wide cars were proposed for the start of 2014 season but was dropped
Wide tyres on rear alone makes cars look comical
Lower rear wing?

Why not rehash the idea of full length tunnels which were also dropped

Mercedes & Red Bull split on changes to F1 cars for 2016

All are in favour of a plan to make cars look more dramatic but there is disagreement on whether changes should be made for 2016 or 2017.

Red Bull team boss Christian Horner wants change quickly, while Mercedes believe more time should be taken to ensure the right decision is made.

There is also no agreement on how to achieve the goal of 1,000bhp engines.

The complexities of the chassis arguments are being played out at a meeting of technical chiefs on Friday, the remit of which is to draft a set of rules for 2016 that can be agreed by the next step in the rule-making process, the F1 Commission, on 17 February.

The main points of agreement are:

•Wider cars, reintroducing the maximum width of 2000mm last used in 1997 instead of the current 1800mm, and a lower rear wing.
•Wider rear tyres
•To increase the power of engines to 1000bhp from the current 850bhp or so

The main disagreements are over:

•The timing of the change - whether major changes should be made for 2016 or delayed until 2017
•The need for research to ensure it is the right approach

Who wants what, when and why?

Red Bull are pushing for modifications to the cars and tyres in 2016. Some believe this is because they think it will help them reduce the significant advantage Mercedes have held since the introduction of the new engines last year.

A change for 2016, sources say, was agreed by a majority vote at the last meeting of the F1 strategy group of leading teams, F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone and governing body the FIA.

But Mercedes are pushing against this, believing F1 should conduct research with fans and audiences to see whether this is what they want.

The desire for change is being driven by declining television audiences in some key markets - although numbers have gone up in some countries such as the UK and USA.

Mercedes have also been arguing in meetings of F1's rule-making strategy group that to introduce new rules too early would have a detrimental effect on the 2015 season. They say the short timetable would lead teams to stop developing their cars for this season to concentrate on the new designs for 2016.

The same would apply if the change was made for 2017, but the longer timescale would mean the change was easier to manage.

Ferrari occupy a kind of middle ground.

They have an overall desire to reduce costs and improve the show. They accept that major changes to the cars would have to wait until 2017 but believe smaller modifications could be made for 2016.

In addition, a formal tender process will be conducted to choose a new tyre supplier after the end of Pirelli's contract in 2016. Tyres will be of lower profile, with 18-inch or even 20-inch wheels being discussed to replace the current 13-inch designs.

Is it the right approach?
The agreement to introduce wider cars, tyres and more powerful engines was described by one team boss as "the lowest common denominator" - the only thing all could agree on.

But it is based on an idea that returning the look of the cars to those of 1992-93 or similar would increase the audience.

However, some argue that could be because it was an era many of them find evocative as it was when they were growing up and first became fans of F1.

So Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff has proposed that F1 conducts research to see whether this is indeed what the younger fans of today want.

Return to old engines rejected
Ecclestone, F1's commercial chief, has been a staunch opponent of the new fuel-efficient engines since their adoption was agreed six years ago and has tried several times to get them dropped.

He believes they are too expensive and too quiet.

But all four car manufacturers involved in F1 insist on keeping the current engine format, with systems that recover energy from both the rear axle and turbocharger retained because of its relevance to road car technology.

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner Red Bull, whose team principal is Christian Horner, have proposed a freeze on development of the hybrid aspects of the engines

Ferrari president Sergio Marchionne had proposed a new hybrid format, based on a 1.9-litre V8 turbo engine, claiming it would be cheaper.

But he backed down on this when it was pointed out to him that changing the engine architecture could well mean Mercedes ended up further ahead, because their engine department is regarded as the best in F1.

Mercedes have proposed removing the fuel-flow limit on the current engines as a way of increasing power, which is currently in the region of 850-900bhp.

But Red Bull believe this would force a major redesign that would be too expensive for the other manufacturers, especially their supplier Renault.

Red Bull have proposed a freeze on the hybrid aspects of the engines with development limited only to the top half of the engine - cylinder head, valves and so on.

ojlopez
5
Joined: 24 Oct 2014, 22:33
Location: Guatemala

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

I think it would be cheaper to stick with the current formula and try to make it better, like louder exhausts, 18 inch rims, increased fuel flow, etc

tuj
tuj
15
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 15:50

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

Louder exhausts are a consequence of wasted energy in a turbo car (at least partially). Unless you want to get rid of fuel flow limits or go back to NA engines, I think the exhaust notes are going to be relatively similar to 2014.

ScottB
4
Joined: 17 Mar 2012, 14:45

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

I think just trying to make the cars look a bit more elegant would do; wider, lower rear wings, try and prevent the awkward nose shapes, a bigger, more shaped front wing like the pre 2008 cars would all go a long way...

I'm not particularly interested in trying to make the cars look 'retro' as that's not what the sport should be about, just get the proportions of the major areas of the cars right then let the teams do the rest.

NowyszRacing6
0
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 07:55

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

I'm surprised people want to change the appearance of the cars in so many ways, honestly if the noses don't have to conform to weird cross-sectional rules then I think the cars still look great (but obviously that's an opinion). I bet the cars would still look good with wider tires and bodies, but it seems a bit overkill, not to mention how much redesign would have to happen because of the effect of those things on the handling (therefore more costs). The one thing I'm against is the 18 inch wheels though, to me they look more like someone put street car wheels on a racecar than actual racing wheels. In general though, I think the main thing that needs to be considered is the cost of rule changes/ a way to make it cheaper. 2 teams have had to quit f1 this year....

tuj
tuj
15
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 15:50

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

Agree about the 18"ers; they don't look right at all on an F1 car. I know road relevance is towards shorter sidewalls but come-on, how much road relevance is there is a pure silck compound that lasts 15 laps? Its not like reducing the sidewall height will bring that much more life out of the tire; sure less flexing of the carcass and heat associated, but isn't the real problem the surface rubber?

Anyway, looks aside, costs absolutely *have* to come down. We need another era like the Cosworth DFV. Too bad the 'road relevance' issue is creating hybrid power which while very cool and extremely energy efficient, is also extremely costly to develop, build, and maintain. The W05 probably had the best engine to ever run in F1 from a thermodynamic perspective, all things considered. But it came at great, great cost. And its not like Mercedes is amortizing that cost over a big base, since the PU's have to run for so long. Limiting PU's per year seems like a cost consideration, but really its a savings fallacy to seal the engines as they are doing.

Same goes for in-season testing, which in my mind, is just as important as any chassis or engine rule. You simply can't get the most development out of your package if you aren't allowed to test in-season. This just puts the favor to the teams with good wind tunnels and CFD programs.

Finally, and I'll step off my petty soapbox, the FOM should consider some manner of evenly sharing certain portions of the revenues with the teams. For example, in the NFL, which is probably one of the best business models in all of sports, if someone buys a Tom Brady jersey (he's a big deal right now), a portion of the profit on the jersey goes to *all* of the teams equally in the league. This makes it so that a popular player or team can sell a lot of merchandise and everyone in the league benefits. Is it socialism? You bet it is. But its brought about some very competitive play. Instead Mercedes is reaping the benefits of a WCC in the form of a great financial payday, which they certainly deserve, but the blackmarkers who failed to score constructors points get *nothing*. This kind of system is bound to quickly eliminate anything but up-starts, who will survive only as long as their initial cash investments. That's a real pity, as everyone wants to see the sport return to the days when an upstart with a clever idea could compete with the big boys.

User avatar
FW17
168
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

:oMG their ideas are worse than i thought
Harsha wrote:Ferrari showed concept car pics on their new website today. Might be their prototype for 2017 rules
Front
Image
Rear
Image

User avatar
Thunder
Moderator
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 09:50
Location: Germany

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

That looks awesome. Lower the Nose and i'm sold. 8) 8)
turbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
#aerogollum

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

Instead of another topic lamenting the ruling of F1, shouldn't we try to make this infact a technical thread discussing the possible changes with a rational and technical inspiree mind instead of again argueing with our emotions?

I mean I can't be the only one who read the topic title, under the impression it was a technical topic, only to be dissapointed to find another virtual march to the town square?
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
Holm86
244
Joined: 10 Feb 2010, 03:37
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

The shape of that Ferrari looks difficult to shape via a set of regulations. Am I the only one who thinks so??

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

Depends. The question shouldn't be "how can we shape this through regulation", but more like "how will teams evolve aerodynamically and how can we integrate rules that will make sure teams develop the path we want?".

In the past the issue was that the fia had a specific shape in mind for something like a nose and build rules that they think would lead to said shape. However, the biggest mistake in there is to ignore the performance drive of the teams, who will always look for ways around if the intended shape is not the optimum one allowed under the new rules.

So what do you do then? I'd say rewrite the rules, all of them, but think as an engineer. A low nose for instance can easily be forced by having more rear downforce potentional then front downforce (like pre-2009). Teams will then automatically lower the nose since they need to balance the front and rear downforce, which can be achieved by lowering the nose, which also brings a lower CoG.

You'll probably not have a lot of issues to enforce the rear wheel arches and the double decker front wing, which will bring extra performance. Also let's not be restrictive by focussing us blind on this concept; it's a very nice car but we do want enough diversity among the teams right?
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
SectorOne
166
Joined: 26 May 2013, 09:51

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

If the future F1 cars look like that i aint even mad. That concept to me screams modern and pinnacle of motorsport.
Almost closed wheels and insane aero (not wings everywhere like pre-09 era) is something id love to see.
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of sh*t"

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2012, 21:36
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

SectorOne wrote:If the future F1 cars look like that i aint even mad. That concept to me screams modern and pinnacle of motorsport.
Almost closed wheels and insane aero (not wings everywhere like pre-09 era) is something id love to see.
Interestingly is that a lot of those wings on the pre-2009 cars had the same function as some of the parts shown on that concept, i.e. reducing wheel drag. The reason why they were wings was restrictive regulations. Infact, if you take the F2008:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... unch_1.jpg

You'll notice that there are quite some similarities mixed with the more recent regulations like broader front wings, but in the concept just much integrated into the main bodywork.

Something like a bridge wing will definitely be a good option.

I have to say for an aesthetic excercise like that Ferrari concept, a lot of thought went into the aerodynamics. The backend looks a bit of a handful aero wise, but all the rest has next to fine looks, also a very specified function.
#AeroFrodo

Jolle
132
Joined: 29 Jan 2014, 22:58
Location: Dordrecht

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

So... they are all trying to make F1 cheaper and the first thing they propose is to make the cars wider, which means that you have to design a car from scratch again...

I understand that Merc and RedBull have no problem with this, but if I was Haas or any other company that is looking at F1 as a possibility, I would reconsider.

Imagine you are putting all your resources in designing a 2016 car now....

George-Jung
18
Joined: 29 Apr 2014, 15:39

Re: 2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

Post

That is one sick looking car,... I like it!!

Post Reply