2016-2017 chassis and engine rules (proposed)

[Sevach]

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

Looks closer to an LMP than what we have in F1 right now.

Easier to look at that rule book for reference.

[Morteza]

Am I the only one who prefers 2008 cars to this concept by Ferrari?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 8_test.jpg

http://files.conceptcarz.com/img/McLare ... -23-06.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/rW4ZRBD.jpg

[George-Jung]

Am I the only one who prefers 2008 cars to this concept by Ferrari?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 8_test.jpg

http://files.conceptcarz.com/img/McLare ... -23-06.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/rW4ZRBD.jpg

Than I still rather see this one..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 8_test.jpg

[FW17]

2008 was getting excessive on the body work; only thing i would wish for back would be the chimneys and the a limited flip up in front of the rear wheel

[turbof1]

Guys, this is not a picture thread. You can use image tags for something like a more or less official proposal like the ferrari concept, something that is directly connected to the rule changes in 2017, but images of personal aesthetical preferences should be used as an url without the tags. This keeps a nice fluent line throughout the topic, less interuptions by big images.

I have removed the tags of some images in posts above me.

In all fairness, the ferrari concept car looks a 2008 car with a few additional years of development. One can certainly not go around the resemblances in the bridge wing and body work on the inside of the rear tyres. The sidepod deflectors on the 2008 mclaren and ferrari also are present in a much more integrated way. Or how about the striking similarity of size and positioning of the rear wing?

[kooleracer]

This is how a modern F1 car should look like, F1 should not clinch to the past but more important F1 cars should always have something from the past. The concept by Ferrari and the Adrian Newey ultimate F1 car. Is not the way F1 should go in my opinion. Those cars have too much bodywork. Formula cars never have much body work, its about a clean car. For me an F1 cars must have 4 wheels that aren't boxed in by bodywork, when the moment comes when that stops then it isn't a formula car anymore. the DW12 indycar has rear protection because of the speeds they are doing on ovals when they are racing closely. But in F1 thats is not necessary. The Audi concept is the best modern interpretation i have seen yet of F1. Its clean, but aggresive and proportions are right and the big wheels just make it look like real monster.



http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833777.jpg

http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833778.jpg

http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833775.jpg

http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833779.jpg
http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833780.jpg

http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833783.jpg

[ESPImperium]

Im happy, almost, with the present cars. If i was to do a change in the chassis side id allow these:

Rear:
* Raise diffuser to 200mm - The middle section of 500mm (250mm each side of reference) must be a flat mandated surface
* Reintroduce the beam wing - But have a neutral centre section like the front wing
* Rear wing to be extended to the width we had till 2008
* Ban on rear wing end plates to touch the floor - Rear wing must be supported by a strut or struts from the centre of the car
* DRS limited to 300 seconds a session in order to try and preserve the art of overtaking. DRS zones abolished as if you have the downforce, why not use it if you have the balls?

Front:
* Rise the nose to in line with the front axle
* Front bulkhead where the nose joins the chassis needs to be 50mm lower than present
* Front wing to be limited to no more than 3 independent planes
* Allow the drivers to adjust the front wing by +/- 3 degrees over a single lap - but limit the drivers to no more than 10 degrees adjustment over a race distance (Similar to rule in 2009-2010)
* No nose rules governing the nose tip, all thats needed is the nose to meet crash tests, however those crash tests will be more stringent than present.

Others:
* Return to active suspension, but have internals standardised to cut cost, wishbones and such will be kept for the team to be different geometries to maximise their strategy
* Total ban on all aero at the hub, no blown wheel nuts or aero devices, all aero must be generated by sprung mass, only ducting at hubs for brake cooling.
* Wheels to become 50mm wider at the front and 65mm wider at the rear
* Wheels to go to a 15 inch diameter, none of this 18 inch malarky to keep the iconic look of a F1 car.

[ScottB]

This is how a modern F1 car should look like, F1 should not clinch to the past but more important F1 cars should always have something from the past. The concept by Ferrari and the Adrian Newey ultimate F1 car. Is not the way F1 should go in my opinion. Those cars have too much bodywork. Formula cars never have much body work, its about a clean car. For me an F1 cars must have 4 wheels that aren't boxed in by bodywork, when the moment comes when that stops then it isn't a formula car anymore. the DW12 indycar has rear protection because of the speeds they are doing on ovals when they are racing closely. But in F1 thats is not necessary. The Audi concept is the best modern interpretation i have seen yet of F1. Its clean, but aggresive and proportions are right and the big wheels just make it look like real monster.

http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833776.jpg

http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833777.jpg

http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833778.jpg

http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833775.jpg

http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833779.jpg
http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833780.jpg

http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833783.jpg

Dear god no for me!

It's a nostalgic throwback. F1 should be the pinnacle, cutting edge. Having a car trying to look like something decades old to appeal to a dwindling demographic is not a good strategy. That belongs in that 'GP Masters' series for the old guys to relive their glory days...

[Tim.Wright]

I personally think its risky to mess with a formula that at an operational level is more or less working.

Everybody seem to have forgotten the early 2000's period where overtaking was all but impossible due to wake induced loss of aero grip and the mammoth amount of resulting work to fix the problem. A lot of time money was invested to fix the issue via the OWG and others. Some of the solutions investigated were:

• Centre-downwash-generating wing
• Active front flaps
• '09-style narrow-high rear wing
• Front wing high and away from ground effect
• Front wing low and running in ground effect
• Front wing with low centre section and high outer sections
• Front wing low & wide with neutral centre section
• Removal of all aero appendages on the engine cover
• Heavy regulation on bargeboards and nose structures
• Active rear wing

And after about 10 years of experimentation we are FINALLY approaching a formula where wake induced grip loss is basically a non-issue.

And now everyone want to throw all this work in the bin to make the cars look better...

[SectorOne]

F1 should not clinch to the past

*shows modern interpretation of a car straight from the 80´s*

[papajetta]

There is a combination of many things that have turned fans away compared to yesteryear. Back in the 80s and 90s F1 had a natural parity plus an established lineage of names and stars. Prost beat lauda, senna beat prost,... Mansell , piquet, Schumacher, Damon hill, hakkinnen,.... The only link to these stars is Alonso which hasn't been relevant for many years now. Vettel and Hamiltonare default champions. They never had to take the title by beating any one of the true champions, therefore there is a disconnect from these guys to the older fans that have a nostalgic memory of back in the day. Second , ...formula 1 used to be the benchmark for innovation ( turboes, ground effects, wings, raised noses, active suspension, x wings, fan car, 6 wheeler, double chassis...). This alone pushed competition to new levels and gave many back markers a fighting chance against some of the uncatchable mega team's. Something that could never be seen today as every time something new pops up , ( double difusser, stalling the wing), it just gets put down in order to create or maintain some type of artificial parity... Not to mention the lame ways that they have come up with to promote passing and improve competition? The more they touch it the worse it gets..... Its just too restrictive. They should take a page from the WEC which is getting better every year. The 4 cars that are competing this year couldn'tbe mmore different from each other. A deisel, a front wheel drive hybrid!!!, and 2/awd gas cars running completely different electrical hybrid systems.
They should change the way the cars look as they are hideous and sound like a sewing machine,...but its going to take much more than that alone.

[mkable1370]

Looks like you want to live in the past... That car has so many retro features!

This is how a modern F1 car should look like, F1 should not clinch to the past but more important F1 cars should always have something from the past. The concept by Ferrari and the Adrian Newey ultimate F1 car. Is not the way F1 should go in my opinion. Those cars have too much bodywork. Formula cars never have much body work, its about a clean car. For me an F1 cars must have 4 wheels that aren't boxed in by bodywork, when the moment comes when that stops then it isn't a formula car anymore. the DW12 indycar has rear protection because of the speeds they are doing on ovals when they are racing closely. But in F1 thats is not necessary. The Audi concept is the best modern interpretation i have seen yet of F1. Its clean, but aggresive and proportions are right and the big wheels just make it look like real monster.

http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833776.jpg

http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833777.jpg

http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833778.jpg

http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833775.jpg

http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833779.jpg
http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833780.jpg

http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Aud ... 833783.jpg

[Facts Only]

I personally think its risky to mess with a formula that at an operational level is more or less working.

Everybody seem to have forgotten the early 2000's period where overtaking was all but impossible due to wake induced loss of aero grip and the mammoth amount of resulting work to fix the problem. A lot of time money was invested to fix the issue via the OWG and others. Some of the solutions investigated were:

• Centre-downwash-generating wing
• Active front flaps
• '09-style narrow-high rear wing
• Front wing high and away from ground effect
• Front wing low and running in ground effect
• Front wing with low centre section and high outer sections
• Front wing low & wide with neutral centre section
• Removal of all aero appendages on the engine cover
• Heavy regulation on bargeboards and nose structures
• Active rear wing

And after about 10 years of experimentation we are FINALLY approaching a formula where wake induced grip loss is basically a non-issue.

And now everyone want to throw all this work in the bin to make the cars look better...

But remember that nothing is ever as good as it used to be and things we used to have are always loads better than what we have now, real racing cars, characters, back in't my day blah blah blah

I'm in total agreement with your post Tim, in 30 years of watching F1 the seasons I have enjoyed watching most have been 2012 and 2014. The period from 2000-2006 was mostly dire for actual entertaining racing and it was great that OWG managed to do something about it. Who'd have thought that a race at Bahrain could be that good? If somebody had told me that in 2007 I would have laughed in their face.

[Wayne BBell]

Ok the Ferrari concept car looks great but like all concept cars reality is so different, as mentioned earlier wing shape is a result of interpretation of the rules, and writing rules to get a specific look is like training for body building contest compared to training to win the decathlon. Form and Function
Cost and relevance, The small capacity turbo may be relevant to the hot hatch but sports cars are usually V8, V10, V12, we drive hot hatches but we all want a big capacity sports car! we should have 5000cc engines limited to 8000rpm, and fuel flow restrictions to achieve maximum 900 - 1000 hp, that is relevant. The energy recovery/electric motor should be basic and bolted on to the differential output shafts. We should go to bigger rims not 18's, say 15" with lower profile tyres and much reduced down force (wings are not relevant either but are needed to go fast around corners, this would put greater enfaces on suspension which is very relevant to our road cars
WBB

[ojlopez]

Talking about dreams, I had the weirdest dream last night. I was dreaming that Bernie had mandated that all F1 cars should race towing a small trailer . But wait, there's more, all cars looked boxy, something like the ugly Nissan Cube . It was Melbourne and the small trailers were decorated with fruit, tires, etc. Talk about weird dreams. I think its time to eat less on dinner