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
Juzh
161
Joined: 06 Oct 2012, 08:45

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

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:We've seen hints when the Mercedes suddenly found pace and left the rest for dead because they were actually racing each other. That suggests untapped potential in the current cars' downforce production.
Qualifying runs disprove this assumption. Peak downforce levels are pathetic at the moment. Simply can not be argued against.

User avatar
dans79
267
Joined: 03 Mar 2013, 19:33
Location: USA

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

Post

Thunders wrote:The Engine Manufacturers offer for the Engine Regs:
Price down to € 12m and the use of some standart Parts (Battery, MGU-K, MGU-H, maybe even the Turbo...). All this to keep the Engine Rules as they are now.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 60724.html

Let's wait for Bernie and Jean.....
Forget that, I'm not watching another dumb semi spec series.
197 104 103 7

User avatar
GPR-A duplicate2
64
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 09:00

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

Post

So, the proposed 2017 Aero changes was a gimmick to keep the F1 world engaged. OK. Good joke, I hope we all enjoyed it.
Formula 1 teams are backing away from plans to dramatically increase downforce for 2017 in a move that looks set to leave the onus of increased speeds to come from Pirelli's wider tyres.
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... ns-667404/
Image

User avatar
djos
113
Joined: 19 May 2006, 06:09
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Post

Not funny! :(
"In downforce we trust"

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

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

Post

Sad, just sad......
turbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
#aerogollum

Mr Satay
0
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 19:02
Location: Melbourne, Australia

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

Post

Less downforce gains would be a good thing, give the cars more mechanical grip and hopefully they can race closer together.

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

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

Post

Proper Tires would be a start.... but that won't happen before 2020 (or 2019?)
turbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
#aerogollum

User avatar
Chuckjr
36
Joined: 24 Feb 2012, 08:34
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post

GPR-A wrote:So, the proposed 2017 Aero changes was a gimmick to keep the F1 world engaged. OK. Good joke, I hope we all enjoyed it.
Image
Watching F1 since 1986.

User avatar
pob
12
Joined: 04 Jul 2010, 05:00

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

Post

Any wranglings in the media over F1 rules usually comes down to:
Image
(please excuse poor image editting, not got photoshop on this computer)

bhall II
473
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 20:15

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

Post

Not all is lost...
Although the decision to abandon some of the chief ideas for 2017 is disappointing for those hoping for a big leap forward in pace, some changes will remain.

The push for wider front and rear wings and more freedom in the bargeboard area will be retained.

The bodywork “chin” [bh2: tea tray] length will also be reduced by 100mm, allowing cars to run slightly lower.

The cosmetic changes designed to improve the look of the cars, such as swept back front wing, rear endplates and leading edge of the sidepods, will also stay.
This next bit just tickles me to pieces...
“My belief is that the more downforce you have on a car, the harder it is to follow,” [Pat Symonds] said. “And this car has more downforce.

“Therefore irrespective of any niceties that the Overtaking Working Group may have come up with, and irrespective of whether one believes them or not – and as a member of that group I know what short cuts we did against the true scientific process – the fact is if you've got more downforce, the harder it is to follow.

"I think that's simplistic, but nevertheless quite a true view.”
Yeah, there was definitely no scientific investigation into the nature of overtaking. Instead, the "Dirty Air Working Group" took it for granted that there's a correlation between proximity and overtaking, simply because that's the most common refrain heard throughout the sport's vast echo chamber. In reality, no one knows for sure. (But, there is a reason why the 2009 rules failed so miserably.)

And what about the "short cuts...against the true scientific process"?
Overtaking, Applying science and commonsense wrote:What was interesting was that by using a scientific approach to the problem [meant to be addressed by the 2009 aero overhaul] it became clear that previous attempts to solve the problem had in reality made things worse.

"Almost all of the attempts to reduce downforce in the recent past have been retrograde in terms of overtaking possibilities and wake behaviour," one member of the OWG said. "If we had wanted to make overtaking chances worse, that was what we would have come up with."

[...]

The new rules will exclude all the barge boards, the radiator air extraction chimneys, flip-ups, nose horns and all the rest of it. The plan is for the cars to be smooth between the axles.

"There is a small overtaking benefit attached to that," [OWG member, Paddy] Lowe admitted, "but it was mainly done in response to demands from the team principals for cleaner advertising areas."
Greener advertising pastures under the guise of increased overtaking? No wonder fans are abandoning the sport in droves.

Image
Empty stands = "cleaner advertising areas"?

Image
Excellent use of space

I propose the establishment of a Fan Retention Working Group in order to more thoroughly ignore that problem, too.

j2004p
7
Joined: 31 Mar 2010, 18:22

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

Post

I'm going to put this here and I know it's been said before but my personal view is that you're unlikely to ever change the aero on these cars to sufficiently negate the wake issues associated with tryingto follow closely.

Real overtaking comes from difference in speed on either corner entry (out-braking) or exit (better traction). One area where the cars have become too 'predictable' is upshifting and downshifting, drivers can't miss gears and have no input into clutch control (apart from moving away from standstill) things that could massively affect the differences between cars slowing down and speeding up!

I know there would be resistance as moving back to manual boxes would seem like a huge backwards step (technologically) but I can't believe how little this gets a mention.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
550
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

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

Post

Does anyone believe Pirelli's tyre shpiel for one second?

We are decades ahead of the 1980's when cars had 1200hp in race trim, we have Lemans cars weighing upwards of 1000 kg that makes more downforce than formula 1 and now we Pirelli tells us the tyres cannot handle only a 10% increase in contact patch loading?!!
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌✍️🐎🏆🙏

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

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

Post

Pirelli has now officially reacted. And kind of sort of denied it?

Deny?
"There was some misinformation that recently went out saying we could not deal with a 50 or 60 per cent increase in load, but of course we can.
Not so much deny?
"With larger diameter tyres the inner part of the tyre has a bigger volume of air, but then you work with inflation pressures.
This does sound bollocks though:
"I know some people think with higher inflation pressures you lose performance, but the reality is if you increase by 60 per cent the load, you are actually pushing the tyre further into the ground and your footprint stays the same.
If you are pushing the tyre further into the ground, the footprint has to expand. It's why you'd want to push the tyre further into ground in the first place #-o . Increasing pressure will hamper the tyre being pushed further into the ground.

Aside from tyres, I do hope that the diffuser angle increases. Williem Toet commented on this; increasing the diffuser angle will push the optimum ride height higher, and will increase the window in which the diffuser optimally or near-optimally operates:
Image
Here you can see that low angle diffusers don’t reach the same level of performance as those with higher angles (within the range tested). Once a critical level is reached the higher angle diffusers achieve the same downforce (at different heights). You can’t extend this to silly angles – we have tried! What’s interesting is that the highest angle tested has the largest ride height range at max performance. Those at slightly lower expansion angles fall away more as ride height is increased from the peak (remember 1% is a lot).
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-do-m ... plash=true

It could aid in floor stability under turbulent air. By its own not enough of course, but it would be a step atleast in the right direction. This is one of those things the OWG got seriously wrong back in 2009: back then they decreased diffuser angle, which increases sensitivity.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
dans79
267
Joined: 03 Mar 2013, 19:33
Location: USA

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

Post

The teams don't want higher pressures, because they would have to drastically re-work the suspension systems. Right now teams run super stiff suspensions, because the super tall sidewall and low pressures is doing a lot of the work for them.

If tire pressure increased by as much as the article quoted, the teams would have to make up for the lack of side wall give, and this would have a big impart on the aero, because all the suspension arms & linkages would more around a lot more relative to the body.
197 104 103 7

User avatar
Hail22
144
Joined: 08 Feb 2012, 07:22

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

Post

I think it's safe to say Pirelli could be looking down the wrong end of the barrel if they continue their negative / conservative attitude towards Formula 1.

Hell I have a feeling that if at least half of the F1tech community was given a say in this we'd come up with a more amicable solution going towards 2017 that'd see costs go down, profits up and bums on seats at races (at venues where people will actually go to).
If someone said to me that you can have three wishes, my first would have been to get into racing, my second to be in Formula 1, my third to drive for Ferrari.

Gilles Villeneuve

Post Reply