You're really going out on a limb stating 1) sauber doesnt have as sophisticated car as top teams 2) their drivers are a bit rough around the edges. Brave view my friend!Manoah2u wrote:to be honest, i think it's not as 'sophisticated' as you guys are giving it credits for.
I think the 'richer' paintscheme is doing the car more good, the cheap blue and yellow colors of last year would
have made the car look much more basic.
frankly, most of the car is similar to last years design, which was rather underdeveloped. the sidepods have changed
significantly, but then i'm not sure that 'brick wall' below the intake is so positive.
i remember RB trying to get the 'fins' banned for this year, because it would be a decent help/aid
for teams with less stable aerodynamics to 'stabilise' airflow towards the back. it got wiped off the table, so the
sharkfin is present, and here we have a absolute gigantuan sharkfin (which looks absolutely horrendous too), suggesting
airflow isn't that 'sophisticated'. The airbox is an outdated mercedes and caterham design which both teams realised were not 'helpful'.
Let's see what the 'big boys' (and i'd include Force India there) will turn up with. The Williams 'reveal' is a really basic render so i don't think it makes any sense making any comparison there. I think what Sauber shows here is what it really is.
And then, it's all fun and games, but their 1st driver is still Captain Slow Marcus "chicken-collision" Ericsson,
and their 2nd driver is injured from a ROC race in a 3-wheeler that nobody in Force India or Mercedes themselves wanted, and in the meantime they have a Ferrari 3rd driver that will do the test for Wehrlein - despite his injury, THE person that has aquired most worthwile information and feeling and experience from top-team Mercedes, and has also seen the worse end in the form of Manor.
Sauber also "already" having the car ready suggest they have 'lost' a week worth of developing too, but thats more speculation.
It looks more advanced then last years car, yes. But really, it couldnt get much worse too, especially with that basic livery, AND the fact longbow finance probably has thrown a couple of million of dollars or swiss franks their direction, and they're cashing in some stashed BdB and Nasr and Ericsson money.
If i had to do a wild suggestion, this is what they have bashed out of their computer for the next 3-4 years untill they find another money-slinging-victim to 'make it through' for another couple of years.
negative view? yes, definately.
but the livery is quite enjoyable atleast.
Apologies for the livery post but it should be said for anyone wanting to further comment on livery here....Scorpaguy wrote:Well, we at least now have a promising contender for worst livery of the year.
I'm personally positively surprised by the car from a team that nearly went under last year, but I agree that the one year old engine can inevitably put them near or at the back sooner than later.edu2703 wrote:Nice livery. Little changes, as expected. Sauber will have to take advantage of the first four races to score points. After that, they will be too far from the other teams.
With the development of 2017 engines, the back of the grid will be an inevitable destination for Sauber this year. It's only a matter of time.
No beam wings.tranquility2k4 wrote:Can I clarify with the 2017 regs, the beam wing is not allowed right?
Also, I know the diffuser is higher and longer, but is it also wider? I'm guessing the overall floor is wider? Can someone tell me the dimensions.
Furthermore, I'm getting confused by the 'width of the car' - some things I've read suggest it is wider, others suggest it's the same. For example, the sidepods, I believe the minimum for 2017 is same as max for 2016, so are we expecting everyone to keep same width sidepods as 2016 as to not add more drag? Maybe only RB would go for super DF/draggy sidepods?
thanks.
They pass air through the sidepods. A wider sidepod could equate to a more centralized, lower center of gravity. I wouldn't be surprised if Red Bull has more of a bulky, but tight sidepod with lots of exposed upper floor area past the sidepods.tranquility2k4 wrote:So the floor is wider for everyone, but the sidepods may stay the same width as 2016? Why would anyone go with wider sidepods when clearly these cars will inherently be a lot more draggy?
Wider can mean lower too, but I think the height of the sidepod is now regulated (due to side impact crash structure)dren wrote:They pass air through the sidepods. A wider sidepod could equate to a more centralized, lower center of gravity. I wouldn't be surprised if Red Bull has more of a bulky, but tight sidepod with lots of exposed upper floor area past the sidepods.tranquility2k4 wrote:So the floor is wider for everyone, but the sidepods may stay the same width as 2016? Why would anyone go with wider sidepods when clearly these cars will inherently be a lot more draggy?
That would be awesome... let's see if someone will do something crazy (or clever!) in that area.Holm86 wrote:Im wondering if there is a way to create 1400mm wide sidepods, and then use the last 100mm on each side to create some sort of wing, tunnel or similar??
There is, but why would you want to do that?Holm86 wrote:Im wondering if there is a way to create 1400mm wide sidepods, and then use the last 100mm on each side to create some sort of wing, tunnel or similar??
Because there is a potential big surface to create downforce from, which is between the wheels so it would distribute the DF more even. And I believe there is potential to create DF with a relatively low drag penalty.wesley123 wrote:There is, but why would you want to do that?Holm86 wrote:Im wondering if there is a way to create 1400mm wide sidepods, and then use the last 100mm on each side to create some sort of wing, tunnel or similar??