2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Just_a_fan]

The fact they reckon you can run a bit closer (about 4 car lengths) without too much balance change sounds good though, just means all passing will probably be under braking.

Which is how it should be, really. Getting an overtake done by mid straight isn't overtaking, it's passing. Having to set up the move in to the braking zone takes skill. Defending is trickier with the "no moves in the braking zone" rule, however. It should mean more attempts around the outside in to the corners. If both drivers are skillful and respectful, this should be exciting. If either is a clot, it's going to end in tears.

[Sevach]

Defending is trickier with the "no moves in the braking zone" rule

I little OT, but...
I wonder how respected this rule will be now that stewards are under instruction to not interfere basically.

[Just_a_fan]

Defending is trickier with the "no moves in the braking zone" rule

I little OT, but...
I wonder how respected this rule will be now that stewards are under instruction to not interfere basically.

I guess it depends on how many of the new, expensive front wings get chomped in attempts. Or until someone gets launched by the late move. I'd hate to see this sort of thing as the result of moving in the zone:
https://youtu.be/vT17vWFkl_w

[f1316]

Some Mark Webber comments + motorsport analysis that got me thinking:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/webbe ... go-871629/

By and large I'm very positive about the 2017 changes and really looking forward to seeing the cars, but the above highlights to me that too much was done at once.

The main thing that is positive about the changes are the (hopefully more durable tyres) that will also increase mechanical grip + the look of the cars. I'd suggest that changes should have been limited to the tyre changes and reprofiled wings.

That would have solved the problems highlighted in the article - I.e. There's nothing wrong with the qualifying times but race pace is so poor because drivers cannot push; of course refuelling is a major differentiator also but the pace increase from tyres alone- and more importantly the ability to use that pace lap after lap - would probably be enough to satisfy and would probably see lap records fall in final stints.

Equally, without a significant increase in downforce, we would have increased the proportion of mechanical vs aero grip, thereby aiding overtaking and likely allowing a gradual reduction in use of DRS.

It would also allow isolated analysis of changes to pinpoint what did and didn't work well - something that will be muddied in reality.

[Peter1919]

I think this is the article you meant to link to rather than the photo you did link to http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/webbe ... go-871629/

[f1316]

I think this is the article you meant to link to rather than the photo you did link to http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/webbe ... go-871629/

Yep - edited. Thanks!

[Eddie_Temple]

Some Mark Webber comments + motorsport analysis that got me thinking:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/webbe ... go-871629/

By and large I'm very positive about the 2017 changes and really looking forward to seeing the cars, but the above highlights to me that too much was done at once.

The main thing that is positive about the changes are the (hopefully more durable tyres) that will also increase mechanical grip + the look of the cars. I'd suggest that changes should have been limited to the tyre changes and reprofiled wings.

That would have solved the problems highlighted in the article - I.e. There's nothing wrong with the qualifying times but race pace is so poor because drivers cannot push; of course refuelling is a major differentiator also but the pace increase from tyres alone- and more importantly the ability to use that pace lap after lap - would probably be enough to satisfy and would probably see lap records fall in final stints.

Equally, without a significant increase in downforce, we would have increased the proportion of mechanical vs aero grip, thereby aiding overtaking and likely allowing a gradual reduction in use of DRS.

It would also allow isolated analysis of changes to pinpoint what did and didn't work well - something that will be muddied in reality.

I know this point has been argued well within this forum so I'm sure we've arrived at bolded statement based on facts and historical evidence.

Therefore, could someone point me to the season which had high proportion of mechanical grip and had lots of overtaking?

[Pierce89]

Some Mark Webber comments + motorsport analysis that got me thinking:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/webbe ... go-871629/

By and large I'm very positive about the 2017 changes and really looking forward to seeing the cars, but the above highlights to me that too much was done at once.

The main thing that is positive about the changes are the (hopefully more durable tyres) that will also increase mechanical grip + the look of the cars. I'd suggest that changes should have been limited to the tyre changes and reprofiled wings.

That would have solved the problems highlighted in the article - I.e. There's nothing wrong with the qualifying times but race pace is so poor because drivers cannot push; of course refuelling is a major differentiator also but the pace increase from tyres alone- and more importantly the ability to use that pace lap after lap - would probably be enough to satisfy and would probably see lap records fall in final stints.

Equally, without a significant increase in downforce, we would have increased the proportion of mechanical vs aero grip, thereby aiding overtaking and likely allowing a gradual reduction in use of DRS.

It would also allow isolated analysis of changes to pinpoint what did and didn't work well - something that will be muddied in reality.

I know this point has been argued well within this forum so I'm sure we've arrived at bolded statement based on facts and historical evidence.

Therefore, could someone point me to the season which had high proportion of mechanical grip and had lots of overtaking?

Dont you know that, everything was better back in the day except for the weed.
Seriously though the early 70s would be the last era to have a high proportion(relatively) of mechanical grip.

[f1316]

Some Mark Webber comments + motorsport analysis that got me thinking:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/webbe ... go-871629/

By and large I'm very positive about the 2017 changes and really looking forward to seeing the cars, but the above highlights to me that too much was done at once.

The main thing that is positive about the changes are the (hopefully more durable tyres) that will also increase mechanical grip + the look of the cars. I'd suggest that changes should have been limited to the tyre changes and reprofiled wings.

That would have solved the problems highlighted in the article - I.e. There's nothing wrong with the qualifying times but race pace is so poor because drivers cannot push; of course refuelling is a major differentiator also but the pace increase from tyres alone- and more importantly the ability to use that pace lap after lap - would probably be enough to satisfy and would probably see lap records fall in final stints.

Equally, without a significant increase in downforce, we would have increased the proportion of mechanical vs aero grip, thereby aiding overtaking and likely allowing a gradual reduction in use of DRS.

It would also allow isolated analysis of changes to pinpoint what did and didn't work well - something that will be muddied in reality.

I know this point has been argued well within this forum so I'm sure we've arrived at bolded statement based on facts and historical evidence.

Therefore, could someone point me to the season which had high proportion of mechanical grip and had lots of overtaking?

Dont you know that, everything was better back in the day except for the weed.
Seriously though the early 70s would be the last era to have a high proportion(relatively) of mechanical grip.

It's actually quite the reverse of what you're suggesting: rather than harking back to any particular era, it's suggesting what could be done now that's *not* been done before - I.e. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, simply tweak one (or two) small aspect(s).

The simple hypothesis here is that if a lower proportion of a car's grip is affected by the wake of the car in front (that is because an the addition of an increased contact patch is wholly unaffected by the nature of air flow) that would reduce the difficulty of following.

In any case, I am looking forward to 2017, as i've already said.

[CLKGTR]

Found these nice illustrations of F1 2017 cars

https://maxf1.net/en/how-will-f1-2017-c ... hey-bring/

[santos]

I didn't knew where to ask, and this topic seemed apropriated.
With this new aerodynamic changes, the rear wing will be lower. How much this will have an impact on the DRS? Will it be so effective?

[Thunder]

DRS should have an even greater effect this Year, since the RW is wider.

[henry]

Also the rear wing is closer to the diffuser and may possibly switch off some of the diffuser drag.

[FW17]

Is there a reason for this cradle between the engine and gearbox(Section in green housing the turbo)?

Is it not possible to locate the turbo within the gearbox housing in the space seen in the FW33 gearbox?

[bonjon1979]

Apologies if this has been done to death but are we going to be faced with a situation this year where drivers are having to really watch fuel saving because of the aerodynamic changes?

Last year there didn't seem to be any fuel saving and cars weren't topped up to the max to save weight. With the extra drag I presume that they're going to be on the straights for longer and braking a shorter distance. Will this increase in time on throttle on the straights be nullified by the fact that the cars are completing the race in a shorter overall time or will be back to lift and coast scenario?