What was the last car to be 4.3m or less?mzso wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 08:45This could be a major save I suspect. They can remove around a meter and a half of "stuff. Not sure why the obsession with wheelbase in the regs and elsewhere. Just impose a hard limit of 4.3 meters for the car and they can move around the wheels within that the way they please.
So far, flaps on front and rear wings are mentioned. Could be beam wings in the end as well.
Can't say without data. But for a long while it hovered around 4.3-4.4wuzak wrote: ↑06 Jul 2023, 10:44What was the last car to be 4.3m or less?mzso wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 08:45This could be a major save I suspect. They can remove around a meter and a half of "stuff. Not sure why the obsession with wheelbase in the regs and elsewhere. Just impose a hard limit of 4.3 meters for the car and they can move around the wheels within that the way they please.
The McLaren MP4/4 was 4.4m long.
The Ferrari 312T4 was 4.46m long.
You may have to put some quotes, because most of the article requires a subscription.bagajohny wrote: ↑13 Jul 2023, 17:03https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... rodynamik/
Any thoughts? I think I agree with Horner on this one.
wuzak wrote: ↑13 Jul 2023, 19:03You may have to put some quotes, because most of the article requires a subscription.bagajohny wrote: ↑13 Jul 2023, 17:03https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... rodynamik/
Any thoughts? I think I agree with Horner on this one.
I would be surprised if they make them any smaller than an F2 car, though a move to F2 dimensions (1.9m width and 5.2m length) and F2 tyres (i.e., the old 2016 sizes but with 725mm overall diameter) would be sensible and not make too much difference IMO.
In the 1980's with driver's feet in front of the front axle? This seems unrealistic when this is no longer allowed and when an F2 car is now 5.2m long and already looks much smaller than an F1 car.
Horner's always playing the political game to benefit his team. He's relentless and very good at it, which is all good honestly, other TPs should step up their own gamebagajohny wrote: ↑13 Jul 2023, 17:03https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... rodynamik/
Any thoughts? I think I agree with Horner on this one.
In this case, based on what Pat Symonds has said, it would seem that the FIA have sent the teams preliminary data on on the 2026 rules, though Symonds also said that the teams have data that is 6 months old.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑16 Jul 2023, 16:23In this case, there aren't any definitive bodywork rules, so there are no aero rules or guidelines either. It's impossible to objectively make the conclusions he and Max said RB made of the new rules, so it's hard to see it as anything but pressure towards FIA to extend the rule set that's beneficial for them and delay the rule set that will undoubtedly cause them loads of trouble on PU side.
Wolff, Szafnauer and Vasseur made comments about those statements from Horner immediately, saying that those comments were premature. You won't find 3 TPs from 3 different PU makers making exact same comments unless it's true.wuzak wrote: ↑16 Jul 2023, 18:33In this case, based on what Pat Symonds has said, it would seem that the FIA have sent the teams preliminary data on on the 2026 rules, though Symonds also said that the teams have data that is 6 months old.
That may seem to suggest that the FIA engineering team have struggled to get a set of rules that work with the 2026 PU and deliver lap time similar to currently.
My thought is that it will be terrible.
Current cars accelerate most of the straights, only the last little bit do they slow down when the ES is depleted and/or they start sending power from the ERS to the ES.
For 2026 they will probably reach top speed in the first 1/3 of a straight and then maintain the speed or get slower as they travel along the straight.
That's not even thinking about high speed corners that will, probably, require significant input from the MGUK.
Cynicism to the point of looking past basic facts. There will be no delaying of the 2026 rules, all parties involved are clear on this and it has never been suggested in the first place. Horner is talking about tweaking fuel flow to make the 2026 ICEs slightly more powerful.
What cynicism? Horner literally went all out with his first statement and urged for a rethink of the rules, as you said. What's wrong with understanding there's (always) an agenda behind thatCs98 wrote: ↑16 Jul 2023, 20:46Cynicism to the point of looking past basic facts. There will be no delaying of the 2026 rules, all parties involved are clear on this and it has never been suggested in the first place. Horner is talking about tweaking fuel flow to make the 2026 ICEs slightly more powerful.
Wolff criticised 2017 and 2022 rules a lot, for the same reasonHorner was not talking about tweaking the fuel flow, he was talking about tweaking the two power split.Cs98 wrote: ↑16 Jul 2023, 20:46Cynicism to the point of looking past basic facts. There will be no delaying of the 2026 rules, all parties involved are clear on this and it has never been suggested in the first place. Horner is talking about tweaking fuel flow to make the 2026 ICEs slightly more powerful.
On the "trouble" part. These engines are not particularly complicated (at least compared to what we have now), they're just weak, and lacking in regeneration.
