F1technical.net

Have you guys seen the Perrin interpretation of the rules?

The rear wing looks a little too low for my taste and although I wouldn't have angled the rear wing end-plates, overall it looks like an improvement.

Sidepods look too wide.

The rear wing is ugly and the front wing is way too wide.

Paul wrote:Sidepods look too wide.

Agreed. The regs have max side pod width 1400, same as now, and Max floor 1600.

Also do the 2017 regs allow the leading edge of the diffuser to start at the forward edge of the rear tyre (335mm ahead of the rear wheel centre-line ).

The splitter is behind the trailing edge of the front tyre in the Perrin design. At the inception of the 2017 regs this was mentioned, but I thought they reverted to the 2016 rule where splitter must start at or ahead of the rear edge of the front tyre.

I think it looks pretty good, even the slanted rear wing. Much better than today anyways.

so rear wing can be curved?

I think it has to be curved, if you mean the endplates, to fit.

I think that the high and wide rear wing like on the Ferrari test car.

Like the good old days.

wuzak wrote:Like the good old days.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 4e8709.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com ... 101_02.jpg

http://img14.deviantart.net/fce5/i/2013 ... 5fpr2o.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zRZeUNKLw7o/maxresdefault.jpg

Amen!

wuzak wrote:I think that the high and wide rear wing like on the Ferrari test car.

http://d24ftq11lp1zg6.cloudfront.net/hr ... 96cb35f1-4

http://cdn-5.motorsport.com/images/amp/ ... sf15-t.jpg

http://cdn-7.motorsport.com/images/mgl/ ... sf15-t.jpg

http://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Es ... 967283.jpg

I don't really like the way the Ferrari rear wing end-plates narrow at mid-point. The combination of being being tall and narrowing puts me off. I much prefer the style of rear wings in the images of the older cars you posted, e.g McLaren MP4/8 etc.

They will all have a bend in them as the top section is wider than the lower section in the regs

RicME85 wrote:They will all have a bend in them as the top section is wider than the lower section in the regs

It doesn't look at all bad on the Perrin car, because it is essentially hidden by the low height of the wing. I wonder why this narrowing was written into the regs as you say? At first I thought it was because the regs would allow a narrow beam wing, but that has been rescinded. The narrowing would probably be a natural design avenue for the engineers, to allow them to continue using similar sized rear brake duct fins.