F1technical.net

The space inside f the rear wheels is the same but the width of the wing itself is wider so the endplate has to curve to be able to be mounted in the same place as at present

RicME85 wrote:The space inside f the rear wheels is the same but the width of the wing itself is wider so the endplate has to curve to be able to be mounted in the same place as at present

I see. I don't understand why that needs to be written into the regs though, as it's something the engineers can quite easily solve themselves.

Blaze1 wrote:

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.

It is a temporary situation - it adapts to the 2015 car's floor.

Blaze1 wrote:

RicME85 wrote:The space inside f the rear wheels is the same but the width of the wing itself is wider so the endplate has to curve to be able to be mounted in the same place as at present

I see. I don't understand why that needs to be written into the regs though, as it's something the engineers can quite easily solve themselves.

What do you think is written into the regs?

They define spaces where bodywork cannot, and occasionally can, be placed. The form of the bodywork in those spaces is up to the engineers.

henry wrote:

Paul wrote:Sidepods look too wide.

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

isnt floor also part of bodywork in regulation? Because by regulations sidepods can be wide as floor (max)

3.4.1 Bodywork width between the front and the rear wheel centre lines must not exceed 1600mm.

Has anybody heard anything lately on engine noise improvements for 2017 ?? [-o< [-o< [-o<

mclaren111 wrote:Has anybody heard anything lately on engine noise improvements for 2017 ?? [-o< [-o< [-o<

We´re still banging that drum?
Let´s all just come to grips with the fact that they will never sound like old turbo engines or will never sound like naturally aspirated high revving monsters.

As for me, i love the sound, especially the Mclaren. It just sounds completely bonkers on part throttle.



You can improve the sound you hear on TV but it does not involve doing changes to the cars.

F all wrong with the sound IMO, it's just different. I too like all the mental noises from the Honda

The main issue with the sound is the quality of it on the FOM feed is terrible. All the youtube videos filmed from testing this year sound, much, much better.

PhillipM wrote:The main issue with the sound is the quality of it on the FOM feed is terrible. All the youtube videos filmed from testing this year sound, much, much better.

This, FOM are butchering the sound with dynamic range compression technology. They've been doing it for years, even the V8 tv sound was rubbish compared to in the flesh.

Sound design for motorsport broadcasting is a challenge, because it would be disorienting for viewers if the audio feed changed as frequently and abruptly as the camera angles directors use when tracking (following) cars around a circuit.

To provide continuity, ambient noise is reduced to something of a dull roar for shots in which a camera is actively tracking a car. Typically, only stationary shots with unchanging perspectives are accompanied by dedicated audio.

All audio signals must be compressed to avoid clipping and to give commentators "room" to talk. Otherwise, engine noise is loud as hell at every frequency and could easily make spoken words unintelligible to listeners.

That said, I still think producers do a terrible job covering races.

That said, I still think producers do a terrible job covering races.

I don't know about all the rest but with that I totally agree.
I don't think they like or understand racing actually.

strad wrote:

That said, I still think producers do a terrible job covering races.

I don't know about all the rest but with that I totally agree.
I don't think they like or understand racing actually.

Agreed.

When a driver is setting up to attempt a pass they will cut to pictures of the pit crew, usually sitting, or to a significant other or to a supposed celebrity.

Or, worst of all, to Christian Horner's jiggling foot (they used to do it with Brawn's banana too).

I think it's problematic for live sports in general, not just F1.

Televisions with a 16:9 aspect ratio have been ubiquitous for the last 10-15 years. Yet, directors still operate as if they're limited to the precepts of 4:3. I find it odd that the extra space is most often used to make things larger instead of widening the viewer's effective field of vision.

The more natural something looks, the easier it is for people to immerse themselves in it.

bhall II wrote:Sound design for motorsport broadcasting is a challenge, because it would be disorienting for viewers if the audio feed changed as frequently and abruptly as the camera angles directors use when tracking (following) cars around a circuit.

Sorry Ben, but this is solved as easily as using external mics, wich is standard for any producer, even the small ones.


Broadcasters do a terrible job in many ways, but there´s some wich drive me nuts a lot more than any other, camera placement. They do an awesome job sterilizing tracks. Any slope will be covered like a flat surface, any fast corner will be covered like a slow one, even high speed straights are covered like cars would be doing 100kmh. Baku has been an perfect example of that with asthonishing top speeds wich on the TV looked like Monaco top speeds

Camera placement is simply terrible, looks like they´re still using camera placement of three decades back, when cameras didn´t have any zoom and they had to be placed next to the track. Today that is absurd but they keep doing it