The current Formula One manufacturers have come to an agreement to reduce the cost of a V6 Hybrid power unit considerably, and ensure that customer teams will not be left without an engine deal.
Qualifying runs disprove this assumption. Peak downforce levels are pathetic at the moment. Simply can not be argued against.Just_a_fan wrote:We've seen hints when the Mercedes suddenly found pace and left the rest for dead because they were actually racing each other. That suggests untapped potential in the current cars' downforce production.
Forget that, I'm not watching another dumb semi spec series.Thunders wrote:The Engine Manufacturers offer for the Engine Regs:
Price down to € 12m and the use of some standart Parts (Battery, MGU-K, MGU-H, maybe even the Turbo...). All this to keep the Engine Rules as they are now.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 60724.html
Let's wait for Bernie and Jean.....
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... ns-667404/Formula 1 teams are backing away from plans to dramatically increase downforce for 2017 in a move that looks set to leave the onus of increased speeds to come from Pirelli's wider tyres.
#aerogollumturbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
#aerogollumturbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
GPR-A wrote:So, the proposed 2017 Aero changes was a gimmick to keep the F1 world engaged. OK. Good joke, I hope we all enjoyed it.
This next bit just tickles me to pieces...Although the decision to abandon some of the chief ideas for 2017 is disappointing for those hoping for a big leap forward in pace, some changes will remain.
The push for wider front and rear wings and more freedom in the bargeboard area will be retained.
The bodywork “chin” [bh2: tea tray] length will also be reduced by 100mm, allowing cars to run slightly lower.
The cosmetic changes designed to improve the look of the cars, such as swept back front wing, rear endplates and leading edge of the sidepods, will also stay.
Yeah, there was definitely no scientific investigation into the nature of overtaking. Instead, the "Dirty Air Working Group" took it for granted that there's a correlation between proximity and overtaking, simply because that's the most common refrain heard throughout the sport's vast echo chamber. In reality, no one knows for sure. (But, there is a reason why the 2009 rules failed so miserably.)“My belief is that the more downforce you have on a car, the harder it is to follow,” [Pat Symonds] said. “And this car has more downforce.
“Therefore irrespective of any niceties that the Overtaking Working Group may have come up with, and irrespective of whether one believes them or not – and as a member of that group I know what short cuts we did against the true scientific process – the fact is if you've got more downforce, the harder it is to follow.
"I think that's simplistic, but nevertheless quite a true view.”
Greener advertising pastures under the guise of increased overtaking? No wonder fans are abandoning the sport in droves.Overtaking, Applying science and commonsense wrote:What was interesting was that by using a scientific approach to the problem [meant to be addressed by the 2009 aero overhaul] it became clear that previous attempts to solve the problem had in reality made things worse.
"Almost all of the attempts to reduce downforce in the recent past have been retrograde in terms of overtaking possibilities and wake behaviour," one member of the OWG said. "If we had wanted to make overtaking chances worse, that was what we would have come up with."
[...]
The new rules will exclude all the barge boards, the radiator air extraction chimneys, flip-ups, nose horns and all the rest of it. The plan is for the cars to be smooth between the axles.
"There is a small overtaking benefit attached to that," [OWG member, Paddy] Lowe admitted, "but it was mainly done in response to demands from the team principals for cleaner advertising areas."
Not so much deny?"There was some misinformation that recently went out saying we could not deal with a 50 or 60 per cent increase in load, but of course we can.
This does sound bollocks though:"With larger diameter tyres the inner part of the tyre has a bigger volume of air, but then you work with inflation pressures.
If you are pushing the tyre further into the ground, the footprint has to expand. It's why you'd want to push the tyre further into ground in the first place"I know some people think with higher inflation pressures you lose performance, but the reality is if you increase by 60 per cent the load, you are actually pushing the tyre further into the ground and your footprint stays the same.
. Increasing pressure will hamper the tyre being pushed further into the ground.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-do-m ... plash=trueHere you can see that low angle diffusers don’t reach the same level of performance as those with higher angles (within the range tested). Once a critical level is reached the higher angle diffusers achieve the same downforce (at different heights). You can’t extend this to silly angles – we have tried! What’s interesting is that the highest angle tested has the largest ride height range at max performance. Those at slightly lower expansion angles fall away more as ride height is increased from the peak (remember 1% is a lot).
