2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[henry]

One thing I did note was that in article 3.7.3, "Drawing 7" had been Magenta-ed, which is the sign of a change. This would lead me to expect that there is an updated version of drawing 7 with the corrected coordinates (or possibly using the leading edge as the datum point instead of the FWCL, which has been distributed to teams, or otherwise noted in one of the unpublished appendixes to the rules.

As for the nose rules, the only thing that has changed from this year to next year is that the tip of the nose must be at least 1050mm forward of the FWCL instead of 850 - the rules about cross sections remain the same.

Yes. Using the leading edge as datum would be the sensible approach.

I hadn't spotted that the drawing ref is marked as a change. So maybe you're right and they've produced a revised drawing for the teams to work to.

So the nose tip has been moved to keep it in the same relationship to the neutral section if it has been moved forward.. Will make it easier to pass the crash tests.

[Gerhardsa]

I know this probably doesn't satisfy all the technical regulations surrounding the cars for next year, but what do you think?

Not bad at all imho (without the Halo)

[kooleracer]

I know this probably doesn't satisfy all the technical regulations surrounding the cars for next year, but what do you think?

Not bad at all imho (without the Halo)
http://wtf1.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 1-2017.jpg

Looks really aggressive, love the look of F1 2017. Finally F1 back to its glory days. Hopefully some race and qualifying records will fall, because its really time!

[djos]

I know this probably doesn't satisfy all the technical regulations surrounding the cars for next year, but what do you think?

Not bad at all imho (without the Halo)
http://wtf1.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 1-2017.jpg

Looks great imo too, shame the ugly halo is going to ruin the look tho.

[Gerhardsa]

I know this probably doesn't satisfy all the technical regulations surrounding the cars for next year, but what do you think?

Not bad at all imho (without the Halo)
http://wtf1.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 1-2017.jpg

Looks great imo too, shame the ugly halo is going to ruin the look tho.

They should really have gone with RBR's concept. Waaaaay better than the halo

[McMrocks]

I know this probably doesn't satisfy all the technical regulations surrounding the cars for next year, but what do you think?

Not bad at all imho (without the Halo)
http://wtf1.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 1-2017.jpg

Surely, Michelin is the way to go

[wuzak]

The floor is too wide, the front wing is too wide and the rear wing looks a bit silly.

[OO7]

The floor is too wide, the front wing is too wide and the rear wing looks a bit silly.

Got to say I agreed with you there.

[Gerhardsa]

Like I said when I posted the picture.
This might not satisfy the tech regs exactly, but it gives us a better idea of how they will look

[F1NAC]

Problems with HALO?
https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/751416288925347840

[BanMeToo]

Slanted rear wing is going to kill the look for me, I don't get why they chose that style.

[OO7]

Slanted rear wing is going to kill the look for me, I don't get why they chose that style.

Unfortunately that's the look you get when team bosses/engineers aim to design aesthetically 'pleasing' shapes. It's comparable to the circuits you get when Tilke Engineering is awarded a contract.

[godlameroso]

Anyone care to guess how the new much wider tires will affect aerodynamics? The shapes can't possibly be the same, the wake from the tires will be different, the angles of the outer elements of the wings will have to change in order to do the same thing they were doing before. With roughly 70mm of extra width, and accompanying mass, the suspensions will also need to be beefed up to handle the extra unsprung mass further complicating aero. Inevitably the mechanical grip is being biased forward, but the aerodynamic center of pressure is being moved rearwards. I personally think a lot of teams will struggle getting the details right, so I expect some teams to improve 2 or 3 seconds at the start, and then gain another 2.5 just from the chassis. Others will have a head start on the chassis and improve 4 seconds, but then plateau, and yet others will just keep finding chunks of time from race to race.

[FPV GTHO]

I don't think the mechanical bias will change, it's 60mm wider front 80mm wider rear which means 24.49% more front tyre and 24.62% more rear tyre. Even the aero bias I don't think will change much as it will need to stay thereabouts to the tyre footprint and CoG, plus the current regulations vs 2008 lost alot more rear downforce than front and I don't believe there was a big change in balance there.

[michl420]

I have done a closer look to the rear end of the 2017 cars. I think the interaction between endplate, diffusor and rear brake ducts will be interesting because there is more freedom in the regulation. The endplate will practically touch the rear brake duct. And by the way, i think the cars will be faster than this 5 seconds everyone say. I have no numbers but that's my feeling.