2017 tyre testing cars

[mrluke]

Teams have been known to fit tyres the "wrong way" around, pirelli presumably want to know what the impact of this would be on their tyres.

[Thunder]

Teams have been known to fit tyres the "wrong way" around, pirelli presumably want to know what the impact of this would be on their tyres.

That is true for Dry Slicks, but it doesn't make sense on an Intermediate.

But as Jolle said, it was probably just a system check lap on worn Tires or something like that.

[PhillipM]

It may also be to check aquaplaning resistance in the event of a spin. Hence fitting to only one side of the car in order to check the differential between them.

[f1316]

Given the manner in which each team has chosen to simulate 2017 downforce levels, the aero gap between Ferrari and Red Bull is clearly massive.

Ferrari showed up with a barn door attached to the back of its car; Red Bull runs less wing.

http://i.imgur.com/WG7nVnd.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/E8PEOvM.jpg

However they've added a very large Beam wing to the Monkey seat to simulate the wider rear wing for next year.

It doesn't really make sense to say this demonstrates an aero gap; whatever the aero gap currently, both companies stand to gain the same from 2017 regulations, so in order to simulate what they think their downforce levels will be both teams would have to *add* the same amount of downforce.

What i'm saying is: say RB are 20% ahead on downforce (absolutely and completely made up number), they would still expect to progress next year's car the same amount as Ferrari and hence still be 20% ahead.

So it doesn't make sense one company would add less than the other to accurately simulate 2017 levels. It just looks like RB haven't tried as hard, frankly.

[Just_a_fan]

It just looks like RB haven't tried as hard, frankly.

I disagree. If you look at the RedBull, they've done lots of things - beam wing, bigger diffuser gurney, full length side skirts. The RedBull skirts don't go down to the ground but they the full length of the floor unlike the rear-biased skirts on the Ferrari. The skirts also cleverly follow under the leading edge of the floor behind the horn wing/barge boards. The RedBull obviously has a different aero setup to the Ferrari: RedBull have focussed on driving the full underfloor where Ferrari have just bolted on stuff at the rear. I'd say that looks like Ferrari haven't tried as hard.

[f1316]

It just looks like RB haven't tried as hard, frankly.

I disagree. If you look at the RedBull, they've done lots of things - beam wing, bigger diffuser gurney, full length side skirts. The RedBull skirts don't go down to the ground but they the full length of the floor unlike the rear-biased skirts on the Ferrari. The skirts also cleverly follow under the leading edge of the floor behind the horn wing/barge boards. The RedBull obviously has a different aero setup to the Ferrari: RedBull have focussed on driving the full underfloor where Ferrari have just bolted on stuff at the rear. I'd say that looks like Ferrari haven't tried as hard.

Alright, well the tried as hard bit was a bit of an afterthought, granted - who's tried harder or achieved more downforce is subjective until we have some data (or comments from someone who's seen the data).

But I stand by the logic of the rest of what I wrote.

[rjsa]

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a42icD4L9pg/ ... 397862.jpg

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-isMZ2JLCYco/ ... 397861.jpg

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QicdWjqcXmM/ ... 397863.jpg

Different treads on the tires between left and right?!

both rights mounted backwards.

[mrluke]

It just looks like RB haven't tried as hard, frankly.

I disagree. If you look at the RedBull, they've done lots of things - beam wing, bigger diffuser gurney, full length side skirts. The RedBull skirts don't go down to the ground but they the full length of the floor unlike the rear-biased skirts on the Ferrari. The skirts also cleverly follow under the leading edge of the floor behind the horn wing/barge boards. The RedBull obviously has a different aero setup to the Ferrari: RedBull have focussed on driving the full underfloor where Ferrari have just bolted on stuff at the rear. I'd say that looks like Ferrari haven't tried as hard.

Alright, well the tried as hard bit was a bit of an afterthought, granted - who's tried harder or achieved more downforce is subjective until we have some data (or comments from someone who's seen the data).

But I stand by the logic of the rest of what I wrote.

I think what Bhall was getting at is it shows the complete contrast between RBR and Ferrari's aero approach. The fact that RBR can get enough downforce by tidying up the floor whereas Ferrari needed to bolt a barn door to the car to get that much downforce. It suggests that Ferrari are unable to get as much downforce from the floor as RBR can and by quite some margin.

[Jolle]

I disagree. If you look at the RedBull, they've done lots of things - beam wing, bigger diffuser gurney, full length side skirts. The RedBull skirts don't go down to the ground but they the full length of the floor unlike the rear-biased skirts on the Ferrari. The skirts also cleverly follow under the leading edge of the floor behind the horn wing/barge boards. The RedBull obviously has a different aero setup to the Ferrari: RedBull have focussed on driving the full underfloor where Ferrari have just bolted on stuff at the rear. I'd say that looks like Ferrari haven't tried as hard.

Alright, well the tried as hard bit was a bit of an afterthought, granted - who's tried harder or achieved more downforce is subjective until we have some data (or comments from someone who's seen the data).

But I stand by the logic of the rest of what I wrote.

I think what Bhall was getting at is it shows the complete contrast between RBR and Ferrari's aero approach. The fact that RBR can get enough downforce by tidying up the floor whereas Ferrari needed to bolt a barn door to the car to get that much downforce. It suggests that Ferrari are unable to get as much downforce from the floor as RBR can and by quite some margin.

I think both teams just went for the for them most efficient methode to get to the 2017 DF levels. Ferrari did it with a larger RW and more pronounced skirts while RedBull had beam wings, small skirts and a extra diffuser flap. I don't see any better or worse. This setup hasn't got anything to do with efficiency for drag, just a "quick fix". Who knows Mercedes next month will put a fan on the back pushing down. Or a second rear wing.

It's all about the efficiency cost vs downforce instead of drag vs downforce.

[toraabe]

No venturi tunnels though...

http://forix.autosport.com/8w/march90ca/ds-indy85b.jpg

[bhall II]

I think both teams just went for the for them most efficient methode to get to the 2017 DF levels. Ferrari did it with a larger RW and more pronounced skirts while RedBull had beam wings, small skirts and a extra diffuser flap. I don't see any better or worse. This setup hasn't got anything to do with efficiency for drag, just a "quick fix". Who knows Mercedes next month will put a fan on the back pushing down. Or a second rear wing.

It's all about the efficiency cost vs downforce instead of drag vs downforce.

And what's the implication if the result of each team's decision to just throw something together is a markedly different pair of solutions of which there's little doubt that one is inherently better than the other?

[Jolle]

I think both teams just went for the for them most efficient methode to get to the 2017 DF levels. Ferrari did it with a larger RW and more pronounced skirts while RedBull had beam wings, small skirts and a extra diffuser flap. I don't see any better or worse. This setup hasn't got anything to do with efficiency for drag, just a "quick fix". Who knows Mercedes next month will put a fan on the back pushing down. Or a second rear wing.

It's all about the efficiency cost vs downforce instead of drag vs downforce.

And what's the implication if the result of each team's decision to just throw something together is a markedly different pair of solutions of which there's little doubt that one is inherently better than the other?

Maybe the techs from Ferrari clienti saw the RedBull solution and thought, oh yes, beam wings was also possible. Or the Ferrari setup doesn't allow to have holes drilled into that part of the structure.

The best solution is the cheapest at this point, nothing to do with aero efficiency of the original or with levels of drag of these cars.

The teams were asked by the way to find solutions for extra pressure on the rear axle outside the 2017 rules, so no new floor or 2017 rear wing.

[bhall II]

The best solution is the cheapest at this point, nothing to do with aero efficiency of the original or with levels of drag of these cars.

Think about that.

[Jolle]

The best solution is the cheapest at this point, nothing to do with aero efficiency of the original or with levels of drag of these cars.

Think about that.

Oh come on, the modifications are a result of a 5 minute engineering meeting, both factories just thought up a way and calculated that solution.

Q: James, last point, they asked us to supply a '15 car for tire testing, what do you think?
A: uhm, just widen the RW and, let's see, some skirts? I let Jorge do a CFD on that this afternoon to see if we get to the desired DF level.

Q: Adrian, what do you think?
A: pffff, I do like some beam wings, that should do it, let me draw you a small picture. There you go.

[mrluke]

Your team has a massive opportunity to test next years tyres and the associated increased downforce levels.

I would expect any F1 team to absolutely maximize any potential knowledge or data that could be achieved from such a test.