2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[godlameroso]

2010 had brutal race pace no one complained then. Fastest race lap in the Hockenheim race where Alonso was faster than everyone, he did a 1:15... This year fastest race lap was a low 1:18.

[Juzh]

2010 had brutal race pace no one complained then. Fastest race lap in the Hockenheim race where Alonso was faster than everyone, he did a 1:15... This year fastest race lap was a low 1:18.

Fastest lap was 1:15.824 by vettel, and this was done with a car significantly down on speed on the straights. But I agree. It wasn't a problem then, it won't be a problem next year.

[Jolle]

2010 had brutal race pace no one complained then. Fastest race lap in the Hockenheim race where Alonso was faster than everyone, he did a 1:15... This year fastest race lap was a low 1:18.

Fastest lap was 1:15.824 by vettel, and this was done with a car significantly down on speed on the straights. But I agree. It wasn't a problem then, it won't be a problem next year.

In the ground effect days they had very high corner speeds with wide tires and still could race after a some binging in the Monaco discotheques while chainsmoking. Driver fitness really took off when Ron Dennis said to Lauda and Watson: I can spend 100.000 pounds to make the car lighter or you can go to the gym. The drivers are in better shape then ever. The only thing for next year could be that they need even more pressure on the brake paddle because of the extra grip.

[Juzh]

2010 had brutal race pace no one complained then. Fastest race lap in the Hockenheim race where Alonso was faster than everyone, he did a 1:15... This year fastest race lap was a low 1:18.

Fastest lap was 1:15.824 by vettel, and this was done with a car significantly down on speed on the straights. But I agree. It wasn't a problem then, it won't be a problem next year.

In the ground effect days they had very high corner speeds with wide tires and still could race after a some binging in the Monaco discotheques while chainsmoking. Driver fitness really took off when Ron Dennis said to Lauda and Watson: I can spend 100.000 pounds to make the car lighter or you can go to the gym. The drivers are in better shape then ever. The only thing for next year could be that they need even more pressure on the brake paddle because of the extra grip.

Those ground effect cars were fast for the time and age they were made, but if you were to put them next to a modern car they would be left for dead.
Brake pressure requirement has gone down something like 2 or 3-fold since brake by wire was introduced in 2014.

[Jolle]

Fastest lap was 1:15.824 by vettel, and this was done with a car significantly down on speed on the straights. But I agree. It wasn't a problem then, it won't be a problem next year.

In the ground effect days they had very high corner speeds with wide tires and still could race after a some binging in the Monaco discotheques while chainsmoking. Driver fitness really took off when Ron Dennis said to Lauda and Watson: I can spend 100.000 pounds to make the car lighter or you can go to the gym. The drivers are in better shape then ever. The only thing for next year could be that they need even more pressure on the brake paddle because of the extra grip.

Those ground effect cars were fast for the time and age they were made, but if you were to put them next to a modern car they would be left for dead.
Brake pressure requirement has gone down something like 2 or 3-fold since brake by wire was introduced in 2014.

Just for the rear brakes, the front (where they brake the most) is still 100% "analog". I read somewhere that in the early braking fase they apply something like 100kg of force.

The actual corner speeds might be close, wider tracks, qualifying engines, "unlimited" DF... plus (compared to now) heavy helmets.

[trinidefender]

I hope nobody ever accuses me of going off topic now. I think this must be a new record.

A moderator as well.....standards much

[Andres125sx]

I hope nobody ever accuses me of going off topic now. I think this must be a new record.

A moderator as well.....standards much

sorry but disagree, not completely off topic as we´re discussing about how drivers will cope with 2017 faster cars and higher G forces.

And I find it quite interesting, but I guess I´m biased since I started this discussion

Some time ago, when cars did all lap records, some drivers reported feeling sick because of the high Gs sustained over a race (combined with tiredness, dehydratation, etc.). Supporting 5Gs for a corner is very different to support 5Gs on several corners and braking points for 2 hours after you lost 2-3 litres of water and your muscles are exhausted

I´m wondering if this problem may be a problem next season again, since every opinion I´m reading from people with some knownledge agree 2017 cars will be faster than FIA anticipates

I hope not, but if it happens, it may be a serious problem wich could be a huge safety problem depending on intensity


Any toughts?

Sorry if you didn´t like it

[trinidefender]

I hope nobody ever accuses me of going off topic now. I think this must be a new record.

A moderator as well.....standards much

sorry but disagree, not completely off topic as we´re discussing about how drivers will cope with 2017 faster cars and higher G forces.

And I find it quite interesting, but I guess I´m biased since I started this discussion

Some time ago, when cars did all lap records, some drivers reported feeling sick because of the high Gs sustained over a race (combined with tiredness, dehydratation, etc.). Supporting 5Gs for a corner is very different to support 5Gs on several corners and braking points for 2 hours after you lost 2-3 litres of water and your muscles are exhausted

I´m wondering if this problem may be a problem next season again, since every opinion I´m reading from people with some knownledge agree 2017 cars will be faster than FIA anticipates

I hope not, but if it happens, it may be a serious problem wich could be a huge safety problem depending on intensity


Any toughts?

Sorry if you didn´t like it

Clearly you didn't read the title. Here, I'll quote it for you, "Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes."

If talking about a car livery or future hardware changes in a car hardware thread is considered too off topic, and many times handled by deleting said posts, then how the physical fitness of a driver and their muscularity vs anaerobic/aerobic fitness (for 2 and a half pages might I add) relates to proposed 2017 aerodynamic rule changes is beyond me.

I came here to read about the aerodynamic changes for the 2017 cars.

Even more ironic is that the mod here continuing this is one that is known for being very strict concerning off topic post removals and relocations.

I'm not saying I have never gone off topic in a thread, but I would expect that there is equal treatment across the board when it comes to moderating said standards. I hate hypocrisy.

P.s. This could have been easily avoided by starting a new thread with a title something along the lines of "faster cars vs driver fitness," then this would all be fine.

[turbof1]

I hope nobody ever accuses me of going off topic now. I think this must be a new record.

A moderator as well.....standards much

sorry but disagree, not completely off topic as we´re discussing about how drivers will cope with 2017 faster cars and higher G forces.

And I find it quite interesting, but I guess I´m biased since I started this discussion

Some time ago, when cars did all lap records, some drivers reported feeling sick because of the high Gs sustained over a race (combined with tiredness, dehydratation, etc.). Supporting 5Gs for a corner is very different to support 5Gs on several corners and braking points for 2 hours after you lost 2-3 litres of water and your muscles are exhausted

I´m wondering if this problem may be a problem next season again, since every opinion I´m reading from people with some knownledge agree 2017 cars will be faster than FIA anticipates

I hope not, but if it happens, it may be a serious problem wich could be a huge safety problem depending on intensity


Any toughts?

Sorry if you didn´t like it

Clearly you didn't read the title. Here, I'll quote it for you, "Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes."

If talking about a car livery or future hardware changes in a car hardware thread is considered too off topic, and many times handled by deleting said posts, then how the physical fitness of a driver and their muscularity vs anaerobic/aerobic fitness (for 2 and a half pages might I add) relates to proposed 2017 aerodynamic rule changes is beyond me.

I came here to read about the aerodynamic changes for the 2017 cars.

Even more ironic is that the mod here continuing this is one that is known for being very strict concerning off topic post removals and relocations.

I'm not saying I have never gone off topic in a thread, but I would expect that there is equal treatment across the board when it comes to moderating said standards. I hate hypocrisy.

P.s. This could have been easily avoided by starting a new thread with a title something along the lines of "faster cars vs driver fitness," then this would all be fine.

You are right. I think I and others got a bit too much astray here. Although mind this is not a specific car topics neither: you are allowed to derail a bit in this topic, while car hardware threads are way more strict.

For the record: the "involved mod" (for heaven's sake, just name my username!) is known to be strict in current car hardware topics where ground rules are laid out in the first post. He is loose in other topics.

But again: it went too much sideways here. I'll split off the posts here in a different thread. You are treated on equal ground, including shortcomings and falling for off topic traps .

So: F1 driver fitness and G-forces topic here: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 0&start=15

[godlameroso]

Back on topic, how much of an influence will the front tires have on determining front wing shape. In other words, will we see a completely new front wing philosophy, or will it be more or less as it is now? At the very least the end plates and cascades will need to be reshaped to account for the extra width, but at the same time since the track is increasing it might be better to direct more airflow inboard of the tires, given the larger bargeboards. Also will teams re-think the rake on the cars seeing as how we'll have a more substantial diffuser and a smaller T-tray. Will we see similar gurney's on the trailing edge of the diffuser to help the airflow of the rear wing? Will there be a bigger emphasis on aero appendages under the nose, S ducts, will the "batwing" make a return?

The distance from the diffuser to the rear wing has decreased giving more opportunity to take advantage of the exhaust plume which could mean a greater scavenging effect. Also will it be worth it to run full floor width? The rear tires being quite a bit wider than this year, a wider floor could cause more tire squirt issues.

[trinidefender]

Back on topic, how much of an influence will the front tires have on determining front wing shape. In other words, will we see a completely new front wing philosophy, or will it be more or less as it is now? At the very least the end plates and cascades will need to be reshaped to account for the extra width, but at the same time since the track is increasing it might be better to direct more airflow inboard of the tires, given the larger bargeboards. Also will teams re-think the rake on the cars seeing as how we'll have a more substantial diffuser and a smaller T-tray. Will we see similar gurney's on the trailing edge of the diffuser to help the airflow of the rear wing? Will there be a bigger emphasis on aero appendages under the nose, S ducts, will the "batwing" make a return?

The distance from the diffuser to the rear wing has decreased giving more opportunity to take advantage of the exhaust plume which could mean a greater scavenging effect. Also will it be worth it to run full floor width? The rear tires being quite a bit wider than this year, a wider floor could cause more tire squirt issues.

The front wings will be wider so this should aid spanwise flow and with edge of the wing will be close to the edge of the tyre. I would imagine that relatively the same philosophies would apply to the outer portions of the front wing with front tyre wake control.

Where I would imagine would be different would be the inner portions of the wing to interact with the larger bargeboards etc.

[godlameroso]

The tires are 60mm wider + 100mm track increase, while the wing increases only 100mm when viewed from the car centerline. Assuming there's zero offset on the wheel that means the tire extends 152.5 mm past the wheel hub. Meaning the wing is 900mm whereas the edge of the tire is 1152.5mm from the car centerline. A 252.5mm difference.

This year the front wing is 800mm while the track is 900mm from the center line and tire width is 245mm again assuming zero wheel offset that's 122.5mm past the hub giving at total width of 1022.5mm or a 222.5mm difference.

This means that if they use zero offset wheels there will be roughly 22mm of extra tire that the front wing will have to deal with. It's not an insignificant amount when it comes to aerodynamics.

[bhall II]

This year the front wing is 800mm...

825mm

[ChrisDanger]

Ted Kravitz and Anthony Davidson discuss the 2017 changes.

[Andres125sx]

Clearly you didn't read the title. Here, I'll quote it for you, "Proposed 2017 F1 Aerodynamic Changes."

Well I obviously read it, but you´re right, I was under the impression this was a general talk about 2017 rules. My mistake, sorry