2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[RicME85]

Oh and I never said they don't look good, I like them, I liked the previous ruleset too.

And regarding my question....Did that rule get scrapped or is it an area for interpretation?

[Holm86]

Oh and I never said they don't look good, I like them, I liked the previous ruleset too.

And regarding my question....Did that rule get scrapped or is it an area for interpretation?

Im not sure it was a rule that they had to be angled, more the illustrators who believed so ....

And another thing is, we have so far only seen low-budget teams show their cars, maybe some of the bigger teams have a more aggressive approach ...

[mclaren111]

Launch Cars are always very, very basic

[zac510]

I agree that so far the aerodynamic changes don't look that different to 2016, but on the point of aesthetics I think the wider car and lower rear wing will look better on track.

[Just_a_fan]

I'm unhappy to see the return of ugly big shark fins behind the air box. Would love to see a return to the sleek air boxes of the early 2000s.

[Alonsofor2017]

Oh and I never said they don't look good, I like them, I liked the previous ruleset too.

And regarding my question....Did that rule get scrapped or is it an area for interpretation?

Im not sure it was a rule that they had to be angled, more the illustrators who believed so ....

And another thing is, we have so far only seen low-budget teams show their cars, maybe some of the bigger teams have a more aggressive approach ...

Good point sauber themselves said that they went conservative this year. Including picking last year's Ferrari engine. I think there car is building on what they know and playing it safe.

I expect the Mercedes to look good and have a shorter wheel base as they usually have and a nice nose. This will make the width more pronounced

[AMG.Tzan]

Just 3 cars into the launch week and all of them are so different! I mean if Renault Sauber and Force India are so well developed what are we going to see from the top 4 (Mclaren included)?? Although i expect much slicker designs from them! Escpecially Red Bull and Mercedes!!

[f1316]

One thing is surely true of the 2017 cars we have seen: there is much more on the (leading) cars for people who are interested in the technical detail to pour over.

So from the perspective of people on this forum, we must surely agree that that is more interesting for us?

I've noticed people like Martin Brundle and Damon Hill bemoaning the look of the cars on Twitter; I really don't understand it. It's exactly like how people (including Martin Brundle) were saying the same during the 2008 season and were pleased that all the little flick ups and aero devices were going for 2009. But did that really make the cars look nicer in the end?

I guess it entirely depends on what you want from F1; do you want something that looks classic, clean and aesthetically pleasing or do you want something that looks cutting edge, shows advancements in engineering and differentiates one car from another? I don't think you can have both and, personally, i prefer the latter.



The noses maybe aren't ideal by and large and I'm surprised more teams haven't converged on the most successful team's (Mercedes') more aesthetically pleasing solution. But they're not all that bad - not as bad as 2014 or 2012 - and I for one kind of like the variation that comes from a team like Force India's interpretation.

And, of course, all the noses were fine in 2008 - before the regulations started trying to dictate what cars should look like...

Before trying to mandate aesthetics via regulation (2008)



First attempt to mandate noses via regulation (2012)




Second attempt to mandate noses via regulation (2014)





Really don't understand the objection to shark fins either. The front and rear wings are both angled to give this illusion of speed and forward movement and the fin also emphasises that - think of how a cartoonist might draw a car being stretched as it accelerates and you get the idea.



Maybe people just like to moan but it seems to me there are things worth worrying about and the cars 2017 aero regs have produced is not one of them - they're a step in the right direction.

[bonjon1979]

These new rules have given us cars that are around a foot longer than the estate car I drive. That's pretty shocking in my opinion...,

[f1316]

These new rules have given us cars that are around a foot longer than the estate car I drive. That's pretty shocking in my opinion...,

Right but they've been getting bigger and bigger for years:



(FYI I know that picture is not 100% accurate - just a representation)

Also, you have to note that another (imo) completely unnecessary and counterproductive rule change - the ban on refuelling - contributed greatly to the increase in wheelbase.

Ultimately you could put a cap on wheelbases but, ya know, do you want the fastest cars with teams given a degree of technical freedom or the fastest cars possible within a narrow window of how you think the car should look? (Genuine question)

[PhillipM]

The reason they're so long is because of technical constraints anyway, so that's hardly an argument.

We have set dimensions for heights, widths, tyres, etc, I see no reason why we can't have a regulation that limits car length to 4000mm. Personally, I think it would improve the racing anyway.

[f1316]

The reason they're so long is because of technical constraints anyway, so that's hardly an argument.

We have set dimensions for heights, widths, tyres, etc, I see no reason why we can't have a regulation that limits car length to 4000mm. Personally, I think it would improve the racing anyway.

Sure, we could; given the technical constraints you mention though, you'd probably just end up with a field full of exactly 4000mm cars; my thesis (if you can call it that) is that further restrictions aren't the answer to problems caused by restrictions - that, in reality, loosening regulations would probably lead to things looking nicer anyway (as they did prior to stricter regs - and I'm aware you have to go much further back than 2008 for the start of regulation tightening).

I've said it before but I think ideally you set targets - e.g. Pass this crash test, pass a test for head on collisions to prove the car doesn't ride up on the other car, use X amount of fuel etc. - and then loosen how teams can achieve those targets. I think cost associated with that is a red herring - if the only performance benefit everyone is chasing is, say, exhaust blown diffusers, it's harder/more expensive for a small team than if they can find the same performance in other ways; equally, I think it's easier for Force India to head over to Silverstone to test than keep investing in ever more sophisticated cfd/simulators/wind tunnels.

Out of interest - and again a genuine question - why do you think shorter cars would improve racing? And if the racing was good this year, would you still dislike long cars?

[PhillipM]

The cars would generally be more agile/nervous, the width compared to the wheelbase would result in having to concentrate more aero and tyre development at driving with more slip angle and hence being more recoverable when drivers have to push over the limit in an overtake, etc, we'd have less downforce and more drag for better slipstreaming, and it might make it more feasable for lunges down the inside in tight hairpins where currently there's only one line that will actually get the car around the corner.

I'm a big fan of deregulation in F1, but if you deregulate car widths and lengths then what you'll get is cars that are so wide nobody can overtake anybody, there needs to be basic regulations, personally I'd get rid of the fiddly stuff and just say "Pass this safety test, be less than X wide and Y long, and here are your Z litres of fuel that you can use for the race. Off you go"

And yes, even if the racing was good this year I'd be an advocate of shorter cars, as correlation isn't causation...

[roon]

Personally, I think it would improve the racing anyway.

It's up to the participating teams to devise ways to defeat their competitors.

Aerodynamic performance was one of the many areas developed over the years to help a team defeat its competitors.

Is it a coincidence that the most regulated-era of F1 saw the establishment of its most dominant team? Will adding further regulations help this?

If we see any parity or improvement from losing teams this year, it will be at least partly because the token system was eliminated and large volumes around the car were deregulated.

Regulations tend to benefit establishments & remove opportunities for changes of order. This is the sort of racing we should care about, not whether monkey #1 can pass monkey #2, in front of a GoPro in slow-mo, for the replication of fetishized video sequences portraying overtakes.

Passing & overtaking is a small part of racing. Carpenters rarely use their hammers. Painters rarely use their brush. Race car drivers rarely pass.

[PhillipM]

Ah well, in that case, we may as well just let them make the cars as wide as they like, see who is fastest in qualifying, give them the trophy, and all go home and watch the cricket on Sunday.