2017 F1 general testing thread

[turbof1]

But: the Mercedes is a very long car. Naturally that induces understeer. They obkectively seem to be very close to one another, but the way Gary seems to put it is well... Dren?

Please correct me if I'm wrong Turbo (or anyone):

- The aim for a longer wheelbase is to get more space for aero/downforce.
- This comes at the expense of maneuverability and understeer.
- The idea is what might be lost through worse agility of the car will be made up through more downforce resulting in overall quicker times (at least on tracks where this is key).
- overall more/better downforce might result in more efficient use of the tires?

Given that both Redbull and Ferrari have relatively short cars (compared to the Mercedes), one has to ask if Mercedes has gone the right way with their philosophy. Or we might see that some cars prove to be strong on some tracks while other might be on others?

Also, if lets say, Mercedes did get it wrong - has a team ever attempted to change the wheelbase of the car mid season? I would think this is probably not very easy, as developing a new chassis means you'd have to crash-test the whole thing and get it approved again. Also, I'd assume the whole aero philosophy would need to be re-adjusted for a shorter-wheelbase. I guess this would not be easily achievable at all?

I cannot answer if Mercedes got it rlght or wrong. I simply do not know.

If they got it wrong, then changing the wheelbase is possible but difficult. Making it longer is not that hard as Lotus and Virgin have demonstrated in the past. Generally this is done by moving the front suspension forward. The opposite though, moving the suspension backwards, also means shortening the front crash structure.

[ncassi22]

Maldonado part duex

Have we found the new Crashtor? ... A bit obvious, but he.... strolled straight into the wall.

[Felipe 92]

https://twitter.com/publogic/status/836959178648338432

[PhillipM]

Maldonado part duex

I reckon it's Pastor in disguise, he's been watching 'Face-off' and come up with a cunning plan for getting back into Formula 1.

Bags of money, check, Williams, check, crashing every 3 minutes, check...hmm.

[hollowBallistix]

https://twitter.com/publogic/status/836959178648338432

It's faster than the McLaren

[Restomaniac]

Can anyone tell me how you can take turn 3 as a hairpin?

[AMG.Tzan]

Going from Formula 3 straight to this year's F1 i think is too much to ask from a 17 year old!! Verstappen and Ocon did it but in much slower cars...especially Ocon in last year's Marussia!!
Anyway...although Gary seems to like Ferrari much, Ferrari looks fast this year...almost same time with Bottas on softs vs ultrasofts!! At least they seem to be quick unlike Mclaren which is nowhere to be seen!! But the big question for me is Red Bull!! What are they up to...so much silence around this team!!

[Phil]

Please correct me if I'm wrong Turbo (or anyone):

- The aim for a longer wheelbase is to get more space for aero/downforce.
- This comes at the expense of maneuverability and understeer.
- The idea is what might be lost through worse agility of the car will be made up through more downforce resulting in overall quicker times (at least on tracks where this is key).
- overall more/better downforce might result in more efficient use of the tires?

I cannot answer if Mercedes got it rlght or wrong. I simply do not know.

Thanks! What about the rest? Is that more or less the underlying idea behind why some teams have chosen a longer wheelbase opposed to why some have not?

[turbof1]

Please correct me if I'm wrong Turbo (or anyone):

- The aim for a longer wheelbase is to get more space for aero/downforce.
- This comes at the expense of maneuverability and understeer.
- The idea is what might be lost through worse agility of the car will be made up through more downforce resulting in overall quicker times (at least on tracks where this is key).
- overall more/better downforce might result in more efficient use of the tires?

I cannot answer if Mercedes got it rlght or wrong. I simply do not know.

Thanks! What about the rest? Is that more or less the underlying idea behind why some teams have chosen a longer wheelbase opposed to why some have not?

What you say is quite correct, although it has to be noted the understeer allows for more stability in high speed corners. Gary is heavily focussed on a couple of specific corners, but neglects checking how the cars behave in high speed ones. Or how fast the cars actually are at corner entry, mid corner and corner exit in his specific set of corners. Hamilton might be lifting a lot before the corner, but the understeer might allow him to apply throttle much quicker at corner exit.

[FrukostScones]

poor MAL getting compared to this kid that can't drive.

the Kid at least claimed highest speed at straight finish line with 288.0km/h

[PhillipM]

Well, the timing just broke a little, apparently HAM did a 0m12s lap there for a few moments.

That was some sandbagging!

At least Mclaren look like they're finally getting some longer runs in.

[gdogg371]

double post

[PhillipM]

There's been a few more recently that did it with a change of front wishbones to alter the wheelbase.

[dren]

Mr. Insightful:

Without doubt, the Mercedes looks a lot better around Turn 3 on softs than it did on mediums earlier in this race run. The front end stays tucked in and, in general, the car looks more stable.

Hmm, less fuel and on stickier tires. Whodathunkit?

He sure likes his turn 3. To bad the entire track wasn't made out of turn 3s.

[gdogg371]

But: the Mercedes is a very long car. Naturally that induces understeer. They obkectively seem to be very close to one another, but the way Gary seems to put it is well... Dren?

Please correct me if I'm wrong Turbo (or anyone):

- The aim for a longer wheelbase is to get more space for aero/downforce.
- This comes at the expense of maneuverability and understeer.
- The idea is what might be lost through worse agility of the car will be made up through more downforce resulting in overall quicker times (at least on tracks where this is key).
- overall more/better downforce might result in more efficient use of the tires?

Given that both Redbull and Ferrari have relatively short cars (compared to the Mercedes), one has to ask if Mercedes has gone the right way with their philosophy. Or we might see that some cars prove to be strong on some tracks while other might be on others?

Also, if lets say, Mercedes did get it wrong - has a team ever attempted to change the wheelbase of the car mid season? I would think this is probably not very easy, as developing a new chassis means you'd have to crash-test the whole thing and get it approved again. Also, I'd assume the whole aero philosophy would need to be re-adjusted for a shorter-wheelbase. I guess this would not be easily achievable at all?

The Williams FW16B which if I recall correctly was introduced at Hockenheim in 1994 had a longer wheel base than the ill fated FW16 which Senna crashed to his death in. The increased wheel base length was probably in part a response to the well documented very nervous handling of the original version of the car as well as to recoup some downforce after the FIA axe was swung mid season to reduce this on the cars. There will be other examples of a team changing wheelbase mid season as a new version number was introduced, but that one sticks in my mind.

After the trailing sections from the front wings that ran behind the front wheels were outlawed, a lot of teams recovered the lost downforce through using larger bargeboards. The FW16B had shorter sidepods to incorporate this into the design, but having the longer wheelbase will undoubtedly have helped. The FW16B formed the basis of the FW17 & FW18 that followed it and was the class of the field in the second half of 1994.