2018 cars speculation

[GrandAxe]

There might be surprises in the interpretation of the halo for next year, perhaps as an additional aero device. This will also include any new vanes/fairings on the monocoque to obviate aero losses due to it. There could even be use of the halo to refine airflow to the rear or to provide downforce (particularly with the T-wing disallowed).

On the performance disparities of the cars; it is not as simple as oil burning or rake angle. Its a whole system of things usually driven by software e.g. applying the right amount of torque to the rear wheels, algorithms determining the parameters of harvesting by the MGU-H and MGU-K, supercomputers accurately correlating CFD and dyno simulations so that they meet expectations in real life use etc. All Information Technology (IT).

If Mercedes edge is in IT, then it could be something inherited from the vast resource base of its parent, Daimler AG. Information Technology (IT) depth is not easy to overcome, so if that's Mercedes advantage, they are likely to keep it for a few more years; rake or no rake, long or short wheel base.

[George-Jung]

If we could only flip PU in different cars- so we could see who actually has the best chassis.

[roon]

There might be surprises in the interpretation of the halo for next year, perhaps as an additional aero device. This will also include any new vanes/fairings on the monocoque to obviate aero losses due to it. There could even be use of the halo to refine airflow to the rear or to provide downforce (particularly with the T-wing disallowed).

Will be interesting to see. Has the wording of the regs for it been made available?

[GrandAxe]

There might be surprises in the interpretation of the halo for next year, perhaps as an additional aero device. This will also include any new vanes/fairings on the monocoque to obviate aero losses due to it. There could even be use of the halo to refine airflow to the rear or to provide downforce (particularly with the T-wing disallowed).

Will be interesting to see. Has the wording of the regs for it been made available?

There's some wording, but its not final - I read somewhere that the next meeting is on the 6th of December.

Here's the (longish) bit on roll structures:

15.2 Roll structures :
15.2.1 All cars must have two roll structures which are designed to help prevent injury to the driver in
the event of the car becoming inverted.
The principal structure must be at least 940mm above the reference plane at a point 30mm
behind the plane C-C.
The secondary roll structure, which is not considered part of the survival cell, must be
positioned symmetrically about the car centre plane with its front fixing axis 975mm forward
of the plane C-C and 640mm above the reference plane. The mounting faces for the rearward
fixings must lie on a plane parallel to and 675mm above the reference plane.
The driver's helmet and steering wheel must be arranged such that they lie below a line drawn
between the front fixing axis of the secondary roll structure and a point 75mm vertically
below the highest point of the principal roll structure.
15.2.2 The principal structure must pass a static load test details of which may be found in Article
17.2. Furthermore, each team must supply detailed calculations which clearly show that it is
capable of withstanding the same load when the longitudinal component is applied in a
forward direction.
15.2.3 The secondary roll structure attachments to the survival cell must pass two static load tests
details of which may be found in Article 17.2. Furthermore, each team must supply detailed
calculations which clearly show that these attachments are able to sustain:
a) The prescribed test loads specified in Articles 17.2.5 and 17.2.6 when fitted with the
secondary structure as specified in Article 15.2.5 with the deformation simulated as
purely elastic.

2018 F1 Technical Regulations 71/104 21 September 2017
© 2017 Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
b) A load of 75kN vertically upward on each rear attachment.
c) A load equivalent to 88kN vertically upward and 88kN longitudinally rearward on the
axis of the front attachment.

15.2.4 The principal roll structure must have a minimum enclosed structural cross section of
10000mm2, in vertical projection, across a horizontal plane 50mm below its highest point. The
area thus established must not exceed 200mm in length or width and may not be less than
10000mm2 below this point.
15.2.5 The secondary roll structure must be supplied by the FIA designated manufacturer. Details of
the structure and its mountings may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.
15.2.6 The secondary roll structure may have a fairing attached to it, provided it is bonded to the
structure and made of prescribed laminate (details of this laminate may be found in the
Appendix to the Technical Regulations). No part of any such fairing may be more than 20mm
from the structure and no part may lie within the helmet free volume template (details of this
volume may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations). Furthermore, no part of
the fairing may be more than 350mm from car centre plane or less than 675mm above the
reference plane.
Also see Article 3.4.2.
15.2.7 In order that a car may be lifted quickly in the event of it stopping on the circuit, the principal
rollover structure must incorporate a clearly visible unobstructed opening designed to permit
a strap, whose section measures 60mm x 30mm, to pass through it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5usQb ... dOMWM/view

The link above is part of a list of FIA regulations at: http://www.somersf1.co.uk/p/fia-formula ... tions.html

[roon]

15.2.1 ...
The secondary roll structure, which is not considered part of the survival cell, must be
positioned symmetrically about the car centre plane with its front fixing axis 975mm forward
of the plane C-C and 640mm above the reference plane. The mounting faces for the rearward
fixings must lie on a plane parallel to and 675mm above the reference plane.
The driver's helmet and steering wheel must be arranged such that they lie below a line drawn
between the front fixing axis of the secondary roll structure and a point 75mm vertically
below the highest point of the principal roll structure.

15.2.5 The secondary roll structure must be supplied by the FIA designated manufacturer. Details of
the structure and its mountings may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.

15.2.6 The secondary roll structure may have a fairing attached to it, provided it is bonded to the
structure and made of prescribed laminate (details of this laminate may be found in the
Appendix to the Technical Regulations). No part of any such fairing may be more than 20mm
from the structure and no part may lie within the helmet free volume template (details of this
volume may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations). Furthermore, no part of
the fairing may be more than 350mm from car centre plane or less than 675mm above the
reference plane.

Thanks. 15.2.5 implies the teams are not making the halo themselves. If the teams still supply the drawings, though, perhaps we'll see variations in bar thickness & shape. I don't see anything precluding two front pillars instead of one central one (as seen in the test items). Only symmetry is mandated. The fairings for it can only extend 20mm, although there is no minimum radius rule, so they can still be sharp. Winglets, VGs, and trailing edges.

[Just_a_fan]

If we could only flip PU in different cars- so we could see who actually has the best chassis.

F1 is about maximising 5 areas:
1. Engine
2. Chassis
3. Aero
4. Driver
5. Team

The ones who win do the best job of getting the best out of each of those areas. "Best chassis" is irrelevant if the rest is wrong. Likewise the best engine. Mercedes win because they cover all 5 areas as well or better than the others. It's not, as some would wish to claim, all down to the Mercedes PU.

[Shrieker]

If there isn't another controversy like the one we had with the outlawed suspensions at the start of this year, Merc. are gonna mow everybody. They still have a decent PU advantage. And what was probably their back up plan at the start of the season was still good enough to win races. If that's not a warning shot, I don't know what is.

[Phil]

If we could only flip PU in different cars- so we could see who actually has the best chassis.

F1 is about maximising 5 areas:
1. Engine
2. Chassis
3. Aero
4. Driver
5. Team

The ones who win do the best job of getting the best out of each of those areas. "Best chassis" is irrelevant if the rest is wrong. Likewise the best engine. Mercedes win because they cover all 5 areas as well or better than the others. It's not, as some would wish to claim, all down to the Mercedes PU.

Arguably though, not all areas are equally defining. I’d argue the PU covers a very significant amount of importance, slightly more so than others. I do however agree that Mercedes is seldomly attributed enough credit for the other factors, which i think this year with a very strong Ferrari has highlighted. Then again, by the very same token, one shouldnt discount the PU strength in qualifying where this year they have IMO edged Saturday while not being the fastest package overall.

I am fairly confident the gap will be smaller next year. I just can not imagine Mercedes retaining another sizeable advantage next year with all the restrictions on oil burning and other things. We’ve already seen what happens with the ban on suspension trickery. Mercedes got the setup on their car more often right than wrong this year, but they didnt win the championship as easily because of their strengths, but on the races where they werent fastest, but their strongest opponents failed miserably (mainly the 3 asia races) and handed it to them. Had those not been, it would have been extremely close, probably still in Hamiltons/Mercedes favor, but you get the gist...

[roon]

If we could only flip PU in different cars- so we could see who actually has the best chassis.

F1 is about maximising 5 areas:
1. Engine
2. Chassis
3. Aero
4. Driver
5. Team

The ones who win do the best job of getting the best out of each of those areas. "Best chassis" is irrelevant if the rest is wrong. Likewise the best engine. Mercedes win because they cover all 5 areas as well or better than the others. It's not, as some would wish to claim, all down to the Mercedes PU.

Arguably though, not all areas are equally defining. I’d argue the PU covers a very significant amount of importance, slightly more so than others. I do however agree that Mercedes is seldomly attributed enough credit for the other factors, which i think this year with a very strong Ferrari has highlighted. Then again, by the very same token, one shouldnt discount the PU strength in qualifying where this year they have IMO edged Saturday while not being the fastest package overall.

I am fairly confident the gap will be smaller next year. I just can not imagine Mercedes retaining another sizeable advantage next year with all the restrictions on oil burning and other things. We’ve already seen what happens with the ban on suspension trickery. Mercedes got the setup on their car more often right than wrong this year, but they didnt win the championship as easily because of their strengths, but on the races where they werent fastest, but their strongest opponents failed miserably (mainly the 3 asia races) and handed it to them. Had those not been, it would have been extremely close, probably still in Hamiltons/Mercedes favor, but you get the gist...

In the current formula, I think it's more accessible to optimize the Team and the Driver categories, with most teams able to do this. Aero not as important in this inaugural year, everyone's making more downforce. Chassis optimization also seems more accessible, more equal across teams. With all these areas optimized by most teams, the relatively small power advantage of the Merc engine gets exaggerated, and their reliability further widens that gap.

[Just_a_fan]

. I do however agree that Mercedes is seldomly attributed enough credit for the other factors, which i think this year with a very strong Ferrari has highlighted. Then again, by the very same token, one shouldnt discount the PU strength in qualifying where this year they have IMO edged Saturday while not being the fastest package overall.

If you get pole, you are by definition the fastest package overall. That's rather the point.

[mrluke]

Aero is the biggest performance differentiator, Manor were still struggling to score points with the Merc PU and RBR are winning races on merit with Renault.

[Phil]

If you get pole, you are by definition the fastest package overall. That's rather the point.

Fastest package on one lap, not necessarily the race though packed with 100kgs of fuel and on tires that are difficult to manage over the duration of an entire stint, which was my point. RedBull for one has shown to be strong contenders on race day, lacking the fancy qualifying modes Mercedes has. Similarly, Ferrari have shown to be stronger on Sunday too, often even faster than Mercedes by hitting the tire temperatures perfectly more often than not.

It is great Mercedes has such a strong package on Saturdays - yes, mostly the best package - but that alone hasnt won them all races this year.

As i said, lots of the key area where Mercedes still had a trump card are set to be closed or narrowed next year. So that qualifying gap will surely come down. And on race day, well, the last few races have shown it could quite easily end up a 3 horse race.

So coming back to your list - if Mercedes had the undisputed engine so far and easily one of, if not the best driver in Hamilton (lets just assume that to be true for a second), then by your own definition, on the races Mercedes did not win and clearly lacked “the package”, clearly they were inferior in the other areas like chassis and aero. Point in case, Monaco, Hungary, Singapore, Malaysia and possibly Mexico. Assuming that engine gap will narrow in 2018, it’s gonna be one heck of a fight and IMO will play into Ferraris and especially RedBulls chassis/aero strength.

Dont get me wrong, i expect Mercedes to be strong... but they may face a few struggles in regards to their car (long wheelbase / low rake) and the diminishing engine advantage.

[George-Jung]

If we could only flip PU in different cars- so we could see who actually has the best chassis.

F1 is about maximising 5 areas:
1. Engine
2. Chassis
3. Aero
4. Driver
5. Team

The ones who win do the best job of getting the best out of each of those areas. "Best chassis" is irrelevant if the rest is wrong. Likewise the best engine. Mercedes win because they cover all 5 areas as well or better than the others. It's not, as some would wish to claim, all down to the Mercedes PU.

I did not explain myseld properly, what I meant was swap PU in different cars.

So besides the normal configs;
- a Ferrari PU in a Mercedes
- a Mercedes PU in a Ferrari
- a Mercedes PU ánd a Ferrari PU in a Red Bull and Mclaren..

Ofcourse it is ridiculous, but it would show exactly what does what.. just out of curiosity.

Wouldn’t you like to know for example how fast the Red Bull would be with a Mercedes PU?

[OO7]

The Force India car has both a very long wheelbase (second only to the Mercedes) and also runs with a high level of rake, so the two philosophies don't have to be mutually exclusive:

[giantfan10]

From what was quoted in an AMuS article a while ago (around Monza), the FIA is seriously closing in on oil being used in ways other than just a lubricant.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 20994.html

The article points out that...

- The FIA has no means to measure the oil usage accurately. They use an oil stick, probably by measuring before the race and after to get a good indication of the usage.
- There is some tolerance for this reason.
- The FIA is working on better methods to measure it more accurately.
- By 2018, only 0.6 of oil will be allowed to be used and only one specification for the entire weekend.

So for 2018. not only will the oil quantity be reduced again (0.6), they will also use adequate measuring tools to get an exact reading where this year they don't. Also in addition to all of this, only one oil can be used throughout the weekend. I can't say how much Mercedes has been benefiting from this.

AFAIK, Ferrari was pretty much caught mid season (Canada) by using two separate oil tanks throughout a race (the famous 2nd oil tank sighting) and their inquiry pre Winter testing to the FIA about this kind of stuff. I'd guess it's not beyond that Mercedes have been using two different oil specifications on Saturday and Sunday (well inside the rules this season).

Also, if you've been reading the McLaren-Team topic and what Wazari has been mentioning, the Mercedes engined cars have a very distinctive smell in the pit lane that hints to oil burning (more so than the others). Not sure how credible this is and I couldn't say on which page of that 450 pages I read it...

So, if you ask me... that difference is going to shrink and the probability of Mercedes finding another huge advantage where others haven't... well, I just don't see it happening for now. But then again, Mercedes has proved us all wrong multiple times now. But all the same, the gap has never been this small to not only Ferrari, but Renault too.

I dont think mercedes has proven us wrong multiple times....IMHO i think that they have been burning oil from Day 1 of this engine formula and the other manufacturers were baffled as to their quali pace for the first 2 years
In year 4 with the no token rule in effect Ferrari was able to design an engine to take advantage of oil burning and even though they came close to Mercedes power levels the 3 year head start that Mercedes had in this area was still evident.
That is why Mercedes has won the last 4 championshios IMHO .