2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Juzh]

Do we need larger tires? do we need 6seconds faster cars

Yes. #end

No. #end

Yes. #end

[AMG.Tzan]

I really can't understand the F1 community! Just months ago we were moaning about slow cars! F1 decided to give us faster and sexier cars...yet we moan again just because with better and softer tires this year cars have become around 3 secs faster! remember that 2-2.5 secs came because pirelli for 2014 and 2015 were veeery conservative with their approach because of the torque of the new engines! Only 0.5-1 sec has come from car improvements (downforce,suspension etc) It's complete nonsense to moan that the new rules will reduce overtaking...that's b*hit from mercedes because they don't want to lose their advantage (and i am a huge mercedes fan!!)...c'mon guys get on with it! everyone will like faster cars!! And after almost 20 years it's time for f1 to go back to wide cars again!! They are just awesome

[Andres125sx]

I really can't understand the F1 community!

That´s what happens when you assign one single opinion to the whole community

remember that 2-2.5 secs came because pirelli for 2014 and 2015 were veeery conservative with their approach

As they are in 2016 with a mandated minimum pressure way too high, so not sure where did you get 2-2.5 seconds come from the tires, but I disagree

[Ozan]

I really can't understand the F1 community! Just months ago we were moaning about slow cars! F1 decided to give us faster and sexier cars...yet we moan again just because with better and softer tires this year cars have become around 3 secs faster! remember that 2-2.5 secs came because pirelli for 2014 and 2015 were veeery conservative with their approach because of the torque of the new engines! Only 0.5-1 sec has come from car improvements (downforce,suspension etc) It's complete nonsense to moan that the new rules will reduce overtaking...that's b*hit from mercedes because they don't want to lose their advantage (and i am a huge mercedes fan!!)...c'mon guys get on with it! everyone will like faster cars!! And after almost 20 years it's time for f1 to go back to wide cars again!! They are just awesome

I myself want to see the cars like the past, less aerodynamics, more mechanical grip, head to head racing, no lifting and coasting. I want to see most of the cars race to the lead, not one particular car making 20s gaps to second car.

[hollus]

You want to see highlights.

[SiLo]

Simplify the front wings would go a long way to achieving closer racing. And not having them nurse tyres too. Two very simple things to fix in my opinion.

[wuzak]

I really can't understand the F1 community! Just months ago we were moaning about slow cars! F1 decided to give us faster and sexier cars...yet we moan again just because with better and softer tires this year cars have become around 3 secs faster! remember that 2-2.5 secs came because pirelli for 2014 and 2015 were veeery conservative with their approach because of the torque of the new engines! Only 0.5-1 sec has come from car improvements (downforce,suspension etc) It's complete nonsense to moan that the new rules will reduce overtaking...that's b*hit from mercedes because they don't want to lose their advantage (and i am a huge mercedes fan!!)...c'mon guys get on with it! everyone will like faster cars!! And after almost 20 years it's time for f1 to go back to wide cars again!! They are just awesome

The softer tyres used this year are one step softer than what they used last year - so about 0.5s-1.0s improvement.

The 2017 cars are wider (yay) with wider tyres (yay - though we don't need wider front tyres), with a wider front wing (boo), wider floor (boo) and a rear wing styled after the A1GP car (boo).



Plus mandated angles on the front wing and front of the sidepod (boo).

They should use the same rules as 2016, but with a wider overall width, wider tyres and wider rear wing (1000mm vs 750mm). I also don't think a lower rear wing will make the cars look better.

Some of the better looking cars of the '80s and '90s had the higher rear wing

[WaikeCU]

I think a few restrictions on the rear wing for 2017 would do justice:
- No vertical pylons
- No monkey seats

We don't need big changes, but aero needs to be more simple.

[mclaren111]

Most important changes needed:

1. Bigger Tyres
2. Less Downforce
3. Louder Engines - 6 Speed Gearbox that enables revs up to 15 000
4. Smaller FW

Forgot about the fuel saving nonsense.

5. No fuel limit

[Thunder]

Red Bulls Halo Concept could be raced in 2017. How would this impact Airflow around the Cockpit? Should be way less turbulent.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-b ... 17-688956/

[strad]

no matter what form it takes you can bet they will find a way for it generate downforce or sleeker Cd

[GPR-A duplicate2]

F1 poised to raise fuel limit for 2017

Formula 1 teams will discuss next week the idea of lifting the sport's 100kg fuel limit for 2017 in a bid to ease concerns that new regulations may not allow drivers to race flat out.

The Strategy Group and F1 Commission are to meet at Biggin Hill next Tuesday to make a final decision on the 2017 car revamp that is aimed at cutting lap times by up to five seconds.

While the aerodynamic regulations have already been set – and only a last-minute majority vote will be able to change them – other aspects have yet to be settled.

Sources have revealed to Motorsport.com that, as part of the discussions to finalise the 2017 rules, a plan has been put in place to ensure that the new generation of cars do not have a negative impact on fuel economy.

Fuel saving "mess"

The wider cars and wider tyres will generate more drag than the current ones – and that will result in them using up more fuel per lap.

There have been concerns voiced for months now that if the 100kg fuel limit stayed in place, then it would force drivers to conduct far more fuel saving than they currently do.

Renault technical director Nick Chester warned back in February that if the 100kg fuel limit stayed in place there would be problems.

"I think it will be a mess,” he told Motorsport.com. "If we stay at 100kg and go to the 2017 regulations then there will be a lot of fuel saving, and I think people will start complaining about it."

While some manufacturers had wanted the maximum fuel limit abolished totally, this did not draw unanimous support – with Mercedes in particular keen for F1 to keep its environmental message.

It is understood a compromise has been reached so that if the 2017 car rules are signed off, the F1 Commission will be asked to vote on a plan to raise the fuel limit by 5kg to 105kg for a race.

Flat out racing

Renault F1 chief Cyril Abiteboul, who was pushing hard for the fuel limit to be raised, has long thought it important grand prix racing maintained an element of being flat out.

“I am a big fan of making sure F1 remains F1,” he said earlier this year. “We should not lean towards endurance.

“One of the things that has put F1 in danger, or could be another threat to F1, is if we try to combine F1 and endurance. Endurance is about efficiency, sustainability, the capacity to run very long distances without any issues.

"F1 is about a short race, sprint race, usually able to attack constantly.”

Abiteboul said that part of the negativity surrounding F1's turbo hybrid era was that it had portrayed too much the image of being about fuel saving.

“Frankly, even in the V8 era, there was some fuel management, it was part of the tactics, to optimise your lap time, for the duration of the race from the strategy.

“I would remove completely the fuel quantity, and then we would take away all the negativity of the message that we have from this new technology, which is fantastic.

“We have done an amazing job to reduce the fuel consumption by 30-40 per cent, but this fantastic message is destroyed by this fuel limit – which is making people believe actually that it is only about managing fuel.”

[henry]

Assuming at most circuits they currently use close to 100kg now it seems unlikely that going 5% faster will require only 5% more fuel, in a car that weighs more and has more frontal area.

I guess this is another compromise, neé fudge. They will hope an extra 5 kilos won't sound too bad and that no-one will notice that race pace isn't quite as much quicker as qualifying.

A better message might have have been to keep the 100kg limit and reduce the fuel flow rate but I don't know how much impact that would have on the engine design.

[Juzh]

A better message might have have been to keep the 100kg limit and reduce the fuel flow rate but I don't know how much impact that would have on the engine design.

Effectively lowering power output? That's a good idea how exactly?

[henry]

A better message might have have been to keep the 100kg limit and reduce the fuel flow rate but I don't know how much impact that would have on the engine design.

Effectively lowering power output? That's a good idea how exactly?

Because the marketing message would have been more palatable, " look we've become so fuel efficient we can lower the fuel rate" versus "we've made such a mess of our rule change that we've had to raise the amount of fuel we use and we're still going to have to do more lift and coast"

I'm not saying it's what I would like. But having dug a hole with aero regs the tyres can't support they're now going deeper with aero regs the fuel regulations can't support.

The cars would be plenty fast enough in qualification even with reduced power and at least we would see less of a difference between qualification and race pace and perhaps the opportunity for the drivers to push more and save fuel less.