2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[henry]

Will the "power" of the DRS increase with the wider, lower rear wing? Assuming the lower wing will be more coupled to the diffuser might the DRS also influence the underfloor flow as well as the direct effect on the wing flow?

[hollus]

With 105kg of fuel you'll have the equivalent of 63 minutes at full throttle. Yes, part throttle eats into that, but only by increasing the number of "on throttle" minutes.
With cars 5% faster, a 90 minutes race becomes an 85.5 minutes race.
On throttle time won't increase by 5% (am I totally off here?). So this might well make most races effectively not fuel limited. If tires are up to the task, any fuel saving would then be by choice, not by need.

[ME4ME]

I'm basically fine with the 100 kg/h fuel flow rate. It makes sense, since it pushed PU manufacturers to optimize efficiency.

But why the 100 (or 105) kg fuel limit, it seems totally useless to me. All it does is introducing fuel saving on circuits were consumption is high. To me it makes more sense to just remove that rule and allow the teams to judge for themselves. They aren't going to carry additional fuel just for fun.

[hollus]

The total fuel limit was put there to stop cars burning fuel when off throttle or at partial throttle just to charge the batteries and spool the turbo.
I'd also be happy to see that go away! Fuel should be used to optimize lap time, it is racing after all!

[ME4ME]

Indeed. But they are already able to do that at circuits which don't require 100kg of fuel. So the rule isn't very effective.

[McMrocks]

The 2017 front wings will be hellishly close to the ground. The tea tray is 10cm shorter, so with the same amount of rake the front wing would be run almost at the ground. However that isn't the best for the aerodynamic so F1 teams will make something else

[henry]

Another change in 2017. The suspension members will be able to run at 10° to the reference plane.

2016

10.3.3 No major axis of a cross section of a suspension member, when assessed in accordance with Article 10.3.1, may subtend an angle greater than 5° to the reference plane when projected onto, and normal to, a vertical plane on the car centre line with the car set to the nominal design ride height.

2017

10.3.3 No major axis of a cross section of a suspension member, taken normal to a straight line between the inner and outer attachment points, when assessed in accordance with Article 10.3.1, may subtend an angle greater than 10° to the reference plane.

I can't see why they would need to do this unless someone has been taking unfair advantage or someone else, involved in drafting the rules, thinks it might be beneficial.

[PhillipM]

Hoping that allowing the front suspension to straighten airflow more might help with following a car in dirty air perhaps?

[Thunder]

And so it begins..... https://twitter.com/pirellisport/status ... 5749644288

[shuberty]

[Juzh]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChoYbIPWMAALplD.jpg

Confirmed photoshopped.

[shuberty]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChoYbIPWMAALplD.jpg

Confirmed photoshopped.

[Juzh]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChoYbIPWMAALplD.jpg

Confirmed photoshopped.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... engrab.jpg

I mean the tire dimensions seem look like a 2017 spec, when in fact they were only testing 2017 compound elements on 2016 tire sizes.

https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status ... 58368?s=09

[mclaren111]

Question:

Has the six speed gearbox been approved or are they staying with the 8 ??


Thx

[Juzh]

F1fanatic has a nice write up with side by side sliding comparison:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/05/10/s ... 2016-2017/

Personally I believe extra front and rear wing dimensions wing dimensions coupled with huge tires will easily drop laptime up to 5s on certain tracks.