2017-2020 Aerodynamic Regulations Thread

[Gridlock]

In all honesty, I don't really know what they mean with "simplified endplate legality". Could mean they'll allow more or the opposite allow less. They are 'simplifying the legality'. Could either mean an exclusion/standarized zone, or simply regulations being scrapped in that area.

Wouldn't be an FIA declaration without ambiguity I suppose, I see what you mean, could read either way.

[LookBackTime]

The finalised technical regulations will still be subject to agreement from the teams and approval by the World Motor Sport Council. If the teams that voted for the regulations on Tuesday are consistent with their backing of the new rules then the plans will go ahead, but until April 30 the exact regulations are not set in stone for 2017.

"It was agreed, but until it's written down as a regulation it's totally theoretical," Williams technical Pat Symonds told ESPN. "The trouble is that if someone wants to block it they can do, and that all of a sudden becomes very difficult indeed.

"It's a decision without action and a decision without action is not really a decision, is it?"

Discussion on power unit regulations is also ongoing with a deadline of April 30 for decisions on the cost of the engines, performance convergence, the obligation for manufacturers to supply others and further improvements to the noise. A working group consisting of representatives of the FIA, Commercial Rights Holder, Power Unit suppliers and customer teams will undertake further work ahead of the April 30.

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/148 ... -cars-2017

[turbof1]

As I see it, if even one single team votes against it, or just vetoes it, it will not happen. They are going beyond the deadline to make decision with majority, and will require unanimity. Maybe there are some promises made, but those can be broken.

[LookBackTime]

like what he said : "decision without action " !!!

[Thunder]

https://twitter.com/autosport/status/702500863076597760

[wuzak]

Front wheels too wide.
Front wing to wide and contrived (the sweep back - really?)
Floor too wide
Rear wing not wide enough
Diffuser not big enough
Overall width only 2000mm - maybe should be like before 1994 - at 2150mm
Weight - too much


Having a clue - not enough.

[chip engineer]

Front wheels too wide.
Front wing to wide and contrived (the sweep back - really?)
....

I think sweeping back the front wing is good, but this is not enough.
The wing corners are what usually collides with the car in front when cars are too close.
Removing the corners would promote closer racing.

I would make the rule:
No part of the front wing may extend beyond a circle with 900 mm radius (centered even with the front of the tires).

[Pierce89]

Front wheels too wide.
Front wing to wide and contrived (the sweep back - really?)
Floor too wide
Rear wing not wide enough
Diffuser not big enough
Overall width only 2000mm - maybe should be like before 1994 - at 2150mm
Weight - too much


Having a clue - not enough.

Wow! Why do even follow f1? I literally see every change as positive or at least a step in the right direction . I think there's a distinct possibility that these rules might just hit the sweet spot. I also think the teams might pull significantly more than 3 seconds out of these changes.
A bigger diffuser ,more wing surface front and rear, wider track, and wider tires, only three seconds? With f1 engineering levels it seex like more than 3 seconds to me.

[f1316]

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/02/p ... a-1-tyres/

Wait a minute though: didn't Pirelli actually, ya know, supply the tyres for the V8 blown diffuser cars (2011 onwards)? Don't they already therefore already have this data?

[f1316]

Reading these in more detail, I actually don't think these changes are bad.

Visually, a lower, wider rear wing is more symmetrical with the front, and symmetry tends to add to aesthetics.

Moreover, the single biggest improvement for overtaking will be, imho, increased mechanical grip from tyres. They should have gone further with this but it may be sensible to increase incrementally.

Also, completely undoing the work of the overtaking working group is a good idea - nothing they did worked.

[Neno]

Reading these in more detail, I actually don't think these changes are bad.

Visually, a lower, wider rear wing is more symmetrical with the front, and symmetry tends to add to aesthetics.

Moreover, the single biggest improvement for overtaking will be, imho, increased mechanical grip from tyres. They should have gone further with this but it may be sensible to increase incrementally.

Also, completely undoing the work of the overtaking working group is a good idea - nothing they did worked.

so cars should look more within 2005-2007 rules?

[wuzak]

Front wheels too wide.
Front wing to wide and contrived (the sweep back - really?)
Floor too wide
Rear wing not wide enough
Diffuser not big enough
Overall width only 2000mm - maybe should be like before 1994 - at 2150mm
Weight - too much


Having a clue - not enough.

Wow! Why do even follow f1? I literally see every change as positive or at least a step in the right direction . I think there's a distinct possibility that these rules might just hit the sweet spot. I also think the teams might pull significantly more than 3 seconds out of these changes.
A bigger diffuser ,more wing surface front and rear, wider track, and wider tires, only three seconds? With f1 engineering levels it seex like more than 3 seconds to me.

Let me explain....

The front tyres are too wide, as it maintains the reliance on the front and thus requires downforce from the front wing and a more forward weight balance.

It maintains the proportions from front to rear tyre widths.

The wider front wing also keeps the status quo, in terms of the relationship between the outside of the wing and the front tyres. So even though the end plate will be simplified, the outflow aerodynamics will continue. The front wing dependence will maintain the sensitivity to following in the wake of other cars.

The swept back front wing is aimed at making the cars look more aggressive - it won't. It serves no other purpose.

The floor doesn't need to be that wide. The body work widths, which have determined floor widths, have been 1400mm since the mid 1980s. I think this is a case of maintaining the role of the floor edge working with the front wing to seal the floor. ie maintaining some teams' advantages in this area.

They should just drop the step in the floor and go back to flat bottoms. Combined with a wider rear wing (but not deeper, to fill in the space between the wheels) and larger diffuser and similar or narrower front wing they will throw the aerodynamic balance further rearwards. This would then suit the wider rear tyres but not wider front tyres, at least not as wide as proposed.

This would also then require a more rearwards weight balance, which would see the wheelbases shorten. With the extra width the proportions of the car will be better.

For me, the most aggressive looking cars were the flat bottom cars that sat so very low, with rear tyres much wider than the fronts.



As for lap times, I'm sure that the current chassis could get 3s a lap quicker with better tyres.

But I doubt the new rules will make for better racing.

[proteus]

The problem with 94 cars in peticular was, that they tended to lose traction because they were so low, which meant drivers spinning off the bumpy circuits, not even knowing it what hit them and with no chance of saving the situation.

But otherwise i agree that in future F1, the bottom should be straight, without rake and without tea trays. Overall they should be fatter, so they would cause more drag, which would mean lower speeds. Wider rear tyres, narrower front wing and rear as wide as it was back in 94. The cars should be wide as they were back then. No DRS, and no electronic monitoring systems - except for brakes and fuel.

[godlameroso]

To get 3 seconds all they need to do is increase diffuser dimension and wider better tires, easily with no other changes.

[djos]

Apparently Halo now confirmed for next year too!

http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/35646427