F1 2017 car design vote

[DiogoBrand]

I think A and C are illegal. No bodywork is allowed in front of the line defining the wing leading edge.

That's not true. Ferrari 2015, McLaren 2015 and Manor 2016, amongst others, all feature noses that go beyond the front wing.

[OneAlex]

My vote (from an aesthetic note technical standpoint) goes with Design C.

I'm still not a fan of the look of the nostrils of Design B that teams have adopted; I thought the early Ferrari for example was one of the prettiest cars with it's more standard-shaped nose.

I also like the "size 0" curves the back of Design C has compared to Design D's more boxy shape.

[henry]

I think A and C are illegal. No bodywork is allowed in front of the line defining the wing leading edge.

That's not true. Ferrari 2015, McLaren 2015 and Manor 2016, amongst others, all feature noses that go beyond the front wing.

Because in those years the wing leading edge is closer to the front wheel centreline. 1000mm for 2016 versus 1200 for 2017.

There is a mistake in the published regs for 2017 which doesn't allow arrow shaped wings as shown in the OP but I'm sure they'll fix that at dome point.

[DiogoBrand]

I think A and C are illegal. No bodywork is allowed in front of the line defining the wing leading edge.

That's not true. Ferrari 2015, McLaren 2015 and Manor 2016, amongst others, all feature noses that go beyond the front wing.

Because in those years the wing leading edge is closer to the front wheel centreline. 1000mm for 2016 versus 1200 for 2017.

There is a mistake in the published regs for 2017 which doesn't allow arrow shaped wings as shown in the OP but I'm sure they'll fix that at dome point.

I'm confused. Will they allow arrow shaped wings or not? When I saw they were going to implement this just for looks I found it f*ing stupid.

[Sevach]

D because i liked the flipups/rear wheel covers of the 2000's.
Pretty sure they are still illegal unfortunately.

Double(also still illegal) vs single exhaust doesn't matter much to me.

If i truly had my way, we would have a smaller FW and a RW that extends over the tires, basically the whole bodywork on a 1600 mm limit, now that would be something.

[henry]

That's not true. Ferrari 2015, McLaren 2015 and Manor 2016, amongst others, all feature noses that go beyond the front wing.

Because in those years the wing leading edge is closer to the front wheel centreline. 1000mm for 2016 versus 1200 for 2017.

There is a mistake in the published regs for 2017 which doesn't allow arrow shaped wings as shown in the OP but I'm sure they'll fix that at dome point.

I'm confused. Will they allow arrow shaped wings or not? When I saw they were going to implement this just for looks I found it f*ing stupid.

It's hardly surprising you are confused. The regulations are as well.

The relevant section is 3.7.3.

It defines that the front bodywork in plan view must follow the arrowhead starting 1200 mm in front of the front axle centreline. But it also calls for the front wing neutral section to be identical to 2016, and that ends 1000 mm in front of the axle centreline. So that part of the wing can't be part of the arrowhead and the nose most come forward to form that part of the plan view.

They might change the definition of the neutral section to bring it forward to meet the arrowhead. This will most likely result in designs like B in the OP. But if they don't there will be long noses with a gap underneath them. This will be the case if one or more teams think they can get better aero performance from the "Gappy" design.

According to the rules as published none of the proposals above have a legal nose and wing.

There is a discussion of this in here http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=360

[OO7]

And I don't see why they want to allow for more aero, if that's what hinders overtaking.

Because this hasn't actually been established or demonstrated. It basically goes back to old cars could overtake, new ones can't, it must be because of aero.

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your post mrluke. Turbulence does affect a wings ability to generate lift, the more tubulence the more of an impact it will have. I think there have been studies conducted that show a trailing car will lose 50%+ of its down force in turbulence at a cars length or half a cars length distance.

[Edax]

I'm confused. Will they allow arrow shaped wings or not? When I saw they were going to implement this just for looks I found it f*ing stupid.

You're kidding right . For looks? If so then the guy designing the regs must be stuck in the eighties, and we should not be surprised if he enforces the teams to print "cool" words on the cars like "laser" and "turbo" in speedstripe typeset to make them look more appealing.

Seriously all they need to do is give them four wheels, a standard survival cell, an allowed materials list and a set of engine specs, and let the teams figure it out themselves.

Wouldn't be surprised if the teams today spent most of their money trying to circumvent the rules anyway.

[mrluke]

And I don't see why they want to allow for more aero, if that's what hinders overtaking.

Because this hasn't actually been established or demonstrated. It basically goes back to old cars could overtake, new ones can't, it must be because of aero.

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your post mrluke. Turbulence does affect a wings ability to generate lift, the more tubulence the more of an impact it will have. I think there have been studies conducted that show a trailing car will lose 50%+ of its down force in turbulence at a cars length or half a cars length distance.

I fully appreciate that aero devices are dependent upon the "quality" of the air they receive. However I dont think that there is any evidence that this is the reason modern F1 has no overtaking.

If the trouble with overtaking is purely down to how much turbulence a car creates, then it should be pretty easy to identify which of the current cars makes the most "dirty" air?

My suggestion is that actually the most difficult car to overtake is that of your team mate, you both have exactly the same strengths and weaknesses in exactly the same places, when this is combined with the slight reduction of your cars aero performance the net result is that it is very difficult to pass.

Due to the ever tightening regulations, the current crop of cars are almost identical, there is very little variation between them, they all have pretty much the same downforce, drag and power and they all weigh the same.

If we go back to say the "good old days" we had a mixture of engine layouts, some turbo, some NA, all making power in different ways, some being better in the "twisties" and others better on the straights. This gave differentiation to the cars and creates overtaking opportunities.

The best racing is between 2 cars that set an identical lap time but have completely opposite strengths.

[turbof1]

Because this hasn't actually been established or demonstrated. It basically goes back to old cars could overtake, new ones can't, it must be because of aero.

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your post mrluke. Turbulence does affect a wings ability to generate lift, the more tubulence the more of an impact it will have. I think there have been studies conducted that show a trailing car will lose 50%+ of its down force in turbulence at a cars length or half a cars length distance.

There is very little variation between them.

That's the issue in a nut shell. The issue of dirty air has always existed. Also in the 80's. You just had more overtaking because car performance and car reliability had a much bigger variance across the grid.

Turbulent flow is definitely a part of the story, but is in absolute terms not an any bigger issue then it was in the past. Convergence is.

But anyway, how did we get there from the topic "design"?

[Jolle]

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your post mrluke. Turbulence does affect a wings ability to generate lift, the more tubulence the more of an impact it will have. I think there have been studies conducted that show a trailing car will lose 50%+ of its down force in turbulence at a cars length or half a cars length distance.

There is very little variation between them.

That's the issue in a nut shell. The issue of dirty air has always existed. Also in the 80's. You just had more overtaking because car performance and car reliability had a much bigger variance across the grid.

Turbulent flow is definitely a part of the story, but is in absolute terms not an any bigger issue then it was in the past. Convergence is.

But anyway, how did we get there from the topic "design"?

And don't underestimate the impact of the small winglets, slots and shapes, especially on the front wing that produces vortexes all down the car, which are disturbed when hit by turbulence or even a cross wind. Old cars just had one big element that just pushed the car down (a bit, compared to modern day). Plus up and down the field the cars are performing quite similar compared to the good old days (when the top two/four lapped the whole field). The difference to the car in front is usually just a tenth.

[mrluke]

The winglets that frequently get broken off in contact and seem to have very little impact on the car?

[Andres125sx]

I just don't get why they want to make the wings and other bits of bodywork at an angle. that argument about it looking "more agressive" is total BS.

Well, the argument has some weight based on plane wings. If you find that argument stupid or not is a different story, but the argument has a base

Straight wings are used on these sort of planes, basically slow planes:



While swept back wings (I think/hope that was the correct term) are used on different planes, basically fast planes:




If you know anything about aerodynamics you´ll know since F1 cars will never get close to match 1 that angle is just absurd, but this sort of decisions are not taken with the technological people in mind, they/we are a minority and the vast mayority of people can easily do a relationship between straigth wings are for slow planes while swept wings are for fighters


Ok this is absurd, but considering they´ve changed the rules to artificially increase PU sound, they´re using metal inserts to cause artificial sparks, they´re using buble gum tires to cause artificial wear.... this is nuts compared. Maybe you missed for a moment this is F1 after all

[Paul]

Obligatory go-faster stripes next on the agenda!

[DiogoBrand]

Obligatory go-faster stripes next on the agenda!

I think it should also be mandatory to write "Turbo" on the sides of the cars. This would make them so much cooler!