F1 2017 car design vote

[OO7]

...it is clear that in the past the cars could follow more closely.

Despite being at the controls of a world-class Dirty Air Maker, I'm pretty sure Kimi Raikkonen was none too pleased by the proximity of the ten drivers who managed to overtake him within the space of two laps during the closing stages of the 2012 Chinese GP.

There's a whole lot more to this than aero...

http://i.imgur.com/MH5Yh43.jpg

Believe me; I understand that this isn't easy to accept. The first guy who suggested that surgeons might wanna wash their hands before putting them into people was largely ignored (and ridiculed) for 20 years. We're simply not wired to readily accept iconoclastic ideas, especially if they originate elsewhere. I'm still coming to terms with the V6 turbo power units!

I'm guessing that his tyres were shot or he had some other problem and if so then it isn't relevant. I understand how variations be it tyres, aero, mechanical systems (suspension), power unit etc can play a part, this why I mentioned team mates in similar cars, so I'll repeat, "Looking at team mates (very similar equipment) of today and comparing them to team mates in the past, it is clear that in the past the cars could follow more closely."

[bhall II]

...I'll repeat, "Looking at team mates (very similar equipment) of today and comparing them to team mates in the past, it is clear that in the past the cars could follow more closely."

If they were any closer, they'd have to get married...









What you want to be there isn't, and I think I've probably said it about as many ways as it can be said. So, if there's nothing else...

[hollus]

I have to backup bhall in this one, there is a bit of a mith to the fact that the cars could follow closely in the rosie golden years. I'd concede that they could follow a bit closer, but they still had problems when within a second of the car in front.

Plus I'd say that the current generation of cars can follow closely... for a few corners. It is not that the car performance drops so dramatically because of the dirty air; as t is that the tires, which with 2016 spec tire rules, 2016 levels of material knowledge, 2016 levels of material quality, 2016 levels of live telemetry, 2016 levels of computer analysis of performance... they are used so close to their limit that the dirty air pushes them over the limit after a few corners. I'd argue that this is more an issue with tire life and tire overheating than an issue with the car's performance drop per-se.

And instead of cherry picking, I'll jump straight to the race closest in time to 30 years ago, the 1986 Portuguese grand prix.

We are trying to compare 2016 cars which often are 1 tenth away in performance from the car in front or behind, to 1986 standards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Port ... Grand_Prix
In quali, there were 3 seconds covering the top 10, 6 seconds from pole to #22.
In the race, by the end, there were 3 cars in the leading lap, 4 cars in the lap behind, 2 cars 2 laps down, 4 cars 3 laps down... and a 60% retirement rate. The cars finished in average about 30 seconds apart, and #4 run out of fuel.
These cars had different tire manufacturers, vastly different engine units, a lot more setup and design freedom and even within teammates, you'd often find 0.5 to 1 second differences in quali.

It is logical that when a car with 1 second in hand found itself behind a slower car,it could give the illusion of following closely for a while. The mid-september 2016 equivalent is Verstappen in the midfield when off-synch or Vettel starting in the back in Singapore... both could pass, which would imply that both could follow closely through some magic.

We are comparing 1986 to modern clone-like cars...

For reference, the race in Estoril in 1986:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh6vcOC69dw
From the 4 minute mark to the 10 minute mark, there is an apparent force field hitting any car closer than 8 car lenghts to the car in front. Trains of cars come out of the corners at beautifully regular intervals and somehow nobody in the top 8 seems to muster an attempt at a pass. Go to the 9 minute mark to witness a very superior Williams get very close to an inferior Benetton... to somehow fall prey of an invisible force field behind the Benetton.

[Andres125sx]

Sorry Bhall, but I find it amazing how someone with your knownledge can insist so much saying wake turbulence is not that relevant.

Aero rule 101, ground speed is irrelevant, it´s aero speed what matters to create lift/DF. Wake turbulence make aero speed inconsistent, thus DF becomes inconsistent. You can argue all you want, you can link all graphs you want, you can put several examples, but this will never change, wake turbulence make DF inconsistent so overtaking becomes a lot more difficult, tires suffer a lot more.... Alonso said more than once even at 2 seconds distance he can feel the drop in DF/grip, so he usually stay at around 2,5 seconds if he assume he can´t overtake.

Obviously that does not mean wake turbulence is the only limiting factor, as you said there are many more factors, but saying wake turbulence is not that relevant on an aero dominated formula, sorry but is utter nosense, it´s like saying head wind or tail wind do not affect DF


Damm, it was yourself who said problem when comparing with 80´s is today aero is so developed that cars are very sensitive to any turbulence.... Now same cars are not that sensitive to wake turbulence? Any reason?

[bhall II]

Sorry Bhall, but I find it amazing how someone with your knownledge can insist so much saying wake turbulence is not that relevant.

I find it amazing that you still think that's what I'm saying.

If you haven't already, check out hollus' post.

I'd argue that this is more an issue with tire life and tire overheating than an issue with the car's performance drop per-se.

Don't forget about the needs to maintain adequate brake/engine cooling and avoid the marbles that tend to punish off-line excursions.

[...]

I'm sorry that I allowed my comments to devolve into snark. You've never given me a reason to question the sincerity of your point of view.

This is just an issue that almost immediately causes frustration, because I think the single-biggest reason why the regulations are an idiosyncratic wasteland is that they're littered with attempts to address a relatively mild concern (for which a feasible solution doesn't really exist anyway).

[OO7]

I'm sorry that I allowed my comments to devolve into snark. You've never given me a reason to question the sincerity of your point of view.

This is just an issue that almost immediately causes frustration, because I think the single-biggest reason why the regulations are an idiosyncratic wasteland is that they're littered with attempts to address a relatively mild concern (for which a feasible solution doesn't really exist anyway).

There really is no need to apologies to me, I didn't find anything in your posts off putting or snarky . I'll be responding to Hollus' and your post, but because I felt my response will be rather long and required a bit of research, I've been delaying it.

I'm glad you posted that image from the 2010 Turkish GP, as it caused me to watch most of the race again. It was quite amazing to see how things have changed, because in that race the first 4 seemed to be going pretty much flat-out until soon after the RBs collided. It was a fantastic race.

[Facts Only]

I have to backup bhall in this one, there is a bit of a mith to the fact that the cars could follow closely in the rosie golden years. I'd concede that they could follow a bit closer, but they still had problems when within a second of the car in front.

Plus I'd say that the current generation of cars can follow closely... for a few corners. It is not that the car performance drops so dramatically because of the dirty air; as t is that the tires, which with 2016 spec tire rules, 2016 levels of material knowledge, 2016 levels of material quality, 2016 levels of live telemetry, 2016 levels of computer analysis of performance... they are used so close to their limit that the dirty air pushes them over the limit after a few corners. I'd argue that this is more an issue with tire life and tire overheating than an issue with the car's performance drop per-se.

And instead of cherry picking, I'll jump straight to the race closest in time to 30 years ago, the 1986 Portuguese grand prix.

We are trying to compare 2016 cars which often are 1 tenth away in performance from the car in front or behind, to 1986 standards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Port ... Grand_Prix
In quali, there were 3 seconds covering the top 10, 6 seconds from pole to #22.
In the race, by the end, there were 3 cars in the leading lap, 4 cars in the lap behind, 2 cars 2 laps down, 4 cars 3 laps down... and a 60% retirement rate. The cars finished in average about 30 seconds apart, and #4 run out of fuel.
These cars had different tire manufacturers, vastly different engine units, a lot more setup and design freedom and even within teammates, you'd often find 0.5 to 1 second differences in quali.

It is logical that when a car with 1 second in hand found itself behind a slower car,it could give the illusion of following closely for a while. The mid-september 2016 equivalent is Verstappen in the midfield when off-synch or Vettel starting in the back in Singapore... both could pass, which would imply that both could follow closely through some magic.

We are comparing 1986 to modern clone-like cars...

For reference, the race in Estoril in 1986:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh6vcOC69dw
From the 4 minute mark to the 10 minute mark, there is an apparent force field hitting any car closer than 8 car lenghts to the car in front. Trains of cars come out of the corners at beautifully regular intervals and somehow nobody in the top 8 seems to muster an attempt at a pass. Go to the 9 minute mark to witness a very superior Williams get very close to an inferior Benetton... to somehow fall prey of an invisible force field behind the Benetton.

Excellent post Hollus.

The thing that you have to remember is that everything was better in the old days. Especially if you just watch the highlights 30 years later and get all misty eyed for the days gone by.

The past is simultaneously the ball and chain around the ankle of F1 and the club it gets beaten with constantly.

[turbof1]

I'm sorry that I allowed my comments to devolve into snark. You've never given me a reason to question the sincerity of your point of view.

This is just an issue that almost immediately causes frustration, because I think the single-biggest reason why the regulations are an idiosyncratic wasteland is that they're littered with attempts to address a relatively mild concern (for which a feasible solution doesn't really exist anyway).

There really is no need to apologies to me, I didn't find anything in your posts off putting or snarky. I'll be responding to Hollus' and your post, but because I felt me response will be rather long and required a bit of research, I've been delaying it.

I'm glad you posted that image from the 2010 Turkish GP, as it caused me to watch most of the race again. It was quite amazing to see how things have changed, because in that race the first 4 seemed to be going pretty much flat-out until soon after the RBs collided. It was a fantastic race.

That was indeed such a nice race. First we had the Red Bulls failing at a simple pass, then mclaren showed how you'd battle for several corners without ending in tears. I absolutely loved the contrast and the overall tension in the race.

[Andres125sx]

Sorry Bhall, but I find it amazing how someone with your knownledge can insist so much saying wake turbulence is not that relevant.

I find it amazing that you still think that's what I'm saying.

You know my english is quite poor, but even so when I read this I still understand you´re saying wake turbulence is not a decisive factor when it comes to overtaking

...we are discussing aero and GP3 cars are spec, have aero and suffer from wake turbulence issues.

According to you. If you take that for granted, the rest of this is pointless, because your assumption will color everything that follows. You have to treat it as an unknown variable. When you do, you'll see that the preponderance of the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that wake turbulence in and of itself is a decisive factor when it comes to overtaking. And until that changes, it's folklore.

Like the Yeti. (And my humility.)

[poolboy67]

What needs to change for overtakes to happen, is banning engine mapping settings. So the drivers can't start saving fuel or anything, like they do now.
Tires need to last forever at max grip, with only one dry compound available for every race, but with at least 2 mandated pit stops, with atleast 10-15 laps in between. This would remove tire saving, but still keep the pit stops as entertainment and as a bit of a joker card, as anything can happen during a pit stop.
Maybe even bring back refueling, but still make the teams start with a full tank. This would remove the need to save fuel. Refueling would be mandatory as well. This would also allow a smaller fuel tank, which would still have to be big enough to run half a race at monza, with fuel flow still limited. Tank needs to be full after refueling. Driver control disabled whilst the refueling hose is connected to the car. If the teams can't make a system that is reliable for this, set a single supplier for all teams.
FRIC copies or workarounds need to be banned. The FIA should take action on this asap anyway. The current rules have too many holes.
Frot wing needs to be narrower and higher. The complexity of each wing should be limited to 3 for FW and 2 for RW.
No underbody body/wing elements under, on the sides or the edges on the car, beyond floor. Not on the nose either, with camera winglets at the centerline of the side of the nose. FW extra winglets not allowed, but limited to 4 per side under the wing. FW end plate elements limited to 3 and less than 3cm wide
Much more ground effect, but a more simplified diffusor, with possibly a double deck allowed. This would therefore not "eat away" any space for other parts inside the cars bodyworks.
Allow big cooling ducts at the sides of the body, with limited size and max number of 3 openings. No "heat tubes" allowed tho. I do see this as a slight chance for abusing the rule holes yet again.
DRS opens both RW and FW top flaps completely.
Overtake buttons banned tho. To not make --- too easy.

Most of all, LIMIT SETTING POSSIBILITIES FROM DRIVES TO A MUCH SMALLER DEGREE THAN NOW!

[Paul]

Removing maps won't remove fuel saving, drivers use the loud pedal for that. Only obvious possibility I see is to introduce mandatory constant fuel flow, so that when torque isn't needed to drive the wheels they recharge the batteries.

[zac510]

Great post Hollus!
Rosey coloured glasses vs physics. How can you argue with physics? It breaks the rules of physics to have a following car in low energy air (turbulent, etc whatever) have comparable aerodynamic performance of the car in front!

poolyboy67, I think you're focussing n the wrong boogeyman. Limiting setting possibilities would make all the cars have much more similar laptimes. Cars that are doing the same laptimes basically can't pass one another, because they're equal.

[OO7]

Have been meaning to continue this topic for a very long time but kept putting it off.

Even in MotoGP, riders complained last year that wings on the bikes were dangerous. Besides the possibility that side by side contact could cause injury to a rider, there were also complaints that turbulence shed from a leading bikes was very destabilising to the bike behind. https://www.motorsport.com/motogp/news/ ... ce-680351/