2015 F1 Mechanics/Aero; Design predictions to win the WCC/WDC. READ FIRST POST

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Where the teams have gotten it so very horribly wrong is the insistence that the fans want to be entertained. Yes, we all want exciting racing, but that is not the same as wanting to be entertained.

Each individual fan wants something different, but I think that it's safe to say that we don't want to see overtaking. We want to see the possibility of overtaking - it should be possible, but not guaranteed; the driver still has to work for it.

Watching last night's GP2 race, there was some fantastic stuff. It was a good balance between strategy and racecraft, and I think that's what Formula 1 needs. We need a scenario where multiple strategies are equally viable. We need tyres that work best when the drivers maintain momentum, but punish errors. We need lower downforce and an increase in mechanical grip. And we need to restructure the finances to be fairer - sure, reward success, reward longevity, but don't pay one team more money for showing up than another team spends over the course of the season.

What still bothers me is that hearing the Tweets during free practice, the fans still blame the FIA and Bernie for the current state of affairs. Nobody seems to acknowledge that the teams have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are.

Well I agree with most of what you've said and it's obvious all play a part in this downfall to F1, based on various things that usually boil down to self interest rather than the longevity of the sport. I would hope most people would want to see a sport where strategy and race craft are entangled in a balance that creates great events rather than one over the other. The reason I say to reduce aero grip and bring in mechanical grip and find some balance is so that things like overtaking are possible but as you said not hand given. I want to see days again where you can drive up to the rear wing of a fellow driver but not wait for a DRS zone that virtually makes them a sitting duck, rather if you want to get past you have to work for it since the slipstream allowed you to get into position.

Oh and no other cheap gimmicks like turbo boost every so often like the 80s had.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I want to see days again where you can drive up to the rear wing of a fellow driver but not wait for a DRS zone that virtually makes them a sitting duck, rather if you want to get past you have to work for it since the slipstream allowed you to get into position.

There's been some stunning stuff in GP2 and GP3 this weekend that does exactly this.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

I haven't seen any of the racing from Austria yet, but DRS has so far been a downfall to the 2015 GP2 season. Barcelona was the worst case, not least because it didn't work for the first half of the race.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So yeah, people are bringing up another Overbeeke example as what they'd like to see for the future after this weekends crash. I like the design and it looks far more realistic than the Newey versions. But then again I also like the open cockpit design shown on this thread earlier and this one of the 2017 RBR he made...

 

[catamount39]

So yeah, people are bringing up another Overbeeke example as what they'd like to see for the future after this weekends crash. I like the design and it looks far more realistic than the Newey versions. But then again I also like the open cockpit design shown on this thread earlier and this one of the 2017 RBR he made...

The future doesn't seem so bad right now...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Christian Horner has an interesting idea - to open up engine development based on success. The more successful your engine is, the less development you get, and vice versa. It's self-serving, to be sure, and it doesn't take into account the way some manufacturers supply more teams than others, but I think the idea has merit. As your engine gets better, your opportunities for development slow down.

 

[catamount39]

Christian Horner has an interesting idea - to open up engine development based on success. The more successful your engine is, the less development you get, and vice versa. It's self-serving, to be sure, and it doesn't take into account the way some manufacturers supply more teams than others, but I think the idea has merit. As your engine gets better, your opportunities for development slow down.

That is a good idea, I wouldn't mind seeing that being put into place. 👍

 

[TheBook]

How would that work? Teams that place lower in the constructors' championship get more tokens?

 

[Peasantslayer]

Horner suggests somebody like Ross Brawn should be recruited to help form new regulations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/33227143

So yeah, people are bringing up another Overbeeke example as what they'd like to see for the future after this weekends crash. I like the design and it looks far more realistic than the Newey versions. But then again I also like the open cockpit design shown on this thread earlier and this one of the 2017 RBR he made...

The thing is with concepts like these is they are designed based on looks and not performance when in the real world it's the other way around, who knows what that thing would be like in a wind tunnel.

 

[catamount39]

The thing is with concepts like these is they are designed based on looks and not performance when in the real world it's the other way around, who knows what that thing would be like in a wind tunnel.

Don't care how aero dynamically efficient they are...WE NEED THEM. F1 cars need to look that beautiful again.

 

[GTPorsche]

How would that work? Teams that place lower in the constructors' championship get more tokens?

It would make more sense to have a system like that if each team had their own engine instead of sourcing from (currently) 1 of 3 available engines.

 

[catamount39]

It would make more sense to have a system like that if each team had their own engine instead of sourcing from (currently) 1 of 3 available engines.

If it were put in place, the system would just go on engine manufacture. Why on Earth would anyone think it'd go by constructor?

 

[GTPorsche]

If it were put in place, the system would just go on engine manufacture. Why on Earth would anyone think it'd go by constructor?

It would make more sense to have a system like that if each team had their own engine instead of sourcing from (currently) 1 of 3 available engines.

Key word highlighted...

 

[catamount39]

Key word highlighted...

...still your point doesn't make sense. I see where you are going but you're making it more complicated than it has to be.

There are currently 4 engine manufactures. It's simple, based off of the points accumulated by the finishing order, the manufacture whose got the most points will have less tokens than the the manufacture in last. Like Honda right now could be doing a lot of work and Mercedes would only be allowed minor work if any. It would level the engine playing field.

 

[GTPorsche]

A system like that would only benefit the top teams for each engine manufacturer, which is why it's not going to work.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Not unless the rules mandated that any engine upgrades were available to all teams - both works and customer - at the same time.

 

[GTPorsche]

That's why I don't see the system working.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That's why I don't see the system working.

Why not? In order to develop, you have to make upgrades available to everyone. And the more successful you are, the less development you get.

 

[MHPALA]

Force India Spec B nose? :

The rear looks thinner too.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The thing is with concepts like these is they are designed based on looks and not performance when in the real world it's the other way around, who knows what that thing would be like in a wind tunnel.

Most of his designs harp or proven designs used in F1, it's not like he took what Ferrari did for future influence or how cars should perhaps go...(which wasn't a proven design either, and it was still drawn up by an F1 team). The stuff he does usuall is based on what people want to see for the future or what has been sugested might happen in team meetings.

The williams one he did was based on the talks about return to lower wings like we last saw in 2008 and other previous influence with some future added to it. The same thing has been done for the cockpit car. Also the FIA writes up rules all the time that edit the previous year and no where in those rules does it show a better or more aero efficient car it's up to the teams to do that. These designs are similar, here is a general idea of perhaps how f1 should go and thus the teams work around it. The these are all CAD images he's done and if he had a CFD program he could easily download the CAD into it and run simulations and then adjust from there...

Basically, don't just take it for face value.

@MHPALA I knew you'd have the FI pictures up, but I thought I'd check just to make sure...if I wasn't so busy I might have got em up, good work either way.

There was this though...

 

[GTPorsche]

Provides more rear downforce, interrupts more air for the car behind. That's not how the racing improves...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Provides more rear downforce, interrupts more air for the car behind. That's not how the racing improves...

Are you talking about the Williams? Cause if so that set up is completely illegal based on the FIA rules regarding that section of the car.

paragraph 3.8.4 of the technical regulations

 

[GTPorsche]

Yeah, talking about the Williams.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

Presuming there that Williams have used the illegal parts to contrast their low drag, high top speed 2015 car with that of a design chasing more drag, higher downforce. Initially I thought it would be a bad circuit to run a test like this though, given the amount of slow corners onto long straights there are. However if they notice the extra downforce here relates to only a small time loss, then it stands to reason that a higher downforce design would be ahead on the twistier circuits. With circuits like Silverstone coming up next, some of the data will give them a good setup starting point, however the bulk of this testing will be aimed towards the 2016 car.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Are you talking about the Williams? Cause if so that set up is completely illegal based on the FIA rules regarding that section of the car.

paragraph 3.8.4 of the technical regulations

James Allen reckons that it's an experiment in rear downforce, with the team trying to compare what they have with could have to find out where they can make up the difference.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I wouldn't be surprised the're not to first group to do such things to find legal solutions to issues that are making their season weak.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The FIA is going to regulate the cost of engines in a bid to stop spiralling costs:

http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119673/fia-to-take-action-on-engine-deals

 

[AudiMan2011]

Aston Martin reportedly in talks with RBR to become a brand partner and allow the team to run Merc engines.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119849

 

[catamount39]

Aston Martin reportedly in talks with RBR to become a brand partner and allow the team to run Merc engines.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119849

OH MY GOD WHAT IS LIFE RIGHT NOW! Aston Martin I love you!

 

[GTPorsche]

How would that work out? Isn't Mercedes at the limit for supplying teams?