2017 F1 Constructor technical info/developmentFormula 1

[TenEightyOne]

I must be the only person who didn't really like the shark fins. I prefer the beautifully smooth, uninterrupted slope of the air box / engine covers of the early '90s.

Me neither, hated them. I prefer to see the top of the car vanish away into a tiny neat rear axle!

 

[TheElbows]

I must be the only person who didn't really like the shark fins. I prefer the beautifully smooth, uninterrupted slope of the air box / engine covers of the early '90s.

You're not alone. Hell I don't think I've seen an attractive F1 car in 10-15 years.

 

[AudiMan2011]

I must be the only person who didn't really like the shark fins. I prefer the beautifully smooth, uninterrupted slope of the air box / engine covers of the early '90s.

I've never been keen on the shark fins either, particularly when they evolved into integrating the F-Duct in 2010.

 

[Dolph Drago]

Glad to see I'm not alone. That makes me feel a little better!

 

[Jimlaad43]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38772098

 

[catamount39]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38772098

It's sad news to read Manor have folded. Things were beginning to look up for them as well.

 

[Peter.]

That's tragic, right after they make their best car in their whole time in F1 and bag points. Makes you almost forget the crippling debt they were accumulating due to the miscarriage of a payment structure F1 has.

Hope Liberty fix the imbalance of payment. That participation money Ferrari get could have saved the 2010 teams many times over. Not that there's much to save since Sauber is probably the only struggling small team left.

 

[catamount39]

Manor may be gone, however they gave us one final gift. The gift of seeing an example of a 2017 F1 car. Goodbye Manor. ;_;7
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/manor-staff-reveal-2017-f1-car-design-869108/

 

[aarror]

Manor may be gone, however they gave us one final gift. The gift of seeing an example of a 2017 F1 car. Goodbye Manor. ;_;7
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/manor-staff-reveal-2017-f1-car-design-869108/

What is that, an F1 car for ants?

 

[IforceV8]

Manor may be gone, however they gave us one final gift. The gift of seeing an example of a 2017 F1 car. Goodbye Manor. ;_;7
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/manor-staff-reveal-2017-f1-car-design-869108/

Right after that was picture taken they all decided to sell that thing on Ebay and split the money between themselves because they are all unemployed and have bills to pay.

 

[catamount39]

What is that, an F1 car for ants?

No...a ferret.

 

[DesertPenguin09]

What is that, an F1 car for ants?

Beat me to it lol

 

[ukfan758]

Manor may be gone, however they gave us one final gift. The gift of seeing an example of a 2017 F1 car. Goodbye Manor. ;_;7
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/manor-staff-reveal-2017-f1-car-design-869108/

*2000s nostalgia rushing through me*

 

[daan]

What is that, an F1 car for ants?

Anthony Davidson maybe.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Racecar Engineering investigate how the new technical regulations will effect overtaking:

http://www.dynamic-flow.co.uk/uploads/5/5/8/5/55854345/f1_2017_overtaking_study.pdf

what we saw on our model was the balance figure change to about 50 per cent front at two cars’ separation, 55 per cent front at one car’s separation

and about 61 per cent front at half a car’s separation, compared to the 45 per cent front figure on our model in isolation and at eight and four

car lengths’ separation. If this were to transfer out on to the track, what we could see in 2017 when cars try to run close together in line astern through ‘aero speed’ corners is that

the following car might initially be able to get closer more comfortably than in previous configurations but then, as it closed more, become prone to aerodynamic oversteer. This may simply manifest itself as just that, oversteer. But could it be that drivers will risk spinning off if they get too close to the car in front?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

An analysis of Manor's images and what we can learn about the 2017 designs from them:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/127939/what-manor-images-reveal-about-2017-designs

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm real interested to see the development of the bargeboards, the regulations for that area appear to be fairly open from what I've read and even the ones on the Manor look fairly intricate.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm real interested to see the development of the bargeboards, the regulations for that area appear to be fairly open from what I've read and even the ones on the Manor look fairly intricate.

Finally someone who actually cares about that area as well.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Finally someone who actually cares about that area as well.

Of course! Almost everything else will most likely be evolutions from recent seasons adapted to the new regulations but bargeboards like this haven't been seen for a long while now so I'm very intrigued by what the teams could possibly come up with. There were some wild designs even in the early 2000s, just imagine what the teams could come up with now.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Of course! Almost everything else will most likely be evolutions from recent seasons adapted to the new regulations but bargeboards like this haven't been seen for a long while now so I'm very intrigued by what the teams could possibly come up with. There were some wild designs even in the early 2000s, just imagine what the teams could come up with now.

Well I'm mostly glad you brought it up because turning vanes and barge boards were a massive talking point due to the FIA actually giving massive freedom in this area. These would all be great if they do make it in some shape or another. This wouldn't be the first season that old tricks from yesteryear were used in a more modern take.

 

[Samus]

The other worst kept secret, Lowe to Williams, is "in the final stages"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38680524

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The other worst kept secret, Lowe to Williams, is "in the final stages"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38680524

No worse than the last "secret" between the two constructors.

 

[Samus]

EDIT: Nope, nevermind all that.

 

[RX-7_FD3S]

Total weight for F1 has been raised by 6kg (that's the difference in weight between the new and the old tires). So now maximum is 728 kg compares to the 702kg we had last year. Total weight was already raised to 722 kg because of the 2017 change but I guess they didnt took into account the tyre.

Info taken from motorsport :

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/minimum-car-weight-increased-for-2017-f1-season-870573

 

[TenEightyOne]

There's some doubt about the future of the halo... or it's confirmed... or it will be something else. And you can take that to the bank. BBC.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

There's some doubt about the future of the halo... or it's confirmed... or it will be something else. And you can take that to the bank. BBC.

Not surprised, let's quickly put this to rest until someone in the FIA tries to dig it out (hopefully nothing happens to a driver in the near future). If the FIA actually cared about the halo or some measure of head safety being put through, they'd have done it after Surtees death or Massa's season ending accident. Instead they did long term canopy testing, then rushed in the halo which is limited protection, and then teased the potential of the RBR solution.

Point being none of this every signified a full on solution to the issue. It always seemed like a PR stunt in safety more than anything else and the teams were willing to test it because the FIA wanted it, but clearly weren't fully ready to endorse it. The fact it was easily killed and hinted at before even being voted on last year was enough for me to see how unlikely it was to be used.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Point being none of this every signified a full on solution to the issue. It always seemed like a PR stunt in safety more than anything else and the teams were willing to test it because the FIA wanted it, but clearly weren't fully ready to endorse it. The fact it was easily killed and hinted at before even being voted on last year was enough for me to see how unlikely it was to be used.

I agree... but that article raises an interesting point. If a fatality was to occur in halo-less F1 that could demonstrably have been prevented by the halo (or other workable solutions that might appear) is there a liability issue?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If a fatality was to occur in halo-less F1 that could demonstrably have been prevented by the halo (or other workable solutions that might appear) is there a liability issue?

The inverse also applies - is there a liability issue if a fatality results from an accident in which a driver is trapped in a car by the halo?

 

[TenEightyOne]

The inverse also applies - is there a liability issue if a fatality results from an accident in which a driver is trapped in a car by the halo?

Yes, but those scenarios can be pre-tested to a less limited extent. The FIA are already confident that their tests with an overturned car show no problem with egress, furthermore we wouldn't see the halo on a car unless those safety requirements had been met to the satisfaction of the FIA and the teams. In fact, that might well be their only reasonable defence in the case of a no-halo fatality lawsuit.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I agree... but that article raises an interesting point. If a fatality was to occur in halo-less F1 that could demonstrably have been prevented by the halo (or other workable solutions that might appear) is there a liability issue?

No, because as the drivers say all the time, they realize they're putting the lives into the hands of fate or chance or whatever. They signed up to do a dangerous job for sport or entertainment and if they die, while a great tragedy, a also sobering reminder of the nature.