|
Post by Wß on Aug 29, 2015 11:39:38 GMT
Not too early to get going, here's a nice summary by Ted Kravitz.
|
|
|
Post by Frontrunner on Aug 30, 2015 13:38:16 GMT
The 2017 version definitely looks more like a F1 car that i grew up watching in the late 90's and the 2000's sort of. It just looks bigger and more of a beast than the current era F1 car. I really like the lower and wider rear wing in terms of looks especially. But what the racing on track will be like is the big question i guess.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Aug 30, 2015 13:46:40 GMT
Records will fall.
|
|
|
Post by Frontrunner on Aug 30, 2015 14:25:23 GMT
Cars will be faster but with the possibility of overtaking being harder perhaps, are we going to see the possible return of the "Trulli train" making a come back? but then again we have DRS these days.
|
|
|
Post by RyRy on Aug 30, 2015 17:34:08 GMT
The thing that annoys me with the whole "Trulli train" is that so many people think it was because he was slow... no he qualified ahead of where he should have been, his car obviously was slower in the race and was really good at keeping people behind.
I personally love what they were showing for 2017, it looks to be going back to 2008 style in some areas which I loved.
|
|
|
Post by Frontrunner on Sept 1, 2015 10:52:23 GMT
I remember when Trulli put the Jordan Mugen/Honda on the 1st row on grid at Monaco next to Schu's Ferrari, At no right that yellow car deserved to be there, that was a great effort.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Oct 25, 2015 12:27:20 GMT
Just placing this here for discussion after next week's announcement. I don't think for one second that this will be accepted by the teams unless they get some major concessions on fuel, boost and harvesting.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Oct 26, 2015 20:57:57 GMT
Heavens to Betsy... Ferrari have a veto and they're not afraid to use it. I have a feeling this thread is going to get many many many long detailed ugly posts. Many many.
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Oct 27, 2015 11:36:53 GMT
So Ferrari are stifling competition once again by vetoing rules that would be fair and allow more open competition for the smaller teams - AFTER widespread agreement amongst the teams to reduce costs? Ferrari, with a more expenssive and less effective engine than Merc are the ones using their unfair and uncompetitive veto to stop the smaller teams competing? Well I never! Merc agreed to allow open in season development to allow the less able competitors to catch up, something Ferrari took advantage of this year despite agreeing to rules to limit costs by limiting in season development. But this is nothing new from Ferrari, Merc on the other hand played by the rules agreed and have gone the opposite way to a veto, they have allowed the lame to catch up I am sure there will still be some of the useless sector of the Tifosi blindly talking about unfair rules and teams being held back
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Oct 27, 2015 11:55:16 GMT
Ferrari never avoid any opportunity to look like the cheap, thieving, lame donkeys which they really are.
Mercedes blamed for creating the best engine within rules that were voted for unanimously and now Ferrari are stiffling the one ray of hope for all the midfield/new teams for the future.
But of course, the passionate lame ducks will continue blaming Mercedes for their genius and efficiency. And completely ignore their philantrophy in letting the lame catch up when they could've easily blocked it by STICKING TO PREVIOUSLY AGREED RULES.
If there's one company I wish to see fold in my lifetime, Ferrari it is.
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Oct 27, 2015 12:02:04 GMT
I am looking for a nice profit if they do fold (or at least halve in value). New lows made in the stock price yesterday, they are heading south slowly but surely and Im already up $2 per share
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Oct 27, 2015 12:12:06 GMT
Don't ever let concrete factual evidence sway you from your faith, ignorance and opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Nov 27, 2015 15:17:16 GMT
We'll be seeing quite a bit of news over the next few months regarding the 2017 regulations. Although the chassis changes and wider tires will look very cool, I fear that the changes alone are being made for the sake of enticement rather than to address a real issue. More aero dependency is great if you're up front, not so great if you're following but that's the direction things will head in 2017.
In related news the Ferrari veto put the kibosh on the parallel engine for sure but it may go one step further and putting the kibosh on lowering engine prices of the existing engines for customer teams period. Interesting times ahead, I'll keep the thread lively.
This also happened which is an exercise in futility given the Ferrari veto, but let's not allow reality to dampen the wranglings and machinations in the sport; not allowing concrete factual evidence sway you from your faith, ignorance and opinions... I thought was limited to certain fans, but apparently it also affects certain industry insiders.
|
|
|
Post by RyRy on Nov 28, 2015 12:06:13 GMT
I fear this is going to be a huge fail making it worse rather than fixing the problems. Pretty much everyone agrees that this is the wrong way to go...
Unless the teams and FIA know something or are planning something that we don't know about
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Dec 25, 2015 0:58:19 GMT
Good side by side video here from Mercedes.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Dec 28, 2015 15:09:51 GMT
Nicer looking cars indeed, whether they can effect an overtake or not remains to be seen. Mechanical grip, not high speed downforce is what allows for close quarters racing. We may wind up with a lot of races won on Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jan 4, 2016 17:55:37 GMT
This is an excerpt from an Autoweek article. January 15th is the date the proposals from the teams is expected since Ferrari vetoed the alternate engine idea. The regulation for what the cars will look like from an aerodynamic standpoint is pretty much set. What's going to be in the back of those cars is completely up in the air. Given the fact that they have a year to implement anything that's decided, it can't be too drastic or else there's not a chance of it happening.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jan 12, 2016 14:15:38 GMT
BBC F1 Plans to make Formula 1 cars faster for 2017 are being watered down following an intervention from Pirelli. Rule changes, including making cars wider and more dramatic-looking, had targeted a lap-time gain of five seconds. But F1's tyre supplier Pirelli told teams its tyres could not cope with the planned increase in cornering forces without making them much more resilient, and therefore slower. Advertisement Teams are now investigating the effect of a revised series of changes with a smaller increase in aerodynamic downforce. That work is ongoing, but leading engineers predict the cars will now be more like three seconds a lap faster. Pirelli told BBC Sport the data it presented to teams was based on calculations at an early stage in the process of defining the tyres for 2017. What is this all about? F1's bosses decided last year to make the cars more exciting and dramatic-looking in response to concerns that the sport's appeal is waning. Teams and governing body the FIA had by the end of November agreed on a series of changes for 2017: -to widen the track - the distance across the car between the wheels - from 1800mm to 2000mm fit wider tyres -change the shape and size of the front and rear wings -produce more aerodynamic downforce from wider bodywork and a re-designed underfloor. The increase in downforce predicted from these plans is estimated at between 25-60%. What derailed the plan? Sources say Pirelli made a presentation to the teams in which it said its tyres, made to the planned 2017 dimensions, could not cope with more than a 10-15% increase in downforce without it needing to impose much higher tyre pressures. It said pressures would have to be as high as 27psi - about 50% higher than would be considered by teams to be 'normal'. But higher tyre pressure reduces grip, which would mean diminishing returns from the increase in car performance. The other problem was that with reduced tyre grip, a greater proportion of the lap-time gain would come from aerodynamics, and the feeling among engineers and world governing body the FIA was that this would make close racing and overtaking even more difficult than it already is. This is counter to the initial intent behind the changes, which was to speed up the cars without having a detrimental effect on the quality of the racing. A Pirelli spokesman said: "With the new tyre sizes proposed for 2017, we think the load capacity of a tyre built to the current construction would increase by about 10%. But nobody knows what structure we will choose for 2017 yet. "Everything will be calculated much more carefully when we start testing." He added that one of the problems was that Pirelli was forbidden by F1's rules from doing on-track testing before 2017, and there was still no agreement on a resolution to that problem. So what now? Not all the teams supported the proposal to revise the new rules - the vote was eight in favour and three against among the 11 teams. But that was felt to be a significant enough majority to press ahead. The FIA asked teams to investigate the effect of abandoning two key elements of the new rules package which had been aimed at increasing downforce - a redesigned underfloor and introduction of wider bodywork. Plans to widen the gap between the tyres, revise the size and shape of the front and rear wings and fit bigger tyres remain, however. A senior insider said the target speed increase for 2017 could not be confirmed until the completion of research into the revised plans. The aim is to finalise a new set of rules before the start of the new season in March. Hasn't this come up already? The development comes after world champions Mercedes raised concerns towards the end of last season about the 2017 rules, questioning whether the tyres would be able to cope with the increased loads. Among other issues, Mercedes pointed out that current F1 cars are approaching historic highs in terms of downforce and power and that, if the sport pressed ahead, Pirelli would have to deal with loads to which no other racing tyre has ever been subjected. Mercedes' rivals rejected their concerns at the time, many saying that the team were trying to protect their competitive advantage by keeping rules stable. Is there a wider issue? There is concern in some quarters that the limitations of the tyres will undermine the aims of the new rules and lead to a lot of expensive research into new car designs for little effect. As a result of this, there was a proposal to abandon the whole process of changing the cars fundamentally for 2017, or to just keep the wider track but change nothing else. This was rejected by the wider group of teams. Pirelli said: "Maybe a totally brand new tyre can be built. There is a lot of speculation about this process, but it is still at a very early stage." The spokesman added that Pirelli thought a five-second reduction in lap times was "too much", and that four seconds was more appropriate. What about engines? The rule changes for 2017 are being formulated at the same time as the road car manufacturers in F1 are trying to come up with revisions to the engine rules to satisfy a request from the FIA for power units to be cheaper, simpler, noisier and more widely available to teams. The manufacturers have to finalise proposals by 15 January. BBC Sport has learned that a bid to drop the MGU-H, the part of the hybrid system that regenerates energy from the turbocharger, has been rejected and that the proposal will be for the hybrid system to remain part of the same design as it is now. However, the idea is for a lot of other parts of the engine to be made standard to reduce costs. The target is for the price of engines for customer teams to be 10m euros (£7.5m) in 2018, when the changes will be introduced. Power units currently cost customers in the region of 18-23m euros a season.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jan 15, 2016 13:34:14 GMT
It's today! IT'S TODAY! The day where the F1 team provide their proposal to make everything better in the sport. :lovesmiley:
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jan 15, 2016 15:12:15 GMT
On again, off again, on again, off again, on again...
|
|