|
|
Post by RyRy on Jan 26, 2018 4:07:57 GMT
Weight!
I still don't mind the appearance of the Halo, I'm happy to see a change to make drivers safer. I also can't wait until we see some good camera footage from the cameras that we'll get strapped to the halo. The one I am most looking forward to is a backwards facing camera looking directly at the drivers head, it will be awesome for Singapore.
|
|
|
|
Post by London on Jan 26, 2018 16:17:33 GMT
 In my opinion Williams interpretation of article 3.5.1 of the technical regulations will be use by every teams to optimize the operation of the diffuser since the T-wing and monkey seat are no longer allowed. |
|
|
|
Post by RyRy on Jan 27, 2018 2:57:47 GMT
Yeah, it will be on every car and I'm sure other teams thought of it before Williams made it everyone's knowledge. They've basically replaced the monkeyseat and high t-wing with a low t-wing lol
|
|
|
|
Post by London on Jan 27, 2018 10:53:41 GMT
What if a team found another solution ?
|
|
|
|
Post by London on Feb 3, 2018 22:10:11 GMT
A reminder of what each team needs to resolve/improve for the new season.F1 2018 : Team by team Technical preview from F1 Tech Part. 1
As the 2018 Formula One season edges ever closer, Formula 1 Tech takes a look at where each team’s technical strengths and weaknesses are, and what needs to be addressed for the new season. Part one focused on the bottom five teams from last year’s championship, while part two, below, analyses the top half of the grid from 2017.
RENAULT
Renault’s development programme was very impressive in 2017, with significant process being made for Silverstone especially, where a major floor/diffuser upgrade was introduced. As such, it would be a surprise if the R.S.18 was a significant departure from its predecessor, although Chassis Director Nick Chester has stated that the car will be ‘completely new’. This is likely to mean evolution across the board.
However, it should also be remembered that with the staff numbers on the chassis side increasing all the time, as the team rebuilds, there will be many designers who would not have had a chance to influence the 2017 car, but will have been able to bring their ideas to the table for the 2018 edition.
The major weakness of the R.S.17 was too much drag, whereas, absolute downforce was not as much of an issue. This is highlighted very clearly by looking at Singapore and Abu Dhabi sector times. The former saw every team run maximum downforce and the different sectors, especially the first and last ones, make measurement of the relative strengths of cars in terms of downforce vs drag very comparable. Sector One features two DRS zones, two reasonably long straights, and just three corners. On the contrary, the final sector is all about maximum downforce and mechanical grip, with very little dependency on straightline speed and power.
Therefore, it was interesting to note that in qualifying for Singapore, Hülkenberg was P12 in sector one, over eight tenths off pole man Vettel, but in the final sector, which is eight seconds longer, he was P4, and gave up less than three tenths. Indeed, in the middle sector, which sits somewhere between the two, there was a margin of just under four tenths. Notably, the Renault was quicker than both Mercedes cars in the final sector.
Similarly, in Abu Dhabi, during the race, the German was third quickest in the corner-dependent, slow-speed final sector, faster than both Red Bulls (so power is not a factor to be considered) and under half a second off the best time. This author advises readers to view the comparison of Hülkenberg and Alonso’s Q3 laps in Singapore below, which shows that the McLaren was quicker in a straightline line despite having significantly less power.
Elsewhere, improved reliability will also have been a focus of the Enstone outfit over the winter, with the team having set a target of a top three position in terms of the mileage charts for pre-season testing.
TORO ROSSO
Toro Rosso will enter the 2018 season with a number of unknowns regarding its competitiveness. The major factor determining the team’s performance will be the power and reliability of their Honda powertrain. If the Japanese manufacturer can build on where it ended the 2017 season with McLaren, that will not be a bad starting point.
The other concern for STR is their chassis development. In 2016, and then again last year, major upgrades were introduced at the German and Malaysian Grand Prix respectively, and both times, they failed deliver on their promise. Poor correlation is a disaster at any time, but most especially when regulations are immature and development potential is high, so it would very concerning if this was the issue for the team, instead of other factors such as the requirement of a revised set-up to complement the new parts.
HAAS
The American team’s focus for 2018 will be on improving its consistency. Too often last year, the team was strong at one race, but then very uncompetitive at the next. There was not always a pattern to their performance either, in terms of strong/weak weekends coming at a certain types of circuits.
Besides a lack of consistency, the other area where the team was particularly weak was at higher downforce tracks such as Hungary and Singapore (Monaco was ok), although as Mercedes have mentioned before, it is better to design a car that works on the majority of tracks, rather than at a specific few.
In terms of car design the VF-17 was very solid, with updates being brought throughout the year, and other than the main bargeboard element, there were no obvious areas where the team was lacking compared to its midfield rivals in detail and complexity.
MCLAREN
McLaren will undoubtedly receive a significant performance boost from its change of power unit. It appears as if installation of the Renault PU has been successful, judging by recent comments from the team, despite the late decision on its power provider for 2018. On the chassis side, the MCL32 was strong, although there was a deficiency in low speed cornering performance. This is particularly evident in the above video, where the Renault was more than a match for the McLaren around Singapore’s slow turns.
This was the opposite to 2016, when low speed performance was a strength and high speed was a problem. It should be noted that the drivability of the Honda unit, despite improving throughout the season, would not have aided those corner exits which place a great emphasis on traction, perhaps skewing chassis data.
It has been suggested that McLaren ran too high a wing level during the 2017 season, making its chassis appear better than it actually was – this author strongly refutes these thoughts. Instead, it can be argued that the team ran too much wing given it was using the Honda unit, but that this level of wing would be suitable for a more competitively powered chassis.
What this would have allowed was a more accurate representation of chassis performance and an easier identification of weaknesses. It was abundantly clear that Honda was lacking in all areas, so why not find out where your chassis is at, rather than running a compromised set-up and then adjusting GPS traces for wing level? For a team of McLaren’s stature, it is irrelevant whether they finish eight or ninth in the championship – accurate information on where their chassis is relative to the top teams is of far more importance.
SAUBER
Just like McLaren, Sauber should also benefit from the power unit side, moving from a 2016 to 2018 Ferrari unit – the gain could be over one second in pure performance, and even more when factors such as better fuel consumption are accounted for over a race distance. The Swiss team must ensure that its cooling package is adequate this year, as this was a major stumbling block in 2016. Inadequate cooling meant that maximum power was not extracted from the engine, which was already behind all but the Honda.
A major change in chassis philosophy is to be expected, with a move away from the high aerodynamic efficiency concept, used due to the year-old power unit, towards a more aggressive design. Allied to this, one should expect changes to the suspension geometry to improve working of the tyres, a significant issue that prevented the Swiss team from challenging the midfield more often. When the tyres were in their optimum operating window, for example in Spain, the car was surprisingly competitive.
Lastly, it may be the case that the team revises its development philosophy, focusing on smaller updates at more regular intervals, rather than throwing on a major upgrade package and becoming confused following its introduction, as seemed to be the case at times last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by London on Feb 3, 2018 22:10:22 GMT
F1 2018 : Team by team Technical preview from F1 Tech Part. 2
MERCEDES
During the period of domination by the Silver Arrows from 2014-16, the Mercedes car was almost always better than every other in all departments, including the powertrain and chassis. This advantage can make development tricky, especially from one year to the next, as it is difficult to pinpoint in which areas you car is weakest, and you must take the lead in terms of new concepts.
However, in 2017, Ferrari and latterly, Red Bull came to the fore, with some better car traits than Mercedes. This should enable a more focused development direction for the team in 2018. One the power unit side, the German manufacturer was still clearly ahead, as evidenced by Hamilton’s charge from the back of the grid in Brazil, and the team’s utter domination of the final race in Abu Dhabi.
So it is on the chassis side where most gain can be made. Undoubtedly, the team had the quickest car overall, but the difficulty in dialling it into certain race tracks, especially in the first three-quarters of the season, was a problem. The team has suggested that this was not an Aerodynamic issue, but rather a matter of putting both the front and rear tyres in the optimum operating window at the same time. It has been suggested that Mercedes was weaker at tight, twisty, higher-downforce tracks due to a lack of downforce and the W08’s long wheelbase, but this is not correct.
The interesting characteristic of these circuits with slower corners is that they have fewer straights, which themselves are shorter, while it is often the case that there are long sections with no straights, but merely sequences of corners (think Singapore sector three). So, if either the front or rear tyres overheat, there is less time for them to return to an acceptable temperature. As a result, suspension kinematics will have been an area of significant focus in the development of the W09.
In addition, it was widely acknowledged that the W08 was overweight in the early part of the season, not helped by its length, so the use of ballast was limited throughout the year, restricting a measure to aid tyre balance. It would therefore not be a major surprise to see Mercedes introduce a slightly shorter car, not because this is the route that Ferrari and Red Bull favoured, but in order to enhance its toolbox of set-up options, especially with the introduction of the Halo.
FERRARI
Ferrari was the surprise package of 2017, but there were some worrying signs for the Scuderia in the last half dozen races. Firstly, reliability was very poor, although the good news is that it did not appear to be a fundamental problem with the power unit, but rather supplier issues, which held the team back. This will need to be rectified for 2018 in order for the team to mount a sustained title challenge.
In addition, Ferrari needs to develop around a particular aerodynamic philosophy and stick to it throughout the season. Last year, there was a great deal of focus on different ideas on the front wing and diffuser, which is not necessarily the best route for development, as new concepts are often raw and require time to optimise. Mercedes and Red Bull (from Spain onwards) were the masters of this in 2017, with both ending the season in a better position compared to where they started it relative to Ferrari.
On the positive side, despite frequency concept changes, the team’s development rate was much stronger than in previous years, with new parts working the majority of the time, whereas, correlation had been an issue in the past. Additionally, on the operational side, progress was made with pit stops and strategy, with the latter particularly evident in Melbourne and Bahrain, where Vettel was able to undercut a Mercedes.
RED BULL
The Milton Keynes based squad continued its recent trend of starting slowly and ending strongly in 2017, something which the team has openly admitted needs addressing for a championship challenge to be possible. The RB14 should be ready a few days before testing rather than arriving at Barcelona on a very tight schedule, although it is difficult to see exactly how this will improve matters. It does allow the opportunity of a filming day to shakedown the car and start pre-season testing on the front foot, but reduces development time.
In terms of the actual chassis, it appears as if Red Bull may have hit a stumbling block at the end of last season. It was from Hungary (where major upgrades were introduced) to Mexico that the team was suddenly more competitive than at races earlier in the season, even at historically weak venues such as Monza. However, this upturn in performance then vanished for the last two races, with Mercedes and Ferrari being out of reach. It was suggested that another version of the team’s suspension system that lowered the rear ride height in a straightline, for lower drag, was banned by the FIA.
This brings the focus on to Red Bull’s design philosophy. It attempted to start 2017 with a lower drag design than one would associate with the team, but the downforce deficit was too large, and the team was forced to pursue a more aggressive approach. However, this was perhaps only a strong philosophy with this suspension system lowering the back end of the car on the straights, permitting a high rake, detailed aerodynamic set-up for improved cornering performance. The team may have been at a cross-roads with regards to its 2018 design so it will be interesting to see which path it follows. There is, of course, still the question mark of the Renault power unit performance, although in race trim especially, there certainly did not seem to be a significant performance difference relative to the Mercedes and Ferrari units.
FORCE INDIA
Force India enjoyed yet another successful season in 2017, maximising its opportunities, and producing a solid car once again. However, as the team rightly points out, the works Mercedes team can lap over a second faster with the same powertrain, so there are clearly significant performance gains available. In terms of tyre management, the Silverstone based team is one of, if not the best, evidenced by its consistency across the season.
One of the disadvantages faced by Force India was too much cooling for the power unit, something which the team realised as early as during pre-season testing. Internal developments were made, reducing sidepod weight for Barcelona, and allowing the use of more ballast. However, there are undoubtedly more gains to be made in this area with more of a clean sheet of paper design. It also appears as if the sidepod undercut could be enhanced when comparing the VJM10’s design to that of the Williams, improving flow to the rear of the floor and the diffuser.
With the ban imposed on shark fins and T-wings, an area where Force India was perhaps a step ahead of everyone else, it will be important that the loss in rear-end performance, typically a weakness of the team, has been recovered. During the first part of the 2017 season, a very flat front wing angle was run, preventing oversteer from a weak rear end, but reducing overall downforce, a situation the team will be keen to avoid this season.
WILLIAMS
Williams had a very up and down season in 2017, starting off strongly, losing out in the development race mid-season, before recovering in the final part of the year. The team has stated clearly that there will be some major changes to their car for 2018, and this is not entirely surprising considering there were some areas where the FW40’s philosophy differed from that of the majority of the grid.
For example, the diffuser was under-developed compared to other designs, most notably the Renault, with far less detail and a less complex array of fins. Complexity does not always result in improved performance, but other teams did seem to be using the wider, taller diffuser from the new regulations more efficiently than Williams. Improvement here will also allow the team to increase the aggressiveness of its front wing, which was at quite a flat angle in 2017, raising overall downforce levels while maintaining a strong car balance.
It will also be interesting to see that, given the team migrated towards a more aggressive aerodynamic concept in 2017, first with the high rake and then with more aggressive bargeboards, whether concepts such as the blown front axle, used on the Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren, are considered.
There will be further features on Formula 1 Tech previewing the upcoming season in the next couple of weeks, while all car launches and testing developments will be analysed in detail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 4, 2018 19:37:43 GMT
Really good read London slowly trying to get into the 2018 season swing. |
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 13, 2018 12:59:39 GMT
 pretty much... |
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 13, 2018 13:17:02 GMT
I went to an F1 race and an LGBT event turned up.   hypersoft (pink), ultrasoft (purple), supersoft (red), soft (yellow), medium (white), hard (blue), superhard (orange). |
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 14, 2018 1:41:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 14, 2018 15:30:35 GMT
wait until they're fully integrated with the 2018 chassis they said; they'll look much better they said.  |
|
|
|
Post by London on Feb 14, 2018 19:04:31 GMT
Man at first I liked the livery as the whole but the more I looked to this pic, it made me notice the grey part on the nose, I dont like it. They should have put black instead to follow the darkside of the cockpit and the black around. It sounds logic to me. Plus the helmet design of the driver could have been a bit more showy like that.
Otherwise I think without the halo the car is looking great overall. I also think Ross Brawn needs to shorten the cars for 2021.
Edit : Man the livery looks slightly better like that and classy to me. They use the grey to represent their machinery & equipment so fair to them, they took the right decision after all.
Wß
Man I wanted to accept the halo and not be critical but I have to admit it, this shit is poorly integrated to the chassis, shit looks like a foreign body. TF Haas was doing. Looking forward to see how other teams integrated it though. Maybe it will look good on top team cars. But Verstappen already said it looks ugly on the RB 
|
|
|
|
Post by dogued on Feb 15, 2018 14:05:42 GMT
wait until they're fully integrated with the 2018 chassis they said; they'll look much better they said. In fairness, they were talking about when it's part of a 2018 car, not just a repainted 2017 ferrari  |
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 19, 2018 19:07:23 GMT
So far I'm liking the new helmet designs for the year. Everyone has gone the streamlined simplified graphics route.
|
|
|
|
Post by London on Feb 22, 2018 21:37:01 GMT
James Alisson explaining the halo integrated to the chassis.
Why they don't make the halo looking transparent ? 
|
|
|
|
Post by London on Feb 22, 2018 22:50:33 GMT
Very informative video, dont miss it guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 26, 2018 16:33:46 GMT
Oy vey, first day of running and already complaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Feb 28, 2018 1:20:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by London on Feb 28, 2018 20:12:26 GMT
|
|
