2017 rule changes

Back before the 2009 regulation changes, I used my limited photoshopping skills to edit a 2008 car and predict what the 2009 cars might look like. [i217.photobucket.com]

It turned out to be somewhat accurate. Now, I'm trying the same thing with the 2017 changes - will I even be anywhere close this time?!

I spent a good couple of hours last night mucking about with this picture [i217.photobucket.com] , and ended up with this. I think it's pretty damn sexy, so if F1 turns out anything like this in 2017 I'll be a happy man!!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2015 11:58PM by flat tyre.

It basically represents a few artistic impressions already out there.

In looks it's as though a mid 90s car has mated with a mid 00s car.

the front wings are not supposed to be flat judging by this
[f1newspaper.com]
but I do like how it looks nonetheless, however I doubt it will look that good xD

---

GPGSL - Yakuza driver

GPGSL activity check app: Direct link - Source code - Have you posted?

flat tyre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back before the 2009 regulation changes, I used my
> limited photoshopping skills to edit a 2008 car
> and predict what the 2009 cars might look like.
> [i217.photobucket.com]
> 009mockup1-1_zps65f15b33.jpg
>
> It turned out to be somewhat accurate.

I remember this!! That late 2008 mock-up based on Kimi's Ferrari was one of the first images I remember checking out when I first started regularly posting on the forums. Time flies and all that. Nice that the same car/driver combination turns out to be there as a current example to use as a template for this demonstration too.

---

J i m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In looks it's as though a mid 90s car has mated
> with a mid 00s car.

And then been raped by a late 70s car.

Saying that, that implies I think it's not a good look, but I do think it's pretty nice.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2016 12:22PM by EC83.

I'm really shocked of what I read what these guys plan for the next years: The Hybrid should stay until 2020, rumors say that they'll only allow three gearboxes per season and two engines. Also in 2017 they plan to introduce the HALO cockpit protection system. So after decades of open formula racing were getting some kind of a WEC mixture. Why not directly switch to WEC then and do sprint races?
I have really no idea what's going on in the head of those people. The product, you can't call it sport anymore, has lost already lots of its popularity and now they still make it losing more. Unbelievable.

Nice to know that you all think it's a decent looking car - I wondered if people wouldn't like it, simply because it was different. BUT, now that the head protection seems to be a certainty for 2017, I think we can say that the cars next year will look drastically different to this.

It's weird, because if you'd asked me a few years ago about having either the HALO or the Red Bull canopy, I would've said a big fat "NO" to both of them. Part of me loves F1 for the thrill, and I felt like both of those would take away from the thrill of the sport. But, even though it goes against the reasons why I like F1, I can't help but feel that the time is right for something like this to appear. I just hope that, whatever they introduce, it's integrated well and not just a 'bolt-on' fix.



EC83 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember this!! That late 2008 mock-up based on
> Kimi's Ferrari was one of the first images I
> remember checking out when I first started
> regularly posting on the forums. Time flies and
> all that. Nice that the same car/driver
> combination turns out to be there as a current
> example to use as a template for this
> demonstration too.


You remember it?!? Oh, you do flatter me so and I never realised the car/driver combination thing, that's a nice observation there. Imagine if he was there for the next big changes, whenever they might be... I hugely doubt it, but then Schumi had a ridiculously long career, so who's to say Kimi won't aswell?

P.S. I can't stop thinking of the Brabham V16 sound when I look at the 2017 mockup. I know any car that had that engine would sound awesome, but still...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2016 12:59AM by flat tyre.

i dont think its all said for the Halo or aeroscreen or whatever they put there. altough its almost certain they´ll introduce it in the next few seasons,Im not sure they´ll introduce it by 2017. Button´s drain cover incident will just add fuel to the fire.

Something I dont like at all is those rear wing endplates relaxed diagonally rearwards that apparently will be the norm next year. They´d look just too A1GP, or something like that.

I still don't think these new regs will nessacarily improve the racing but what I will say is this.

I randomly happened across the recording of the 2006 British Grand Prix (can't believe it's ten years old! ) but the cars were noticeably faster in the corners and although that race was nothing to write home about there is an element of thrill watching faster cars being driven to the limit.

The drivers would probably enjoy it more too and that would show through.

They'll probably have to get rid of this deliberate tyre deg for this to work properly though.

When watching old 2002-2004 races what surprises me the most is how much more speed they carried into the corners. They all took very, very early apexes and with colossal turn in speeds.

I can't understand why the cars are unable to do that now. It's not because the V10s had more torque (the biggest loss with the move down to the V8s) to minimise the loss down the following straight, as the V6s have far more torque and an equally high top speed. The cars were no wider and yes there were more open aero regulations, but 12 years of knowledge and development is an awfully long time in such a competitive industry as F1 so surely we aren't that far behind. We know the current tyres aren't great in terms of durability, but surely they're not that bad over a single lap.

Maybe is the weight. cars from late 90s-early 2000s weigh like 120kg less than today´s cars.


And if im not mistaken, altough grooved, front tyres were bigger.

edit: searched a bit, minimun weight in 2004 was 600kg and now is 702kg. and in the 90s was 540kg i think.





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2016 05:51AM by Frantic.

Bloody hell the tyres are much smaller. The Bridgestones were 355mm and 380mm for the front and rear respectively (though the fronts gained an extra groove from 1999 as the car were too rear-limited). Pirelli's are 245mm and 325mm!

I didn't realise the Pirelli's were that small! Who the heck thought that was a good idea?!

In 2017 the front Pirelli's still won't be as fat as the front Bridgestones were - they'll be 305mm, though obviously without the grooves, so probably more tyre contact anyway.

When put like that it's eye opening.

I've always been ready to defend the regulations after F1 has always changed and developed. But when you notice a significance visible difference between the performance of an 06 car and a 16 car in the favour of the 06 car then even I begin to question the current technical regulations.

And it's true... the cars of V10/V8 era are far more exciting to watch. The direction change was better, they concerned quicker and they sounded much louder, I've always defended the hybrid engines but I do prefer the sound of the normally aspirated guzzlers.

Even the tyres... The dedgregation thing has served it's purpose. It was interesting for a while and shook things up. But the drivers hate it and you do notice the difference between a race of drivers nursing their tyres compared to ten years ago when they drove flat out for the whole race. I think it's out stayed it's welcome.

In many ways I'm quite looking forward to the new cars.. but unfortunately I don't think they've gone far enough. The cars are still going to heavy.

From what i read tyres were made smaller due to the excessive amount of downforce on the front part of the car that resulted from 2009 rule changes. (Its silly how they went in favour of aerodynamical grip with everybody screaming for more mechanical grip.)

Regarding the heavier cars. More weight means more centrifugal force. Results will depend on how the balance between aero and tyres is sorted out. I also agree with Jim that they´ve not gone far enough to allow the drivers to attack corners like in 2002 but definetly there´s gonna be an improvement.

The degradation thing is a consecuence of having only one tyre supplier that has to produce competence artificially. No real competence means a lack of direction for the supplier. I really believe bringing another fabricant in would result in both manufacturers producing faster and reliable tyres.

Also I was thinking, having bigger tyres would mean more tread on wet tyres, and that would me more water displacing. Maybe all the wet start dilemma of this recent years is due to having smaller tyres

Frantic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Also I was thinking, having bigger tyres would
> mean more tread on wet tyres, and that would me
> more water displacing. Maybe all the wet start
> dilemma of this recent years is due to having
> smaller tyres

Although more water displacement could also lead to worse visibility, which is also a factor.

Quote
Frantic
Also I was thinking, having bigger tyres would mean more tread on wet tyres, and that would me more water displacing. Maybe all the wet start dilemma of this recent years is due to having smaller tyres

As Jim said, I think the wet tyres and aerodynamics are now so good that visibility is the primary concern, not the driving conditions. There's nothing stopping them racing on a wet track, but to get the required visibility they need to be going slower, and they'll only go slower if the water is so bad that they are aquaplaning.

We're at the point where due to how efficient the cars are they're now lifting up and shredding the water that the tyres throw up to such an extent that the full wets are pointless. It's either not wet enough for them, it's ideal for them but no-one behind can see well enough or the track has too many rivers and they're dawdling along like in Montreal 2011 before the red flag.

Sorry for the delayed answer - been out for a while!

Viewing what happened in the last race, I still think the problem is the full-wets not being good enough. Drivers use full wets only to follow the safety car, and then they go inmediately fot the intermeds. And that didnt happen only in Silverstone.
Back in 2011 or 2012 i remember Schumacher and other drivers criticizing this tyres already, claiming the Pirellis could not evacuate water as good as the Bridgestones. Im sure before the Pirelli era wet races were faster than they're now (or they seemed to be...)


Edit: Just found that old article "Click Here"





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2016 08:29AM by Frantic.

It's no surprise that the Pirelli's don't disperse the water as well as the Bridgestones did. From 2001 Bridgestone had pretty much unlimited testing @ Fiorano with it's ability to simulate wet track conditions, something which has not been afforded to Pirelli.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

so, this is a first look. not bad

Yup, though it actually looks odd with such fat sidewalls. Much meatier and a bit more old school, but I think a modern F1 car would look better with the larger wheels/smaller diameter tyres that were discussed, and I never thought I'd say that.

The wider rear wing looks much better too.