Formula One - 2017

Yep... its that time... not 3 races into 2016, and the 2017 rules and regs are being developed and the specs on the new cars are beginning to be revealed.......

April 30th is the deadline.... so we shall see soon.......

Nice to see wide tires, but it seems as if they need to remove the number of wing elements to go with that.

Interesting to see a wider, but much lower rear wing as a proposal.

Big body changes- bummer for Haas to get one season out of this style body. But then again, it puts everyone at the same spot again- shake things up a little.

I don't see how more mechanical grip can be a bad thing

It's not. The last thing I saw was the goal of the 2017 regulations was to make the cars 4-5s a lap faster and be less aero dependent.

z31maniac wrote: It's not. The last thing I saw was the goal of the 2017 regulations was to make the cars 4-5s a lap faster and be less aero dependent.

Than what measure? Lewis set an outright lap record at Bahrain on his qualifying lap. So 4-5 sec faster would be WAY faster than any F1 car of any era.

This doesn't actually look like it will be less aero dependent, though. Bigger front wing, wider (albeit lower) rear wing, whatever the heck that thing is behind the front wheels... I don't know why they don't just neuter the front and rear wing and see what happens.

alfadriver wrote:

z31maniac wrote: It's not. The last thing I saw was the goal of the 2017 regulations was to make the cars 4-5s a lap faster and be less aero dependent.

Than what measure? Lewis set an outright lap record at Bahrain on his qualifying lap. So 4-5 sec faster would be WAY faster than any F1 car of any era.

Than where they are currently. So making up lap times for the sake of it.

If the current lap at Spain is 1:35, they are wanting to get it down around 1:30.

As it stands, the GP2 cars are nearly as fast as the back markers of F1, which is pretty sad considering the budgets.

In reply to z31maniac:

I disagree. When you see the lap times, and know that they are using MUCH less fuel to do it- that's pretty amazing.

Again, what sucks is that one needs to know the technology to appreciate the speed and not factor in the GP2 to F1 times. That needs to be fixed.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to z31maniac: I disagree. When you see the lap times, and know that they are using MUCH less fuel to do it- that's pretty amazing. Again, what sucks is that one needs to know the technology to appreciate the speed and not factor in the GP2 to F1 times. That needs to be fixed.

Agreed........

The problem is the "sport" is run by promoters and not engineers. Don't make me bring up Bernies random rain maker

alfadriver wrote: In reply to z31maniac: I disagree. When you see the lap times, and know that they are using MUCH less fuel to do it- that's pretty amazing. Again, what sucks is that one needs to know the technology to appreciate the speed and not factor in the GP2 to F1 times. That needs to be fixed.

Disagree all you want. We weren't discussing lap time vs fuel consumption vs GP2. Only lap time for lap time. With current F1 times vs what they want to be. I threw in GP2 as an indicator of how neutered F1 cars have become (lap time wise, not fuel consumption wise) vs the lower classes.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121438

Sorry it was 5-6 seconds, not 4-5.

In reply to z31maniac:

Looking at last years results- at Monza, the GP2 pole sitter was 4 seconds lower than the slowest F1 qualifier.

That's not close, to me.

You put the neutering purely on a number. 3, 5, 8 seconds faster- if everyone is doing that- it's irrelevant.

And that a current F1 beat the best V10 cars, it seems as if the neuter has really gotten less. Especially when one looks at their constraints.

they need to open up the engine rules to whatever a team wants to run, put really small wings on them, skinny hard tires, and only allow 5 people over the pit wall..

alfadriver wrote: And that a current F1 beat the best V10 cars, it seems as if the neuter has really gotten less. Especially when one looks at their constraints.

They don't beat the V10 cars at least not in general. Yes, they beat the 2004 qualifying time last weekend, but 2004 was the first race ever on a very green (and dusty) circuit, with a slightly different track configuration, and most importantly in 2004 Saturday qualifying was done with the race starting fuel load.

The fastest race lap on Sunday was a 1:34, vs 1:30 in 2004. Yes, in 2004 the fastest race lap was just a few tenths off the pole time.

In reply to codrus:

Considering how much less fuel they can have on board, I still think it's quite impressive.

And the limit on the amount of fuel allowed....

It's taken a few years to get to the best of the V10 or V8 eras, but the technology they are using now can at least be applied to real cars instead of the 18,000 rpm engines. Still a race of money, but at least there's some useful engineering there.

alfadriver wrote: Considering how much less fuel they can have on board, I still think it's quite impressive. It's taken a few years to get to the best of the V10 or V8 eras, but the technology they are using now can at least be applied to real cars instead of the 18,000 rpm engines. Still a race of money, but at least there's some useful engineering there.

Well, my point is that they aren't at the best of the V10 era, the 2004 cars are 4-ish seconds a lap faster than the 2016 ones. That's why they're changing the wing/tire/etc rules for next year, they're tired of the "lap record" stats that they show before every race showing Michael Schumacher in the F2004. :)

alfadriver wrote: In reply to codrus: Considering how much less fuel they can have on board, I still think it's quite impressive. And the limit on the amount of fuel allowed.... It's taken a few years to get to the best of the V10 or V8 eras, but the technology they are using now can at least be applied to real cars instead of the 18,000 rpm engines. Still a race of money, but at least there's some useful engineering there.

It's not about fuel. No one is talking about that except you.

Also, it's not about fuel.

z31maniac wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to codrus: Considering how much less fuel they can have on board, I still think it's quite impressive. And the limit on the amount of fuel allowed.... It's taken a few years to get to the best of the V10 or V8 eras, but the technology they are using now can at least be applied to real cars instead of the 18,000 rpm engines. Still a race of money, but at least there's some useful engineering there.

It's not about fuel. No one is talking about that except you. Also, it's not about fuel.

Nice to know that my opinion isn't important, even to me.

Sorry that you can't appreciate good engineering... The cars are pretty amazing if you look at them.

It IS important, otherwise the rules would not be what they are. If you don't like it, is someone forcing you to watch? The racing is so bad that you have to waste 2 hours on a Sunday just to make you mad?

I don't get that.

Do you hate the 1.5l NA era from the early 60s? Back then, they were FJrs for the most part.

Go do something else.

So finally official, Bottas to Mercades and Massa out of retirement and back at Williams

In reply to johndej: This still make things interesting in 2018, rumors are Bottas has a 1 year contract.

It will be interesting to see Bottas v Hamilton.

markwemple wrote: It will be interesting to see Bottas v Hamilton.

I like Bottas and think he's got the chops, but this is a step up for him. I expect him to follow team orders and keep his car between Hamilton and the rest. Winning only if Hamilton has issues.

I'd love to see him challenge Hamilton, but I'm afraid the opportunity is too great to challenge it. Especially if he only has a one year contract.

-Rob

Pretty good opportunity for the Bottas, as long as the Merc is still the car to beat.

Is it really a retirement when it lasts for exactly zero races? Don't get me wrong, Massa's great and all, but it seems silly for all these articles to talk about him coming out of retirement when it's just the same winter break everyone else had!

wae wrote: Is it really a retirement when it lasts for exactly zero races? Don't get me wrong, Massa's great and all, but it seems silly for all these articles to talk about him coming out of retirement when it's just the same winter break everyone else had!

Yeah I guess I was hoping for Button or di Resta for the Williams seat. Massa seems a weak choice. He doesn't do well when beat and his rookie teammate just might beat him early.

Advan046 wrote:

wae wrote: Is it really a retirement when it lasts for exactly zero races? Don't get me wrong, Massa's great and all, but it seems silly for all these articles to talk about him coming out of retirement when it's just the same winter break everyone else had!

Yeah I guess I was hoping for Button or di Resta for the Williams seat. Massa seems a weak choice. He doesn't do well when beat and his rookie teammate just might beat him early.

You do remember he was almost WDC in 08, right?