2017 F1 car design

2017 F1 car design revealed

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

2017 F1 car designIn the round-up: The plans for an overhaul of F1’s aerodynamic regulations have been revealed.

The 2017 cars will be wider than the current designs and have wider rear wheels. The rear wing will be lower and the beam wing, banned last year, will be reintroduced. The front wing will increase in width as well. The shape of the structure around the sidepods will also be defined by the rules.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

F.1: ecco come potrebbero essere le monoposto del 2017 (Omnicorse via YouTube - Italian)

Ferrari rumours are disturbing - Valtteri Bottas (BBC)

"There is nothing in your mind other than driving, but out of the car of course it is disturbing when there are some rumours."

The essential... Jenson Button (F1)

"What is your essential tip for the aspiring F1 driver? JB: Buy a football or a tennis racket. It’s a lot cheaper and you stick with the same rules!"

Formula One Opens The Doors To Its Inner Sanctum...For A Price (Forbes)

"At the upcoming Belgian Grand Prix a three-day Paddock Club pass costs $5,030 alone with the Friday evening paddock invitation a further $1,030 on top."

Teams ask Ecclestone to create room for 2016 summer shutdown (Adam Cooper's F1 Blog)

"It’s something that has been raised with Bernie, and as we see sometimes the calendar does move around a bit before October."

Grosjean: Lotus hurt by ownership uncertainty (F1i)

"When you’re thinking about selling a team, you won’t put any more money in at some stage because it’s all lost."

Race focus hurts Rosberg's qualifying (Autosport)

"Of course that has slightly compromised qualifying, some of it but not most of it is explainable for me."

Alex Lynn hopes GP2 win in first season leads him to Formula One drive as Williams youngster admits it was a 'big statement' (Daily Mail)

"The driver market seems to open up in the summer break so I think it will definitely put me in the frame."



Ryan Briscoe, IndyCar Mid-Ohio, 2015

IndyCar is using new LCD position displays next to the roll hoop from this weekend’s race at Mid-Ohio. A similar device was trialled by Force India at the end of last year:

Comment of the day

Daniil Kvyat, Sebastian Vettel, Daniel Ricciardo, Hungaroring, 2015After a dreadful 2014, Sebastian Vettel is back to his best this year. What was behind his dip last year and recovery this year?

I think people underestimate the mental side of the sport. I don’t think Vettel’s head was in the right place last year and I think he was demotivated.

A combination of burn out after fighting for the title for the last four years (or even five if you include 2009), a less competitive car, which he knew would be the case before the start of the season due to both Renault and Red Bull being late with their preparations, and a disillusionment with the direction both the sport and cars were taking with the new formula.

I think he fell out of love with the sport for a while, you can also throw in the reliability problems (it was not just DNFs in races it was all the lost mileage and experience of the tyres from lost time in practice sessions as well), off track distractions such as Schumacher’s accident, becoming a father for the first time and later making a decision to leave for Ferrari.

I think he went through a period of self examination as to why he was doing this and decided he still wanted to drive in F1, the new challenge at Ferrari has also re-motivated him and he is now enjoying his driving again which is reflected this season in a return to the consistently high level of performances that he has delivered in the past.
R w

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Jack Lenox!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Patrick Depailler died 35 years ago today. The two-time grand prix winner was testing his Alfa Romeo in practice for the 1980 German Grand Prix when he crashed at the Ostkurve.

Also on this day 50 years ago Jim Clark won his second world championship title by taking his fifth consecutive win of the season the Nurburgring Nordschleife.

Here’s footage of the start of the race. Note the drivers rolling forward to their start positions, Formula E-style, and enjoy the close-ups of the moustachioed Graham Hill and fellow front row occupant John Surtees seconds before the start.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 133 comments on “2017 F1 car design revealed”

    1. About COTD: my only question is why is Fernando still as relentless as ever?

      1. Is he though?

        1. Whoa! You did see him at Hungary PUSHING his broken McHonda back to the pits, didn’t you? Did that look like a driver who’d lost his commitment?

          1. He clearly said he doesn’t like the current formula which is something I first heard from Vettel, way before in 2014.
            Second point, who knows how his performance level is. Hard to gauge in current situation. He’s not getting younger.
            Does Fernando really not know the rule about pushing the car back into the pits in quali and getting eliminated?

            1. it doesn’t matter if he likes it or not, he always gives more than 100%, he showed his commitment when he tried to push the car to get back on the track, and all you see is he got it eliminated coz of that ? wow way to look at glass half empty.

            2. No. Did he push even though he knew he was eliminated?

            3. obviously he didn’t know, duh!!

          2. If pushing a broken car or helping mechanics/marshals to recover it is a measure of commitment Vettel showed it plenty of times last year.
            I don’t doubt Alonso’s commitment but there are signs. As reklam said you keep hearing him complaining about the formula, the rules, how boring it is, etc. and unlike Vettel, he’s getting away with it mostly because he wasn’t a dominant winner prior to the rule change and partly more and more audience started feeling the same way this year. OTOH, I can imagine he’s highly motivated to prove that his decision to leave Ferrari for McLaren was right!

            1. Spot on. Thank you.

            2. and no body is doubting vettel’s, i see alonso’s being doubted here.

      2. ncedi: how many drivers in the history of F1 won as many championships as Vettel, not to mention in successession, Alonso hasn’t, and there aren’t very many at all. Winning WDC’s requires the maximum physical and mental endurance and aptatitude to come out on top. I agree with the COTD, because I know that I have peaks and troughs in my own work performance, and this is due to mental fatigue mostly. There is only so much desire a person can have, sometimes a person requires something to be outside of their grasp, to allow them to refocus, re-energise and develop the “hunger” again. I’d ask the question of you, if you play your console games and win regularly, don’t you just cast the game aside and move onto a different challenge?

      3. I was going to write a long post, but suffice to say they’re two different people who followed very different paths to get where they are now. Alonso’s fighting spirit is very admirable, but I don’t think any less of Vettel for having one slow year, considering all things mentioned in the CotD.

      4. It’s simple; they’re different human beings and no human beings are similar to the core. However, don’t forget that Fernando was in a similar situation last year and admitted that he had lost motivation in 2014 as well.

      5. About the COTD. It’s a great explanatiion to why Vettel performed the way he did, although an alternative explanation could just be that he was getting beaten fair and square by Ricciardo. And as we’ve seen before, sometimes when the car isn’t exactly to Vettel’s liking, he struggles. I think it’s as simple as that. You could add the Schumacher, baby and Ferrari stories, but there is no factual evidence behind this either

        1. Spin doctors will always find a way to do just that.

          If Ric goes to Ferrari and continues his onslaught on Vet I wonder what their excuses will be then.

          1. @supremacy Throw around as many “ifs” as you want, but we can see for ourselves the difference between his performance last year, and every other year.

      6. I’m getting sick of hearing why Vettel was underperforming compared to Ricciardo in 2014. He did. Now Ricciardo is not doing any better. It happens. We don’t know anything about them. It might be that Kvyat is the fastest of them all. Or Ricciardo. Or Vettel.
        Get over it.

      7. Imo, Vettel doesn’t need people to find excuses for him.

    2. Rosberg is really starting to sound like a sad pathetic loser.

      Before Hungary he came out with the story about having problems with his brakes and now this, what next the seatbelt snot tight enough?

      Where is this improved ‘race craft’ he’s talking about? He has so far only out raced Lewis at 2 tracks (Spain n Austria), he got lucky in Monaco and fumbled at the one yard line with the game on the line in Hungary.

      The guy is slowly becoming a joke in my eyes, with all these various complaints.

      1. Sounds like you didn’t read the article. Where are the ‘complaints’ you are talking about?

        1. Read between the lines

          1. Let’s face it, the only adequately verifiable thing you get from doing that is an infinitely long space.

      2. Luke Harrison
        1st August 2015, 19:11

        “Rosberg is really starting to sound like a sad pathetic loser.”

        Clearly he is learning something from Hamilton.

      3. Well sir, I’m not sure if I could win in a car that suffers from “seatbelt snot.”

    3. So, when one of the big problems was wake turbulence, they add more wake turbulence?

      1. @spdoyle17 The problem isn’t so much the turbulent air (Its always been there even before the cars had wings), Its more the way the car reacts to it.

        The 2017 rule changes won’t necessarily create any more or less turbulent air but they will make the cars less affected by it, In part because there moving the balance more towards mechanical grip by having the wider cars/tyres & ground effects.

        The move towards ground effects in particular will be a benefit as the floor produces very efficient downforce but its not affected by turbulent air so doesn’t lose performance while following .another car.

        1. I think the new cars will create more turbulent air, they have far wider rear tyres, the front wing is far wider and the rear wing is far wider and lower down. However, I agree with your point about the importance of placing focus on creating cars that should be less reliant on aero grip and therefore less affected by dirty air.

        2. So, do you reckon that the increase in volume of the diffuser shown in the video is the main increase in ground effect? I don’t want to underestimate how powerful it could be because it is a significant increase in diffuser volume (and look at how much moe effective the double diffusers were) but I was hoping for more from the ground effects in the regs (keep hearing about underfloor tunnels and stuff) what d’ya think @gt-racer @williamstuart ?

    4. Is there any reason that the regulations would want the front wings to be wider in 2017?

      1. @david-a To go along with the widening of the rest of the car & ensure that the parts of the front wing most affected by turbulent air are kept out of the worst of the airflow.


        1. @gt-racer – Thanks for that.

        2. I’ve read the article and I still don’t understand why the front wing needs to be as wide as the car other than to cause more puncture dramas.

          1. I have made many negative comments about the front wings being not much more than a hazard to a good race. KERS or whatever it is now called is another item that does NOT belong on race cars the calibre of F1. These two items cause more negative results / issues than all other items put together……….. Thanks, Norris

        3. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The article by Noble is very misleading and taking bad data by the OWG “Overtaking Working Group”….who admit first they are not aerodynamic guys AND they had bad equipment AND little time.
          Gary Anderson abd Craigslist Scarborough who are aero guys have said that the wider, more complex wings absolutely ARE the problem and these idiots are now going to make it worse!

          The front wings need to be smaller, and have many fewer elements. The down force needs to be provided by underbody tunnels for ground effects. And of course, no skirts as those are dangerous when they suddenly lose “suction”.

          1. Craig Scarborough. …blasted autocorrect

            1. @daved But a wider front wing needn’t make the problem worse if, as has been mentioned, there is a significant portion of it in the middle that is neutral by regulation. Ie. a smaller front wing but one that creates downforce across it’s whole length could be more negatively affected in dirty air than a wider wing that has it’s middle third neutralized to create no downforce at all.

            2. @robbie
              The wake behind the front car is worst right in the middle. Agreed. So they claim that it will help to make the wings wider to “avoid that turbulent area? Seriously???
              Did they even give this a common sense thought of “hmmm, is that how this really works”??? Clearly, they did not.

              Look at what happens on a corner…think for a minute about where the trailing car is and it’s angle relative to the lead car. The trailing car has it’s outer front wing catching that dirty air from the CENTER of the lead car! Look at the angle from an overhead shot on a curve.

              This is a critical problem. That outside front wing is supposed to provide the downforce on that front, outside tyre which is the most critical, weight bearing point of the car when trying to make a corner!

              The problem is they really didn’t have the right expertise, time or equipment to do anything right. So they took very simplistic models and just made assumptions. Those assumptions were very wrong and they are suddenly going to be “shocked” when overtaking gets even worse.

              The sad part is that we fans will have to suffer through it for a couple of years while they HOPE to get it right for 2019 or 2020.

            3. @daved I’m no expert and I’ll assume you aren’t either. I don’t think this is about the ‘location’ of the turbulence with respect to the front wing. That might change depending on the architecture of the back end of the car in front. I was envisioning that a wider front wing needn’t be more negatively affected by dirty air strictly because it is wider, if overall the area of wing used to create downforce is smaller than a less wide wing, due to a portion of said wider wing being regulated to be neutral.

              I’m not convinced of what you are saying about one side of the front wing providing downforce for that front side tire, since the force is actually on the uprights that hold the wing to the underside of the nose of the car. I know that one of the functions of the front wings at their ends is to funnel air around the drag and turbulence creating front tires and into and around the underbody and side pods as required. It’s not all about downforce with the front wing.

              I’m hopeful that F1 knows it needs to make changes going forward and can learn from what hasn’t been working. I am not 100% sure that you are wrong about them continuing to get it wrong, but I’d like to think these are unique times that require some unique moves put into place to do what we ALL inside and outside F1 seem to agree on, which is to strive for closer racing not processions.

            4. @robbie
              “I’m no expert and I’ll assume you aren’t either.” Well…yes and no.
              I am not specifically an F1 aero guy, but I’ve spent portions of my career doing fluid dynamics. I’ve had the chance to do some early work on trying to stop the cavitation around submarine propellers to optimizing the combustion chamber of microturbines to maximize their performance for different fuels and injectors.
              I have done a little bit of CFD modeling for some cars when working with Panoz but we never ended up going to market with that so not sure I can brag on that one. LOL
              I normally just like to be a typical fan on here and comment on the fun things we like, which drivers, teams, tracks, whether the last race was good, etc.

              But I do happen to have more than a casual opinion on some areas and it’s hard not to get frustrated when you see them clearly take the wrong direction on those items. They are simply very wrong on this one and the guys like Gary Anderson who know the aero better are correct. They need to reduce the size and the complexity of those front wings.

              They’re falling in the same trap McLaren has fallen into the last 3-4 years. They’re trying to optimize absolute downforce to a static model they have in their heads. That model doesn’t exist in the real world where they have cross winds, changing yaw and pitch as the car moves and most importantly cars in front of them creating dirty air which totally negates all that static model.
              McLaren have finally admitted they were on the wrong path with that…and if Honda ever gives them a decent engine we’ll get to see what they’ve learned! :)

              But the Overtaking Working Group was not formed correctly and was not given time or resources to do their job. F1 should have recognized that it’s an aero problem they’re dealing with.

              Instead, they just gave it a cursory chance at success and then overrode whatever they were going to do anyway and said: “Look…DRS! Problem solved so you lads are no longer needed. Run along home and go back to managing your teams”.

              And yes, the one side of the front wing being washed out is a terrible problem….especially the outside on a curve. Too hard to explain without a free body diagram so you could better imagine the forces involved. But that’s an ancillary point anyway. The front wing needs to be smaller.

    5. Re COTD:

      Seb’s dip in form last year is easily explained in 2 words Daniel Ricciardo.

      This years resurgence is similar to last year. He’s in the 2nd best car on the grid, but instead of having the smiling Aussie as a teammate, he has the very inept and over the hill Kimi as his teammate. If Rosberg was in that Ferrari, he’d be giving him a lesson as well.

      1. Rosberg doesn’t finish races ahead if he isn’t ahead by turn 1, how is he gonna win against Vettel who is a hell of a lot more aggressive than him?

        I guess you can easily explain Dan’s dip in form this year in 2 words: Daniil Kvyat.

      2. I tell you, Lewis is lucky Rosberg doesn’t think much of himself. He’s not really slower as he’s psychologically defeated. Easily, it can go either way between them.
        Have you ever entertained the possibility that both Ricciardo and Vettel might be faster than Hamilton?

        1. That’s only a theory though – another is that Rosberg just doesn’t have the pace of Hamilton. It’s no shame – other than a handful of other drivers, not many do.

          Personally, I’d say only Alonso, Vettel and Ricciardo have proven to me that they are on Hamilton’s level. There is a group who haven’t proven they are as good but also haven’t been proven not to be either – Bottas, Hulk, Verstappen, Grosjean etc. I think they would all be giving Lewis a harder time than Rosberg is in the Mercedes but they haven’t proven that yet.

          Rosberg is in neither of these groups – he isn’t unproven as we have seen over a prolonged period of time that he isn’t quite as fast as the guys at the top.

          1. Over 2.5 years Rosberg has been closer to Hamilton than Button ever was (except of 2011). And the closer to the sharp end of the grid you get, the bigger the gap between drivers gets.
            Imo, Hulk is at least as good as Button. Definitely the better qualifier.
            Bottas, Grosjean, Massa, Raikkonen more or less all belong to the same group. But, depending on the car/situation one of them might perform remarkably better than others.
            Not sure about Verstappen, Ricciardo, Kvyat. Not enough data for me.

            1. Detailed analysis of his [Hulkenberg’s] on track performance data by the engineers, which Williams management will be studying now, as all the teams do, shows that while he has his moments of magic, he’s not at the level of a Bottas or a Ricciardo


            2. @ryanisjones There’s no detailed information there. It sounds more like hearsay.

        2. No I haven’t, because neither of them are, it’s as simple as that.

          1. You certainly sound simple.

          2. If you say so Kgn11, it must be true.

      3. If Rosberg was in that Ferrari, he’d be giving him a lesson as well.

        Rosberg who is less than a race win ahead of Vettel in that W06, yeah right.

    6. These new F1 cars basically look exactly the same but with a bend in the front wing and one of the old-style rear wings. I’m all for aggressive looks but that doesn’t do it for me. And why the wider front wing (as the comment above says)? The FIA have just been putting in new regulations to narrow it. Also, the cars are now even longer, which in my opinion is the wrong way to go. They look big and clumsy at this size.

      And personally I’d like to see a rule which says the nose must be in front of the front wing. These front wings look like they are hovering in midair, which looks like one of the glitches on the games, not an F1 car.

      1. @strontium At least we’re getting something with the lower and wider rear wings. Let’s face it, the current rear wing dimensions are one of the biggest culprits in today’s age of ugly F1 cars. To me it looks immediatelly better with the proposed wing design.

        Some things are harder to understand though, and I’d add that oversided bargeboard along with the front wing as counterproductive ideas. Let’s hope they rethink those and keep ground effect floors in mind.

      2. Additionally, it seems as though someone thought “let’s make this a 45 degree angle and make that a 45 degree angle …because aggressive!”

        The biggest issue by far is not being able to follow closely in order to plan an overtake — how does changing the angles of existing structures help in any of that?

      3. You want noses to extend beyond the front wing? It depends on the shape of the nose of course, but I really dislike the Ferrari and mk1 McLaren noses. They remind me of proboscis monkeys.

    7. Aww, Piola put so much effort into his 2017 design, but forgot about the left hand side wing mirror… However the car looks great aesthetically, I love the slanted barge board and the lowered rear wing, would like to see the cars on the whole lowered slightly, I love the idea of them being lower and wider they’d look amazing. I really like the idea of wider tyres, but I wish they’d make the front wider too, I want loads of mechanical grip so they (the rules) can afford to cut back on expensive and detrimental aero development without sacrificing lap time.

      1. Also, is there a place with the defined 2017 rules anywhere? I was only aware that they had come up with some very primitive suggestions for the rules but Piola seems to have some specific rules he’s following when designing the car.

    8. I thought I should post this:


      Not particularly surprising, Hamilton is on top, then Vettel, then Alonso.

      1. Oops, I wanted to post this in the comparison article; tab browsing has defeated me once more.

      2. ColdFly F1 (@)
        1st August 2015, 9:39

        interesting article, but also inconsistent:
        It says: “Formula 1 team bosses have voted unanimously that Lewis Hamilton (is) the best driver in Formula 1 today.”
        And then goes on quoting Tost: “For me, Sebastian is therefore the best”

        And an open question I’m wondering about after Hungary: In equal material who would end up on top (in F1 racing i mean)? Hamilton, Vettel, or Alonso?

        1. Maybe you should ask, who is the best qualifier? Imo, Vettel.

        2. I don’t think you can say Vettel or Alonso is better than Hamilton just looking at Hungary. All 3 of them has done similar things over their careers.
          But. I think Vettel is the better qualifier and cool as cucumber leading a race. Therefore, would be hard to beat.
          I would love to see all 3 of them going at it in qualifying more than anything else. Or, attacking – defending on a wet track. Maximum amount of adrenaline. Couple of people would end up dead, after the season we’ve had.

        3. @coldfly Watch Masa’s end-of-season kart race :P

      3. The original version of that story was in the round-up earlier this week.

    9. That miniature collection is absolutely fantastic. I’ve considering starting one myself, but I’d want so many from previous years that it would be ridiculously expensive. And I would need somewhere to put them :/

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        1st August 2015, 9:40

        start early!
        start a Manor collection!

        1. @coldfly Then it’s finished early too.

      2. You could try “paper and glue” models. They are cheap (especially if you print them from the web), and pretty much every newer car (by which I mean from the 1980’s on) is available, also a lot of the earlier types.

        It was paper models of F1 cars that got me interested in Formula 1 back in the 1970’s, and I still have the “Rush pair” of Lauda’s Ferrari 312 and Hunt’s McLaren M23 that I built back then (found them recently in the parent’s attic). I also found one of my all time favourites, the six-wheeler Tyrrell P-34. Sadly, many of my other favourites, like Williams FW07B or Ligier JS 11, got lost in the mists of time. When I have the time (i.e. when I retire), I will build them again :-).

      3. Old cars aren’t as expensive as you’d think – the prices on new ones have risen so much in the last few years that it’s basically knocked the stuffing out of the hobby and as a result, the second hand values on pretty much everything is probably at an all-time low at the moment. To illustrate the price rises, in 2005 a 1:18 McLaren would have an RRP in the UK of £43 – the 2015 McLaren in that scale is priced at £190!

        People have moved onto the half scale helmet models these days – they’re now cheaper to buy than the cars and they hold their value far better.

        I’ve been a collector for a long time – started with the 1:18 and 1:43 cars and now have a number of 1:2 helmets also, spread across four cabinets.

        1. My collection of die cast cars is 90% Gilles, Senna, and Jacques in 1/18 and 1/43, and I also have pretty much every plastic F1 model Tamiya has made in 1/20 and 1/12, as well as no small number of Studio 27 1/20th scale and Tameo 1/43rd scale F1 trans-kits (resin, white metal, photo-etched parts).

    10. I fear that widening the cars width will decrease overtake possibilities..

      1. @dam00r Should actually be the opposite.

        1. Explain your reasoning?

          1. @george The wider cars (And tyres) should produce more mechanical grip which will make following through corners closer.

            Additionally they will be more stable & less twitchy on the limit which will allow drivers to lean on them more under braking & through corners which will be better for things such as outbraking.

            There are also other benefits to the suspension geometry & what they will be able to do with the underbody & a wider diffuser that will help with the plans to reintroduce ground effects.

            There basically just taking the car widths back to pre-98 & tyre widths back to pre-93 levels….. Something people both in & outside the sport have been calling for since they 1st narrowed them.

            1. More mechanical grip wont affect overtaking. Being able to race close behind other cars will.

            2. ColdFly F1 (@)
              1st August 2015, 9:49

              @rethla, read the article referred to by @gt-racer above.
              In short: wider cars = wider front wings = more front wing area available for downforce (outer ends) + less impact of ‘wake’ of car in front = racing closer to car in front!

            3. @rethia Those are 2 pretty contradictory sentences if you ask me (though I might be wrong).

            4. @coldfly
              That article is seriously wrong. Noble is a good writer and I generally like his stuff. But he’s not an aero guy and he’s quoting guys who clearly admit they are “not aero experts”.

              The wider front wings will be incredibly bad for overtaking and damage the sport. Aero guys like Craig Scarborough and Gary Anderson have been writing about this for a while now.

              And if the guys on the “Overtaking Working Group” would apply even a little common sense, they’d be embarrassed they even said something so silly. Sure, the wake is worst in the center behind the trailing car….Now go google “formula 1 overtaking” and select “images”.

              Look at all the pictures of the cars actually trying to overtake: they are never sitting, aligned dead center behind the car in front of them. They are on curves and trying to keep those front wings working while their own car is getting all kinds of dirty air from that exact center section of the leading car on the outer parts of their wings!!!

              Seriously, go google pictures and look at where these cars are relative to each other and think about how silly it is to say that the outer edge wings of the trailing car will be in “clean air”.

              As the REAL aero guys have been telling us for years….we have to use underbody tunnels for down force and get rid of the huge, complex front wings or we’ll never get any overtaking.

              @gt-racer is on the right track…”the underbody & a wider diffuser that will help with the plans to reintroduce ground effects.” @dam00r @rethla

            5. Sigh….I really wish F1F would give us an edit button.

              I meant to say
              “…the wake is worst in the center behind the LEADING car”.

        2. Except on narrow tracks with no run-off like Monaco.

          1. @hohum Narrowing the cars in 1998 didn’t make overtaking any more possible on these circuits.

            Looking just at Monaco there was generally more overtaking there when the cars were wider.

            1. @gt-racer, thanks for that and the additional info above, I hadn’t considered the wider diffuser argument, and of course there was always more overtaking pre 19990’s introduced gimmicks.

    11. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
      1st August 2015, 1:05

      Lynn probably needs another year of GP2 before he should be considered for F1, decent on pole but in the pack he can be hopeless.

    12. Prepare yourselves from the onslaught of critique of the 2017 car by arm chair aerodynamic experts :)

      1. I think we need to know whether this is how all the cars will have to look or whether this merely illustrates the limit of the rules before any real debate can begin.

        1. @hohum, I believe that the video is Piola’s interpretation of the proposed 2017 regulations, so I believe that it is closer to your latter suggestion (i.e. to demonstrate the broad outline of the design envelope).

      2. As an armchair expert i only dislike the fact that they are making them longer too and not just wider. I mean when they are too long they look like damn limousines.

    13. Make the cars shorter!!! This sketch is more proportional, more pleasing but still, make the size of the aero surfaces smaller as well.

      1. @peartree, the point of Piola’s model is to roughly show the design envelope, and so he has broadly based it on the current generation of cars in order to give a comparison of the more notable changes. There is nothing to suggest that the designers have to stick with the same wheelbase as they do now – it’s just that the comparison exercise started using the W06 as a template.

    14. The Paddock Club at Spa is a bargain compared to the Montreal one — I had checked prices last year and it was double the Spa rate. For $5k, you got Loge Elite. If you’re familiar with Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, the former is above the pits and the latter is the long tent along the pit exit.

    15. F1 cars have looked weird and out of proportion ever since the idiotic decisions of the late ’90s with narrower cars, skinny (grooved) tyres in an attempt to reduce speeds (which definitely was an urgent imperative at the time).

      So, on the whole, it probably won’t make much of a difference in terms of wake, overtaking and such (though it certainly can’t be worse than what we had 1998-2008 ) but at least the cars will look right again. I would advocate switching to 18 inch rims at the same time too.

    16. Jenson makes a valid point with his “buy a tennis racquet or football comment” but that poses another question, is the field getting to old. Webber, Alonso and Button have all had their digs of late, Kimi just cannot seem to comes to terms with the cars, Massa, well he always complains and so does Rosberg. Yes there are other names I’m not mentioning but they’re not expected to be in the results. Hamilton, Vettel, Bottas they are still within ten years of being in this caterogory and while Vettel had his moments last year, but he has found his enthusiasm again instead of blaming the sport. Hamilton well that’s hard to judge because he is in a dominant car, Bottas is just happy to be in F1 and just takes the cards he is dealt. So I ask the question. Is it fresh blood we need or fresh regulations? Maybe a bit of both I believe.

      1. There is fresh blood though. Both Toro Rossos, both Manors, and Nasr. A quarter of the field are rookies. 2 others are in only their second season.

        1. @matt90 @miky
          What I am saying it’s the elder statesmen ( the veterans as you called the pm Miky) that seem disatisfied with the sport and it’s direction. Old habits die hard!
          My point is, the older guys are the ones whining, maybe they should move on like Webber.

          1. So you want the 5 champions gone?
            For a moment there I had a mental picture of F3 instead of F1.

            1. Oh so you’re saying there is no talent unless you are a champ? The point I was making from the start is drivers such as Vettel and Hamilton have evolved with the sport, others don’t seem so willing, especially when they are not winning. Maybe I just didn’t explain myself well. I think all 5 champions deserve to be there but if they don’t like it, move on.

            2. Do you think F3 drivers as “talentless” then? It sounds more like a group of talented but young guys to me. You want the wise men gone, you have a field full of young guys.
              I never said they are talentless. I actually get what you are saying. I even agree to an extent.

          2. @funkyf1 Almost half the field hasn’t even properly been in a previous era, hw do you expect them to be disatisfied when they only know this.

            1. @xtwl I don’t expect them to be disatisfied, I think the new kids on the block are doing a great job. I was referring to the elders struggling with the new era, the sport has to evolve, if they don’t like it maybe they should move on and give the younger breed a chance.

            2. Maybe he means that the young ones don’t know better. If you listened to older guys, even Vettel, they sound like those cars were something else.

      2. Only champions + Massa are veterans. There is no one hanging around who hasn’t proven himself AND old.
        ps. Is Vettel old now? Wow!

        1. Hungary’15 was one of all times youngest podiums btw. And the oldest guy was a bloke called Sebastian Vettel! Youngest podium’s still Monza’08 tho.

    17. Google ‘Andries van Overbeeke’ and have a look at some of his designs.

      1. @stigsemperfi I binged him on Edge (got win10 yesterday) for those interested in Adries’ work below is the link to his RBR 2017 concept, although, I don’t think he has included any of the rules, and instead of straight lines, he prefers curves.
        Andries van Overbeeke’s 2017 RBR

        1. I would be curious to see what would happen if somebody were to put one of his models through CFD analysis or into a wind tunnel. There have been quite a few of these design exercises that seem to succeed in creating a “wow” factor, but in reality would either be unworkable or aerodynamically inefficient and perform much worse than the cars we see now.

        2. ColdFly F1 (@)
          1st August 2015, 9:59

          Binged on Edge – hilarious!
          @dragoll, with 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, Win10 you probably know what Button means by not ‘sticking to the same rules’ ;)

          PS: for me 10yrs MAC and Chrome the day it was launched; 2 of my best decision in life.

          1. ColdFly F1 (@)
            1st August 2015, 10:00

            sorry meant for @hircus!

          2. @coldfly I think you found me on Reddit, lol :P

            And if I had to compare the FIA rule changes vs Microsoft’s OS changes, I’d suggest that perhaps Microsoft aim to please, miss the mark sometimes, whereas Bernie and Co aim to please themselves and annoy everyone always.

            1. I still think Microsoft is worse than Formula 1. No matter how much I am annoyed with F1, I am not fed up with all the nonsense yet.
              Written from my Mac =P

    18. FlyingLobster27
      1st August 2015, 10:01

      Proposed 2017 car looks ok. Lowering the rear wing is a huge plus, and I’d be nitpicking if I said I’d like the front wing to be narrower. But we have seen design teams come up with monstrosities after the first sketches looked reasonable (stepped and -what’s the polite word again? proboscis?- noses in particular), and it seems we will still have a high chassis/low nose situation that IMO breaks the car’s profile.

    19. There’s been some talk of how this was one of the most dominant qualifyings of recent times. So I put together a list of quali sessions since 2007 where the pole sitter qualified at least 0.4 sec ahead of the second who may or may not have been his teammate. All sorts of conditions (wet, mixed) are included.
      Hamilton: 0.667 Abu’09, 0.612 Can’08, 0.595 China’14, 0.594 Australia’15, 0.578 Spain’12 (disqualified), 0.575 Hun’12, 0.456 Can’07, 0.452 BGP’13, 0.442 Sin’12, 0.413 Hun’12
      Rosberg: 0.620 BGP’14, 0.505 China’12, 0.486 Hun’14, 0.406 Abu’14
      Vettel: 0.913 Malaysia’13, 0.778 Australia’11, 0.752 India’13, 0.715 China’11, 0.623 Brazil’13, 0.450 Ita’11, 0.432 Belgium’11, 0.420 Australia’13, 0.411 Hun’10, 0.405 Turkey’11
      Webber: 1.346 Malaysia’10
      Hulkenberg: 1.049 Brazil’10
      Massa: 0.664 Sin’08, 0.482 Malaysia’08
      Alonso: 0.405 Ger’12
      Raikkonen: 0.421 Australia’07

      1. For 2006:

        Massa: 0.619 Bra’06
        Alo: 0.632 Chi’06
        But: 0.406 Australian’06

        Also, Sch: 0.603 USGP’06, 0.412 French’06

    20. Seriously have they learned nothing. Making the front wing wider is the dumbest thing to do. They wreck a bunch of those per race it seems and it’s not that these are cheap. No you have to make them narrower, just like in the 90’s and also simpler in shape and form, gone with al those stupid little niggles and wings on front. It’s the front wing that is now helping to create this turbulent air behind the cars.

      1. Rohan, In terms of dimensions, the front wings from the cars in the 1990’s were quite substantial structures – they were almost as wide as the current wings on the cars and had a greater plan area, so they still left a fairly sizeable aero wake in their path.

        Furthermore, another reason for the increased complexity of the current generation of front wings is to delay the onset of stalling for each individual wing element, therefore ensuring that the front wing produces a more consistent level of downforce and works more efficiently.

        Rather than solving the problem, your suggestion of reverting back to a 1990’s style front wing might actually make the situation worse – it would increase the likelihood of large sections of the front wing stalling in turbulent airflows, causing a larger loss in front downforce and greater unpredictability in handling.

        Equally, to blame the front wings for the turbulent wake of an F1 car is to underestimate the impact of the open wheels – since any rotating cylindrical structure, such as a wheel, will create a highly turbulent wake even at relatively low speeds, the aero wake of the front wings is low compared to that of the rear tyres (especially given that the current generation of front wings tends to divert the airflow away from the centreline of the car).

        1. In terms of width the wings were a fair bit narrower than they are today look at this picture an you will know hat I mean. (http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/995/703/S995703/slug/l/1988-mclaren-honda-mp4-4-frankfurt-2013-5-1.jpg). In this image you can clearly see that the wing end plates are almost in line with the insides of the front tires. Yes you are right in that these were still pretty big and yes with that comes a certain aero wake. My point with the width is more that they are prone to damage, as we have seen on pretty much every start this season and that they are expensive structure because of their complexity to build. With teams moaning about cost cutting, I see one option right there.

          I am not a aerodynamics engineer so I am not going to say that you may not be right , infact I think you raise valid points. However since the introduction of the ever more complicated structures upfront pilots have been complaining about more and more problems with overtaking. I doubt however that simplifying the front wing layout will actually cause more problems.

          “Furthermore, another reason for the increased complexity of the current generation of front wings is to delay the onset of stalling for each individual wing element, therefore ensuring that the front wing produces a more consistent level of downforce and works more efficiently.”
          Well that is all great and well but if it is one of the contributing factors, to the wake left behind the cars, it should be altered.

          I agree with you that the open wheels are responsible for a lot of the “turbulent” air. However you cannot contest that F1 cars in the 90’s had these too and pilot’s complained far less about over taking, or have the wheels changed? So blaming the open wheel structure of the cars in my opinion is not relevant as GP2 cars are also open wheeled and seem to have less problems over taking.

          1. Rohan, I think that perhaps there was a little bit of cross talking in the last post, because I was referring to the absolute width of the front wings of those cars.

            Back in the 1980’s the front wing was permitted to be 1500mm wide, whilst a modern F1 car is permitted to have a front wing 1650mm wide – it’s not so much that the wing is much bigger as the fact that the wheel track has shrunk by a greater degree, hence why the ends of the front wings sit further out.

            Furthermore, I’m not sure where Piola is getting the idea that the front wing will actually be wider, because that was not one of the items which was raised during the initial strategy group meetings.
            I think that may be a consequence of Piola taking the current dimensions of the car and then scaling them up from the current 1800mm limit to 2000mm, with the assumption that all of the aerodynamic surfaces are also being scaled by the same amount.

            As for the cars of the 1990’s, drivers did still complain a fair amount about problems with aero wake and about overtaking being difficult – in fact, the early 1990’s marked a period of significant reduction in overtaking (see this chart here illustrating passing statistics since 1980 http://i.imgur.com/bVmUMXU.jpg ), although it could be argued that this was a continuation of a trend from the mid 1980’s and no one particular reason can be cited. It could also be said that the issue was partially masked in the 1980’s and 1990’s by the rise of driver aids and developments such as active aerodynamics, which partially compensated for the issues of aero wake by modifying the configuration of the car to improve its handling.

            With GP2, there is the complication that, given it is a spec series, the main performance differentiator is the driver rather than the car. The way that series is structured effectively encourages drivers to take major risks – one of the recent criticisms of the series by the older F1 drivers is that GP2 is encouraging drivers to behave too recklessly – and, in the process, is therefore more likely to induce driver errors, which in turn are more likely to create passing opportunities.

        2. Proof that closed wheels improve aerodynamics. Why on earth isn’t F1, a series that is all about aerodynamic efficiency, introducing closed tyres? Just for the looks, which isn’t a good enough reason for me. Make no mistake, I loved the sight of wide slicks and I’m so happy the track and rear tyres have become wider, but if that is a major aero disadvantage, why not make it closed?

          1. Short answer: because then it wouldn’t be an open-wheel racing series.

            1. Why should it be one? It should be the ultimate, that’s all!

            2. What I really do not understand, for the life of me, is on the one hand people say F1 is the pinnacle of motor sports and every millisecond counts. If that’s the case why are people bothered about whether it is open wheel or closed wheel, open cockpit or closed cockpit. What significance do these factors have in the greater scheme of things, when you’re in the quest to be the ultimate racing series where performance matters beyond everything?

              I know there would be wide resistance if closed wheels and cockpits are introduced, but they will get used to it. Change based on technology and performance needs is a trait of any competitive racing series. Or else drivers would still be racing cigar-shaped 1950s style front engine F1 cars today.

            3. Michael Brown
              3rd August 2015, 13:51

              F1 is a single-seater championship, not an open wheel championship.

    21. That’s very optimistic by Lynn.

    22. Michael Brown
      1st August 2015, 15:59

      I don’t know a whole lot about aerodynamics, so feel free to correct me on my layman’s assumptions. Is the wider rear wing better for minimizing the wake compared to the current one? Since there’s a larger and wider space between the wing and its supports, wouldn’t that allow more air to pass uninterrupted through the gap, thus supplying “cleaner” air to the following car?

      1. Michael Brown
        1st August 2015, 16:05

        Also, what about these substantially larger barge boards on the 2017 car? Is their purpose to direct air to the underbody?

      2. I don’t know, but pre-2009 rear wings look beautiful compared to post-2008 wings!

    23. When I started watching F1 on TV back in 2000, we also had CART/Champ Car coverage by ESPN in India. I used to wonder why don’t F1 cars look as wide as those sleek CART Lolas and Reynards? A few years later I learnt that they didn’t look as wide because they weren’t wide, with narrow track coming in since 1998. For over 10 years I longed to see wide track return to F1. I’m so, so happy now – my dream is coming true. Now the cars will look infinitely more attractive and finally, WIDE, the way racing cars should always be!

    24. WEC has so much more promise than F1, at the moment, I can’t see F1 surviving for much longer the way it is, with all the technocrats who give the middle finger to history and common sense.

    25. Good COTD. +1

      It is funny to see that after laying low for almost an year, the Vettel Nay Sayers are back to form and back to business now. They are back to what they do best. Write comments as to why Vettel is not good. It is getting nightmarish scenario for them. With Vettel winning 2 races , equalling Senna and getting a little close to the championship leader. It is disaster in making for them. Feel sorry for them :(

      Keep Going Nay Sayers !!!!

      1. ^^^Yup. It’s great though. With little to no effort they prove how uneducated and ridiculous they sound. Win win

    26. I really hope those aero details are wrong. Wider rear tyres and a reduction and simplification of the front wing are the 2 changes that most need to be made. The wider rear tyres obviously give you better traction etc etc. The front wing needs to come in-board of the front tyres, preferably spanning between the inside shoulders, and then simplified to something like 2 elements, the lower fixed the upper adjustable, and each can only be of a certain area. As a trade-off for the simpler front wing, the teams get free reign on ground-effect aerodynamics. These measures would you give you a very attractive and raceable Formula 1 car. Think about the cars we all romanticise about. They all have simple front wings that span between the inside shoulders of the front tyres.

    Comments are closed.