FIA plans wider, faster 2017 cars – with ‘Halo’

2017 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Plans for higher-performance F1 cars and increased driver head protection next season have taken a step forward with the agreement of a new proposal to increase downforce and tyre widths.

The F1 Commission has agreed to postpone the deadline for agreeing the 2017 sporting and technical regulations until the end of next month.

The new plans for 2017 will see car widths increase from 1.8m to 2m, front tyre widths increased by 60mm and rear tyre widths by 80mm. Front and rear wing widths will be increased and the rear wing reduced in height. Further alterations to the technical rules will allow designers more freedom to increase the downforce produced by the cars:

Front tyres245mm wide thread305mm wide thread
Rear tyres325mm wide thread405mm wide thread
Suspension Track1800mm2000mm
Legs+/-5° profile incidence+/-10° profile incidence
Front wing1650mm span1800mm span, swept plan view shape, simplified endplate legality
Rear wing750mm wide, 950mm high950mm wide, 800mm high
Rear wing endplatesRectangular endplateSwept endplate in side view and tucked in front view
Floor Step plane1400mm max width, 1300mm min width1600mm max width, 1400mm min width
Floor edge radii<50mm constant<100mm variable
Reference plane start point330mm behind front axle430mm behind front axle
PlankHomogeneous plankPocketed plank for weight saving
Diffuser125mm high, 1000mm wide, starts at rear axle175mm high, 1050mm wide, starts 175mm ahead of rear axle
Bodywork Width1400mm max width1600mm max width
SidepodsNo constraintSwept leading edge in top view
BardgeboardsBig exclusion zone behing front wheelsReduced exclusion zone allowing for larger bargeboards
Weight702kg max weight722kg max weight + tyres (est 5kg)

The FIA also plans to introduce new cockpit protection for next season. The ‘halo’ concept is described as “currently the preferred option”, though others are under discussion.

2016 F1 season

Browse all 2016 F1 season articles

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.

109 comments on “FIA plans wider, faster 2017 cars – with ‘Halo’”

  1. Wider cars. Because what we need is even more difficult overtaking.

    1. @hahostolze I see why some people make that assumption but I think it’s wrong.

      1. and more aero effect? that too will reduce overtaking.

        or will there be more drs to fake the passing?

      2. any additional aero will only mean that a car following another will lose that much more additional aero to what is already being lost when following another cat

        1. Cats are pretty easy to pass, though.

          1. you got to think like a dog to do that!

          2. cats were much easier to pass before the introduction of CFD, cold fish diet, which resulted in all the cats looking and behaving pretty much the same. in an effort to change this DRS, dog reduction system, was implemented and then the public complained that cats were too easy to pass. the introduction of KERS, kitty energy recovery system, didnt help as all the cats fell asleep

          3. my “T” is on the right side of “R” while my “D” is not only to the left of “R” but also one step bellow, my wife has both a dog and a cat, I have never seen the dog overtaking the cat when racing to get something.

          4. “cats are pretty easier to pass, though” Agree, but only because they are safer to pass and not because they are slower than dogs, a cat is always super faster than a dog in both speed and reactions.
            Try the following and see which is the faster, wait for the wife to go shopping, one at a time get both upside down holding them by the paws a few mm of the ground, watch carefully and let go, the cat being super faster in its reactions and speed will land on its feet/paws. The dog will land on its back still thinking upside down.

          5. @keithcollantine we are not getting the “edit” function anytime soon, are we?

      3. Wasnt Narrower car rule, the first of many gimmicks?

        1. Exactly. Thank you for pointing out the gold fish effect of current f1 fans.

          The cars are too wide, it’s effecting overtaking! With zero evidence to support this stat the cars were made slimmer. Now with the least overtakes for lead in the history of the sport, somehow making the cars wider will make things worse.

          Basically what fans are saying is they have no clue how a floor works, refuse to educate themselves on the Beauty and efficiency of floor downforce, and stick thier heads in the sand while plugging thier ears and screaming they are more knowledgeable of aerodynamics than Adrian Newey himself.

          Clueless fans is the new face of F1, this sport used to inspire people to become better more educated fans, but nascar style laziness has dragged everything down.

          No longer do genius like newey earn respect, it’s all hatred and confusion from confused head scratchers.

          #f1….it used to be smart

    2. That was the first thing that came to mind seams like they want to make the sport less popular

    3. @hahostolze wider cars are great. Not just for the look of them, but they make mechanical grip a bit more important than nowadays. Once they changed to the narrow track cars, they ruined it until today.

      Also, considering how wide modern tracks are (what’s the narrowest track besides Monaco? Monza probably! and that’s wide enough), they’ll be more than okay.

      1. I am not so sure about that, a driver trying to pass on the outside of a turn will be a further 30cm off radius, no one ever set pole by being 30cm off the apex.

        1. a lot of people don’t want to see past the crude commentary presented by the tube. Facts are when you make the tires wider, it incurs a drag penalty on the drive train which costs the drivers more fuel.

          Guess which team will benefit more by further tightening the grip on fuel usage? Guess which team lead the charge for the new halo design, has the strategy group and Ferrari in their pocket?

          hash tag Sisyphus

        2. No one ever had to set pole passing a car on the outside.


      2. It would be OK maybe if the tires didn’t put all those marbles on the outside of the racing line

  2. The new plans for 2017 will see car widths increase from 1.8m to 2m, front tyre widths increased by 60mm and rear tyre widths by 80mm. Front and rear wing widths will be increased and the rear wing reduced in height. Further alterations to the technical rules will allow designers more freedom to increase the downforce produced by the cars:

    Mixed feelings about this:

    1. Wider tyres means more non-downforce produced grip, which is excellent and what most fans wanted to see.
    2. Wider and lower read wings will make following other cars dreadful, see 2005-08. This is definitely not good.
    3. More technical freedom is good I suppose, although it can also cause a more spaced out grid.

    1. wider tyres also cause more turbulent air (they are the most turbulence producing part of the car). however, a move towards more mechanical, rather than more aero grip would indeed be positive.

      these plans do not suggest that particularly because they retain the very wide front wing introduced in 2009. at that time the front wings were a lot less complicated (and therefore less sensitive) so running in dirty air was easier (races in 2009 seem to bear that out, even though we had refuelling then). the way development has gone means that disrupted air flow to the front wing means the whole airflow over the rest of the car is compromised so following is doubly hard. it will be interesting to see how the control endplate design.

      also, the weight of the car is going up?!?!? what?! if they want the cars to go faster (a thoroughly questionable aim in terms of safety and excitement) they should allow them to be lighter.

      1. I imagine that the weight is being increased to accommodate the weight gained from the cars being bigger.

        As for wider tyres causing turbulent air. I can’t see this as a problem to be honest, it that the teams are pretty good at diverting air flow around them, which is the actual problem. The front wing end plates for instance are designed to force air up and around the tyres which causes the problems for cars behind.

        1. @lithyeir that sounds plausible too. i guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

        2. One large part of the cars gaining weight @frood19 has to be those bigger tyres, that’s quite a bit of extra weight right there; in addition to the rest of the car being wider too as @lithyeir says.

  3. More aero, less racing. This is a time loop we’re going through.

    1. Yep, but don’t worry because they’ve “fixed” qualifying, which wasn’t broken, with shiny new gimmickry.

    2. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
      24th February 2016, 12:45

      But more aero is good for the fans… Christian Horner said so!

      I’m glad the halo is described as “currently the preferred option”, demonstating that they are aware that its a stopgap half-fix.

      I hope that sooner or later they will agree to implement properly integrated canopies, developed right from the concept stage, rather than this tacked-on afterthought of a safety solution.

      1. @fullcoursecaution I don’t get the opinion that the halo is some tacked-on afterthought. Firstly, without massive spending and a ground up redesign, anything other than something that is relatively ‘tacked-on’ would turn F1 as we know it upside down. A canopy can’t just be tacked on and therefore will cause huge expense and a redefining of F1 that F1 can’t afford.

        Secondly, the halo is a huge step for F1 as it is, and has come from them researching this over at least the last two decades. It is only a ‘compromise’ if you assume slapping on a canopy is easy, and it is obviously not, or they would do it.

  4. So, they spent all that time trying to find out what the fans want, then completely ignored them and chose to increase downforce in a pointless attempt to lower laptimes for the sake of lowering laptimes at the expense of cars being able to follow in dirty air.

    Also, they’ve changed qualifying when it was probably one of the main things that the majority of fans have been pretty happy with.

    And what has been done to address the major financial inequality amongst the sport’s teams and overall lack of competition in the championship? Absolutely nothing. Not even brought up for discussion.

    They are never, ever going to get it. It’s such a shame that I’m only coming to realise this now.

    1. Spot on. The decision making in F1 has been very poor for many years now and all these desperate attempts to ‘spice up the show’ inevitably make it worse. Too much tinkering and nobody addressing the real issue…which largely comes down to the distribution of wealth with the sport.

    2. I share your concerns about downforce but am not prepared to take a negative viewpoint on it as to me there is a chance that the new tires might sway the ratio of mechanical grip to aero a bit to the mechanical side, in spite of more downforce. Perhaps the wider front wing has a neutral zone to it, and it sounds like the end plates will be simplified, for example. Maybe wider cars and tires will be more stable in dirty air such that trailing drivers will have more confidence than they currently do. Perhaps I’m just wishful thinking, but then that’s pretty much what we all do a lot of these recent years when it comes to F1.

    3. @willwood If anything the problem of financial inequality and performance monopoly will be exacerbated by greater technical freedoms, advantaging those with greater reserves to put towards infinitely varied approaches. Those that have stuck to their guns, finessed and perfected their designs and produced, as Force India appear to have with this year’s car, competitive packages from a comparable lack of resource, have just been kicked in the stomach.

      When downforce is worse for the spectacle and more expensive than mechanical solutions, you begin to wonder whether F1’s decision-makers are just a bit thick. Of course they aren’t, they just know that there is inherently no alternative for people wanting to watch the best drivers and the fastest cars, so instead they commence logrolling the teams.

  5. Suspension Track: 2000 mm….. This….This is the greatest thing to happen for me. I have never liked the 1800 mm cars as they have always looked a bit goofy from the front and back. Glad to see the rear wing back into a normal shape as well, in stead of the boxy 2009 look we have been seeing.

    Too bad that the weight has gone up….again. But this is just small peanuts to me. BACK TO THE NINETIES it is, at least a bit!!

    1. Fudge Ahmed (@)
      24th February 2016, 17:01

      Amen. 2000mm cars for the absolute win.

    2. Wider cars (including tires, front wing, etc.) look cool but they make overtaking on already narrow tracks even more difficult.

      1. Unless you’re a worthy F1 driver then overtaking is never an issue.

        Men from boys.

        And f1 fans complain when we get something that helps separate them.


    3. Ah yes, looks are everything !?

  6. Overall I like these changes, I like the increase in downforce and thus speed that the rules tries to make. Also I guess we will see a lot more variety next year, which is something I’m really missing this year.

    I wonder how they will implement the halo system, so whether their will be an FIA-provided halo that teams need to install on their car, or whether teams need to design it themselves. It might be and idea for the FIA to make sure the halo has a symmetric profile tangent to the car body, to prevent any funny business.

    1. I think it using a standard FIA-prescribed design has to be the wise choice to avoid any cleverness with it @andae23; I personally am sceptical the extra downforce will make F1 much better, but I do like seeing wider cars with more grip; I guess like the drivers we will just have to see and hope it works out okay :)

  7. In other news, Adrian Newey announced his comeback as full techincal chief at Red Bull.

    1. had a chuckle at this :)

    2. In other news, most successful person in the history of F1 is again interested in the sport.

      Hating on Adrian. Shows two things about an individual.

      First, you have a lot of class and respect.

      Second, you’re a caveman.

      Pure class my friend, pure class.

  8. Wider tyres? Yes. Faster cars? Yes. More downforce? No.

    Certainly, when F1 rocked up to Barcelona in 2014 and produced a pole lap 4.5 seconds slower than the previous year, and with that weekend’s GP2 polesitter, Stéphane Richelmi, setting a qualifying lap faster than all four backmarkers, it was time to start wondering how much performance we were willing to sacrifice for races like Bahrain 2014.

    We needn’t have worried. F1 teams exist to accumulate downforce and with the fast laps already be set in testing this year, it can be safely said that F1’s position as the lofty peak of motorsport is safe. And yet, speed is part of F1’s appeal, so is it not shameful that the cars are setting laptimes that would have been considered shabby a decade ago?

    To a certain extent yes, but downforce achieves performance at the cost of racing. Better then to acquire grip through wider tyres, check, a bigger floor, check, and other mechanical solutions as opposed to strapping more aerodynamic appendages to the cars.

    There are some promising elements here, but you sense the character of what should have been F1’s “mechanical revolution” has been diluted and confused by the aerodynamic competence of one team in particular…

    1. I does appear I have adopted something of an “internal monologue” tone in this post…sorry, I had rather forgotten that soliloquies have gone out of fashion…

    2. I generally agree from what you said but allow me to ask one question. There has been cut in F1 downforce in 2014 and do you really think it helped in creating better racing compared to 2011-13 where we have had a lot more downforce?

      1. @michal2009b – Despite having harder tyres and less degradation compared with previous years, 2014 saw on-track battles for the lead in Bahrain, Canada, Hungary, Singapore, Japan, Austin and Brazil – whereas in 2015 with increased levels of aero offsetting a minimum weight increase, we only saw passes for the lead in Sepang and Austin.

        In 2012, a season renowned for some of the best on-track racing of the modern era, the cars had reduced levels of downforce compared with 2010 and 2011 following the ban on the blown-floor. A return to 2012 levels of downforce would be a good compromise when implemented in tandem with heightened mechanical grip.

        1. @william-brierty – foremost there was a very competitive field in 2012 and that have made the biggest difference in comparison to 2011 and 2013. Also I wouldn’t call it a battle in Canada (Rosberg a sitting duck with broken ERS), Singapore (a huge pace advantage thanks to new tyres) or Brazil (not a simple pass attempt). One thing that helped overtaking since 2014 are the longer braking zones.

    3. @william-brierty

      “More downforce? No.”

      Have another read of the diffuser rules. They read like big changes to me.

      1. I’m not saying that the FIA isn’t planning more downforce, rather I don’t want to see more downforce.

        1. @william-brierty

          Oh I see, now I getcha!

          They ought to ditch ceramic brakes and make them smaller. Allow unlimited kinetic energy recovery, including front axle. Braking distances would be extended, giving more scope for out-braking manoeuvres. And it would drive road-relevant development of more kinetic energy recovery as teams would be desperate to recoup the braking performance.

  9. I am for it. It may sound stupid but following the other cars harder may not necessarily be such a bad thing. Remember we have DRS which is surely to stay and often complained about overtakes being made too easy so this can actually improve the balance. Last year’s racing was dreadful as well. But that’s only my quick thought.

    I’m happy as it should make the cars more spectacular and faster (if approved), give more freedom and maybe I’m optimistic but I doubt following the other cars will be made that much harder as some fear.

    1. @michal2009b

      Remember we have DRS which is surely to stay and often complained about overtakes being made too easy so this can actually improve the balance.

      That is an incredibly easy problem to fix, just move the deployment zone 100m down the road at tracks where it’s too easy.

      1. @george – yes I know but they appear to be happy by leaving it on an easy side. There was a lot of talk about adjusting the DRS zones in 2011-2012 to make it better but they only doubled the number of zones with unchanged lengths for years.

  10. Hopefully the cars will look more aesthetically pleasing and give drivers more satisfaction – that cannot be a bad thing. Also, new rules always change the pecking order, which is probably something F1 will need after 2016. Cockpit protection is something F1 needs even if it is not easy to accept.

    On the other hand, “scarier” cars will not necessarily make the racing better. It is also possible that Red Bull or Ferrari will outsmart (or outspend) everyone else and we will simply have Verstappen / Vettel / Ricciardo dominance instead of Hamilton dominance. And I do not see how new regulations every three years help F1 to save costs.

    All in all, this is probably not the news we would want to read but I guess this is the best F1 decision makers can agree on at the moment.

  11. I’ve watched for 35+ years and I don’t remember the wider cars back then being more exciting to watch.
    I do remember drivers allowed to race and racing on exciting old tracks….now that was exciting.
    Personally some of the more modern tracks are dull to watch equally dull are the current crop of drivers.

  12. Yay for wider cars and tyres.
    Nay for more downforce.
    Still not a fan of the somewhat flawed halo concept, but further head protection is needed, so hopefully someone comes up with a solution.

    Well, at least they managed to agree on something that makes some sort of sense.

    1. LMP1 has more downforce than F1 but they can follow each other. Downforce helps speed up the lap times which is good the issue is the current regulations force the downforce to be produced in a certain way which means F1 cars cannot follow each other.

      1. And the new regulations increase that issue, not fix it, which is their point.

      2. I know that F1 got rid rid of ground effects sometime ago, but downforce achieved through ground effects is not affected as much by a car following closely. I think that may be one of the reasons why LMP1 can race much closer. Maybe F1 should bring ground effects back in a limited fashion so that certain percentage of downforce is achieved through ground effects versus wings.

  13. 1st thing that popped into my head was.. Wider cars, yet we’re seeing more narrow street style circuits..

    1. Erm, The only ‘more narrow’ street style tracks are Baku, Monaco and Singapore (in parts). Overall though, tracks are much wider than they use to be, so unfortunately you’ve lost me there.

      1. 3 too many if you ask me ;)

  14. Where does this idea come from that F1 cars can’t follow well at the moment? Perhaps people have been watching different races to me, but from what I can see there’s no problem with overtaking in F1. Sure, the number of overtakes in a given race has fallen off a little in the past couple of years, but it’s still miles ahead of where things were pre-2009. You can see multiple overtakes all through the midfield with really decent battles in just about every race. The only factors which seem to affect the number of potential overtakes in races now are fuel and tyres, and a team’s desire not to use up too much of either.

    The problem for me is not that people aren’t able to overtake, but rather than there is only one team who are really in with a shout of winning the championship. That’s what makes F1 dull. I want to see drivers battling for the lead of the race, and that’s got nothing to do with overtaking. By rights there are at least four teams in F1 (Mercedes, McLaren, Ferrari, and RBR) who are of decent enough quality to be capable of winning races, and the only reason they aren’t is because of the power units. RBR and McLaren are both way down on power, and the Ferrari is lacking a tiny bit in both power and aero stakes. Obviously I don’t know yet how that will pan out this year – perhaps we will see more of a challenge from Ferrari. But everythign from testing so far suggests that Mercedes will once again run more or less unopposed to both championships in 2016. If you know who will win before the race has started, it’s far less exciting. Though of course the power unit issue is impossible to resolve now because in order for things to be meaningfully changed, Mercedes would have to agree, and as they say – turkeys don’t vote for Thanksgiving.

    I’m looking forward to seeing faster, more dramatic cars which are more challenging for the drivers. I don’t see that there’s a problem with overtaking or following closely (though probably simplifying front wings would make this even better). I just want to see the top teams on the grid all able to show how good they are, and challenge for the results that they should be capable of. A true championship fight between several drivers from different teams. That’s what gets my motor running.

    1. @mazdachris I do hear you but I can’t help recalling LH’s dismay, and his desperation for the team to help him with an extreme strategy to get by NR in the last 3 races, because sitting in his dirty air simply handcuffed him. Just as NR had to suffer that fate in previous races behind LH. So if we are once again going to be subject to one team dominating, it would be great to me if it didn’t simply come down to which Merc driver has pole and therefore the best chance of handcuffing the driver behind. I’m hoping they can actually race each other. Otherwise I’m not all that interested in passing going on behind the leaders if it is because of DRS
      or drastically different tire states between two cars. But I realize too that some passing does occur in relatively apples to apples circumstances. Just that with two identical cars last year it came down to whoever was behind was helpless to race in the pinnacle of racing.

      1. @robbie I get what you’re saying, but this is simply what formula racing looks like. Any car which utilises downforce will experience a loss of downforce following another car. The question is to what extent. Certainly, two identical cars which have the same performance potential, the car ahead has a natural advantage. But this is just motor racing. There’s a factor in determining whether or not an overtake will be possible, and that is how much faster the car behind can go compared to the car ahead. If the car behind can’t go faster, it cannot overtake unless the driver ahead makes a mistake. The car behind needs to be able to go a certain percentage faster than the car ahead. More than a matter of a couple of tenths. While it may be possible to get close to the car ahead, unless there is a significant performance advantage, there cannot be an overtake. That’s as true in sportscars, go kart racing, or anything else, as it is in F1. Sure, other forms of motorsport may require the following car to have less of a performance advantage than an F1 car, but it still applies.

        And again, this does come down to tyres. Hamilton wasn’t just exasperated because he was losing grip, he was exasperated because losing grip was damaging his front tyres and Pirrelli’s tyres are useless once they’re damaged. A more robust tyre would have allowed him to attack for longer without risking destroying the tyre.

        In the end, you’re using a sample set of one driver at one race, which will never give you a clear picture. Look at multiple races, consider every driver. There are lots of overtakes. It is possible. It’s not easy, sure, but then it shouldn’t be easy. In other circumstances, at other tracks, Hamilton was able to pass Rosberg in an identical car. We are miles away from the bad old days of Trulli Trains.

        1. Fair comment.

  15. Sorry to be dim, but what does this bit mean?

    Legs +/-5° profile incidence +/-10° profile incidence

    Is it the front suspension arms?

    1. As it says legs, I think they are getting rid of wheels to improve the show, Pirelli will provide the soles.

      1. Aaah – soles!
        Thank you, markp.

        1. Did you guys plan this routine, excellent.:-)

  16. Well, I like the idea of having more mechanical grip, but wider tires also mean more drag and thus less speed on the straights. I really think that Michelin low-profile tyres would be a better solution here.
    And concidering aero, they will have to rely on the DRS even more. I doubt that’s a great idea to say at least…
    and that weight increase…*sigh* I know it’s impossible to make the cars wider without that but 20kg is never a good thing, right?
    I just wonder what FIA and the team were trying to achive by that. Sometimes it seems that their motto is “the worse, the better”.

    1. Wider tires making more drag and slowing cars on the straights might equate to them having to run less wing in order to achieve better straight-line speeds, which might make them a little less negatively affected in dirty air with said lesser wing settings. Always depends on the track too of course.

    2. Lewisham Milton
      24th February 2016, 19:57

      Less speed on the straights? McLaren-Honda are just ahead of their time.
      (at least they’re ahead of something)

  17. The drivers want closed cockpits. One of the primary concerns with a closed cockpit is the car flipping and the driver being trapped in the car. So to mitigate the risk of the car rolling the wheels would likely be covered.

    If closed cockpits is the desired path, then why not take this opportunity to tear up the rules book and start again. F1 went from front engine to rear engine, no wings to wings, mechanical grip to aero grip and I think there are many fans who think it’s time for another major change/step and rather than applying band-aids to a format that seems to have run its course, the decision makers should show the same courage they expect of the drivers and start again.

    1. Of course the change from front to rear engine placement was achieved without regulation, more regulation only leads to lack of innovation (cheating excepted) and the resulting processions.

  18. Why does the weigth keep increasing? It’s been a steady increase in the last few years, which is a bit disappointing in my opinion.

    But the rest looks ok, I think.

  19. Yay for wider cars, suspensions, tires and floors.

    Nay to wider wings.

    Way to make F1’s dependence on front wings even greater.

    Also, the halo concept, while being a step forward in safety, is still just a cheap and easy to implement change. That doesn’t mean I’m against it, but they could come up with something better, surely. Wait, it’s the Strategy Group.

  20. BTW it is more correct to say: minimum weight of 702, not maximum.

  21. Looking forward to seeing some variety on the grid with these changes, as these rules are so restricted, most cars look too similar now. They are reaching their limit similar to how the 2013 rules did.

    I’d love to see the variety we had in 2014 for instance. And as there are less restrictions these rules can hopefully stay around for longer than three years!

    The designers will be excited by this new formula.

  22. If they want to make the cars look good, I think they should look at completely reinventing the front end. Currently there is a nose cone, two wheels, and a wing. Why not turn that entire section into a part of the actual machine? Or cover it in aerodynamics.

    Ferrari did a similar thing with aerodynamics on their concept graphics, and it looked really good. Obviously that was done with aesthetics only in mind, but surely something good could be done.

    1. There’s no chance of them gaining any fans simply through widening an otherwise boring wing by a few cms.

      1. I think you might be interested in the cars in WEC, if you want fully integrated aero :)

        At least with this setup, we can see the changes they make and what happens if it get’s damaged. If it’s all integrated, how do they keep budding aerodynamicists and engineers interested?

  23. 722kg max weight + tyres (est 5kg)

    Why?! They are already at historical highs so far as weight is concerned, why make them any heavier. Shedding weight is the easiest way to gain laptime and is easy to explain to a layman.

  24. So the front wing stays at the same height and is inset MORE from the edge of the car, while the diffuser is made bigger and coupled up to the lowered and wider rear wing to create a bigger wake.

    I am not optimistic. Perhaps the extra drag and lower top speed will help down the straights? Braking zones will be shorter though.

  25. Ok, so they unanimously voted to put a obstacle in front of the drivers vision at 180mph. This is going to cause wrecks. No doubt about it. They can make it work only by putting a pinhole fish-eye camera on the front and both sides of the halo ‘blade’. Then project the video to the new bendable paper thin screens they now have to the opposite side of where the cam is. So on the front of the blade will be a cam that projects what it sees (geometrically scaled and mathematically warped to account for the screen bends) to the back of the blade. The left side cam projects what it sees to the right side of the blade. They can do it, but hey won’t. They know they have to get rid of the wings, but they won’t. They must keep them to validate the billions they have spent in aero research, in the face of knowing that high speed aero is the one and only big big problem that must be reduced in order for the chassis to work.

    1. Put a finger up in front of your face at arms length and focus on something across the room behind your finger, or rather THOUGH your finger. So no obscured front view.

  26. Oh, so now we’re going to be *again* treated to the sight of wider front wings (uglier , IMO) slashing the hell out of other cars as they dice it out AND wider cars (esp. considering the wider tyres) on tracks that are often too narrow already. Love the new rules that will make overtaking even more difficult.

    1. Wider cars look fantastic. Not everything is about ‘racing’ and the extra 200mm is not going to have a big effect anyway.

      The thing that will effect the racing is the wide front wings. I still find this obsession with increasing downforce bizarre, obviously spurred on by some at the top of F1 thinking that DRS can overcome the detriment to racing anyway, despite the ridiculousness of that point of view.

      Well, at least car releases will be interesting this time next year, as opposed to this.

      1. *affect the racing

  27. Just remember that all of this is being brought to you by the same people that approved the double points for the last race in 2014.

  28. I don’t understand the obsession with shaving a few seconds off of the lap times. It will hardly be noticeable to anyone watching the race. Look at MotoGP, which often has more thrilling overtaking and on track battles every 2 or 3 races than F1 has in a season: no one there is screaming for an extra few seconds a lap. What F1 needs is more power than grip (i.e more mechanical grip and less aero/downforce grip. That’s what made the older 1000+ hp cars so much of a challenge for the drivers and more fun for the fans.

    Just bear in mind that these new rules/specs are being approved by the same bozos that thought it would be a good idea to in 2014 to have double points in the last race.

  29. I must admit to being pleased with what they’ve come up with to be honest.

    Sure, big wings and more aero have historically led to more difficult wheel-to-wheel action, but I think it’s all to help aid the generation of floor-generated downforce while keeping the front wing forces as reliable as possible.

    The bigger tires and diffuser are exactly what I wanted, and it’s going to be fascinating how they use the seemingly aesthetic changes to the angles of bodywork to feed air around the car. It’s also important to note that while the rear wing is bigger, the depth of the wing hasn’t increased, so it leads me to believe things won’t be as bad as the past, and teams will direct their efforts to the floor.

    I’m looking forward to this!

  30. Main directions should be:
    1. Less differences between cars in lap times.
    2. Less dirty air but fast cars -> compromises
    3. Indcrease the importance of drivers skills.

  31. I think the rules are ok, I would have made the rear wing a little bit higher and without halo!
    This is F1,not WEC,NASCAR,DTM so this should have not even cross their minds!

  32. And when FIA is supposed to remove the dildos from the cars`noses ?
    It is crazy how they cannot think of a proper rules, so that the nose of the car won`t be allowed to look so ugly.

  33. Rear wings wider then they are tall again? My body is ready.

  34. Why the wide front wing? Why lord why?

  35. Have they even tested the halo yet? Apart from drawing some nice pictures of what it might look like.

    Personally, I don’t like it, maybe thats a resistance to change though, surely if we go down the path of keeping the drivers completely safe we’d utilise remotely operated cars (in which case i’d lose complete interest in that particular racing series).

  36. Have to agree with Hamilton regarding the proposed 20 kg increase in car weight. Seems idiotic given fuel flow rate and fuel allotment is capped. This will likely force teams to go into fuel saving/cruise mode in order to compensate for the extra weight. Whatever money manufacturers spend on making the cars more efficient will undoubtedly be passed on to customer teams who are already struggling with power unit costs as it is.

  37. I find the halo worrying. A knee jerk reaction that will not prevent any major incident in F1 in the last 20 plus years but is in as a few drivers in other series with lower safety standards got hit on the head and died. It is like footballers having head protection as someone got hit on the head and died in cricket. On top of this, this structure will be strong to deflect a flying wheel or elephant but surely in some crashes it will break but not shatter, a bit like suspension arms used to be built? Remember a strong suspension arm and its effects at Imola 94?

  38. That seems like it’s still gonna keep the rear wings too high and front wings too wide… still I guess depends what simplified means…

  39. digitalrurouni
    25th February 2016, 1:09

    Sorry dunno if I can share another site’s link here or not so apologies in advance but gotta agree with Hamilton here:

  40. They’re getting fatter and fatter, over 100kg heavier than 2008. I’ve read Keith’s article: and I see the reasons why.

    I agree that minimum weight should be increased for the sake of keeping drivers at healthy weights, however it is very easy for an engineering student (me) to reduce weight from a previous car and I would think F1 engineers can do the same. I’ve proposed this before: minimum weights should be reduced every subsequent year if the regulations are stable. From 2014 to this season it should have been very easy to cut 10kg each year and I’m sure the cars do weigh less but they ballast up to the minimum weight.

  41. Halo?
    Why not encase the drivers in a fuzzy bubble instead?

  42. Well some goof some bad. Don’t think it a wise idea to make the front wing bigger. Also don’t like the swept rear wing endplate, makes it look like the awful A1GP cars.

  43. who is a fan of lewis

  44. As i understand it the extra weight is to allow for the extra head protection . On the lower weight side ,shorter drivers eg Hammy are always going to have an advantage over tall guys.

  45. I don’t like the halo that will be introduced for next year (or even a closed cockpit for that matter too). If I wanted to have a closed cockpit or a halo (aka semi closed cockpit) I’ll just drive a Le Mans Prototype car.

    F1 is unique and shouldn’t have a halo – what if the car is on fire, every second is crucial to get out of the car safely in that event to ensure that the driver’s ok. Plus, a halo sort of ruins the design of the F1 car, I like to see the airbox to clearly see what it looks like (I like seeing the different airbox shapes created by different teams).

Comments are closed.