Nicholas Latifi, Force India, Hungaroring, 2018

First pictures: New front wings for 2019 season appear in Hungaroring test

2019 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by and

The first example of the new, wider front wing teams will use during the 2019 F1 season has appeared during today’s test at the Hungaroring.

Force India and Williams ran examples of the new designs as the test began on Tuesday morning.

The maximum width of the new wings has been increased to two metres, the full width of the car. This is to offset the loss in downforce from other changes to the wings, which have been greatly reduced in complexity, including around the endplates and upper surfaces.

Force India’s technical director Andrew Green explained the thinking behind the changes in an exclusive interview for RaceFans.

“It started with the ongoing analysis that F1 are doing for overtaking in 2021. They found some correlation between front wheel wake and the following car: The more outwash the leading car develops, the better the performance of the leading car, but the worse performance of the trailing car.

“With that information, and they were early on in their analysis, [they] concluded that part of the problem was the front wing, the outwash from the front wing. They did some preliminary analysis and found it had an effect on the following car.

“And there was a decision made by the FIA to introduced basically part of the 2021 regulations for 2019.”

The new wing is likely to only offer a modest improvement, Green believes. “I think it is probably too big a compromise. I think it needed more time.

“But saying that, is the theory’s correct, it should be a small step in the right direction.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Pictures: 2019 front wing tests

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2018 F1 season

Browse all 2018 F1 season articles

92 comments on “First pictures: New front wings for 2019 season appear in Hungaroring test”

  1. There will be nose changes during races, guaranteed.

    1. Everyone said that last time when the wings got wider and they’re weren’t anymore broken front wings… I don’t see an issue here with width, or looks! Good change.

    2. There will be tyre changes during races, guaranteed.

      1. There will be weather changes during the season, guaranteed.

        1. There will be engine changes during the season, guaranteed

          1. There will be costume changes during the off-broadway season, guaranteed

          2. @Martin @eljueta @darkstar @uneedafinn2win
            There will be steering wheel changes during the season, guaranteed.

          3. c-c-combo breaker

          4. There will be changes to all of these predictions of changes during the season, including this one. Not guaranteed, though…

  2. They look better. The cars are so big nowadays, that they actually don’t look disproportional, also the simplicity makes the overall car look much better.

    People were worried for nothing

    1. Yep, agreed. At least, our aesthetic senses are aligned here Joao. Others may disagree of course.

      I just hope the “small step in the right direction” doesn’t mean more complaining and result in another small step in a completely different direction, with a net result of nothing achieved. Sounds like it wont be solved until the magic year, 2021.

    2. People are always worried for nothing. Happens with every single small change in F1. And then everybody forgets about it. Except DRS, that’s still annoying.

      1. and the tyres

        1. @johnmilk what’s wrong with the tyres?

          1. they are mushy

          2. Mushy enough for one stop races though :)

          3. glad you brought that up @scottie If we already have one stop races at least they should make the tyres appropriate for racing, why they don’t is beyond me

          4. They take care of them due to thermal deg. I reckon give the carcass the grip, but make them wear limited (probably just a case of making the tread thinner, as they’ve already played with this season).
            Would be interesting to see how much more they might slide and give the impression of speed and effort. Whadya reckon @Joao ?

          5. @scottie I think the philosophy is flawed, they want to make tyres that create two stop strategies, but they failed and have a tyre that is too sensitive to temperatures and gets destroyed when following another car.

            I think they should get back to the drawing board and make only two compounds, a super grippy fast one and a slower harder durable tyre (they shouldn’t either have different tyres for different tracks, just those two). Abolish the mandatory compound rule and let them sort out what strategy they want to use.

            2, 1, 0 stops, that will then depend on the circuit and driver preference

        2. Those 2014 noses were terrible!

    3. I agree, they actually look better now

  3. To be honest after that article on aesthetics I was expecting worse but really the extra width is kind of compensated for by the lack of height. At least it no longer looks like a flight of stairs like the current ones do.

    If it improves the racing it really is a non issue.

  4. They look great. Looking forward to seeing these in action next season. The current front wings are overly complex and quite ugly.

  5. In that frontal shot of the Force India, you can see how they are using the inner ‘endplate’ of the metal support as a way of producing some outwash, with the part curved outward towards the outside of the wheel. Looks like a tiny loophole!

    1. This is total speculation – without a proper CFD or wind tunnel analysis we simply do not know how or where the vortices manifest themselves. the vast majority of the effect is from the underside of the wing anyway so you can’t see the activating surfaces in these pictures.

      1. I’m only pointing our a small part that looks very similar to the type of flaps and vanes you see on a 2018 car. I make no claim to know anything else beyond that.

  6. Paul Williams
    31st July 2018, 9:06

    They should also ask the the two cars to attempt to follow each other.

    1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
      31st July 2018, 13:31

      Much too sensible

    2. They should have done that before making the decision to change the wings. Put a couple of scale models in a wind tunnel and with 3D printing they could quickly produce different wings to test how they worked and which if any produced the desired effect.

      1. @velocityboy And why should we presume Brawn’s team is not literally doing that as we speak and have been for months now, with their two cars sat in a wind tunnel? Is that not how they have decided outwashing front wings create more wake than these inwashing front wings?

        1. @robbie we don’t know if they did or didn’t. However, in the article it’s stated that coming to the realization that out-wash was the problem came early in the analysis. My assumption, and it’s an assumption, is that had they run numerous tests in a wind tunnel checking different configurations, someone would have stated something to that effect.

          1. @velocityboy Not quite sure what you mean but suffice it to say I think in general Liberty are trying to improve the racing a bit now with a minimal investment ahead of much bigger changes that will come when the teams can start building the first gen of Liberty cars with a much broader scope for F1 overall.

  7. joe pineapples
    31st July 2018, 10:01

    Rightly or not, I was expecting to see something a lot simpler.

  8. I wonder how the FIA will police this?

    Do they plan on having a sensor measuring the direction of airflow or are they going to rely on a team reporting that they had difficulty following another teams car?

    Perhaps someone can shed some light on this. It’s not like they’ll only have a single homologised wing design (is it?). Teams change their designs on almost a race by race basis at the moment so I’m struggling to see how much will change.

    1. What? They have a new technical specification for the dimensions, they stick within those dimensions, simple.

      They’ve written the regs in a way that makes it impossible to create the same level of outwash that the current wings do. If a team manages to create a small amount then good on them. There is no policing to be done apart from the dimensions and restricted elements!

      1. I can’t imagine anything in F1 being simple lol

        Bound to be some interesting interpretations and a whole lot of teams making allegations of impropriety in 2019.

        1. I bet not. Baffled as to why seemingly knowledgable F1 fans are struggling to understand this regulation tbh.

          1. I guess it’s because I’ve seen a heap of regulation changes over the years that leave enough room for smart engineering to circumvent even though they seemed to be quite clear when written.

            That being said, I agree that the regulation writers seem to be getting better at it but invariably som one tests their limits. Think oil burning as a recent example.

          2. They will make up the time on other parts of the car no doubt but for example, the 2009-2016 cars never got close to recovering the aero from the <2008 era, and that was as intended. I think they are not so much crippling performance here as simply moving it to other parts of the car where hopefully it will not create so much dirty air.

          3. RB13, if Adrian Newey is right, the cars from 2009-2016 probably actually exceeded the performance of the cars from before 2008 – back in 2014, he claimed that the 2010 RB6 probably produced the most downforce of any car to have ever competed in F1 until that point in time.

    2. +1 to what RB13 said. While they do write rules with an intended outcome in mind, there’s no way to police it, so they have to come up with rules that they can enforce like the measurements of the front wings which eliminate the current ways that teams are using to produce outwash. The fun part is now that the rule has been written down, hundreds of the best engineers and aerodynamicist in the world are going over ever word trying to find a loophole or trick to exploit for any possible advantage.

  9. They look better than current gen. The larger width suits these wide cars better, and the simplified “gills” look nicer, more streamlined and minimalist. Although i was expecting a bigger change that simplifies them a lot more, but maybe this is a just the first proposal of the new wing.

    1. To be honest I thought there would be more of a radical change. They are not that dissimilar to the current version. Maybe these are just preliminary examples?

      It will be interesting to see how much difference this really makes.

    2. I prefer them to the current wings also.

      The current ones are so intricate, so obscenely expensive and so susceptible to turbulence that its the single biggest thing that I would have changed. Really glad the powers that be saw sense.

  10. @keithcollantine you know what we need don’t you? Slidy thingy

    1. + 2 although I’m sure Keith is already getting them prepared. Give him time.

  11. They look like grandstand seats, maybe that’s a suitable name for them.
    Grandstand wing?
    Amphitheatre wing?
    Pew wings?

    1. Michael Brown (@)
      31st July 2018, 23:00

      The look like a shaving razor to me. I call them the Gillette Mach Speed!

  12. Hakk the rack
    31st July 2018, 10:48

    This looks very good IMO!

  13. Endplates should end inside of the tyres. Looks better, less outwash, less aero.

    1. I thought the endplates now should wash to the inside. Looking at some of the pictures some still seem to send the air tot the outside.

  14. Apart from the end plates I’m sure I won’t even notice the difference. And if it improves racing, it will probably be the most sensible change of the last few years.

  15. Someone please point out the flaw in my logic here..

    F1 seeks to be more road relevant. Aerodynamics doesn’t play a large role in the manufacture of road cars.
    F1 seeks to reduce the aerodynamic effects which inhibit overtaking.
    F1 seeks to make the sport less expensive for new teams.

    Standardize the outer shell of the car to a design which improves overtaking and allows teams to focus money on more road relevant items, mechanical grip, chassis, engine and save money on expensive wind tunnels and analysis.

      1. No you don’t see a flaw in my logic? Great :)

    1. Teams like Mercedes and Red Bull will spend whatever amount they feel gives a good return on investment for marketing purposes and teams like Williams and Force India will spend however much they can get their hands on chasing them.

      If you take a spending opportunity away from one area they just spend money elsewhere. The more rigid the rules the more you ensure the wealthier teams keep their dominance as there’s less scope to be innovative so all the money gets spent on tiny refinements rather than a poor team having the chance to think up something revolutionary.

      Plus I don’t think most fans want a spec series, they enjoy the technical developments and unique features of each car.

      1. @philipgb I agree that people like to follow the technical battles, including myself but I think if you can improve overtaking I think it would be worth it.

        I don’t agree with your rational about rigid rules benefiting wealthier teams. Reductio ad absurdum, no rules; wealthier teams can explore more options with more money/ man power wealthier teams win on average (with innovative exceptions which can be immediately copied) .. Fully standardized car all teams would be equal.. By this rational you tend towards all teams being equal as you restrict the rules.

        It then boils down to a preference would you rather see new innovative aerodynamic designs and terrible racing or no aerodynamic innovation and great racing?

        I know what I’d pick.

        1. @twentyseven For 2021 they indeed are working on innovative aerodynamic designs AND great racing. F1 will not rid itself of the fascinating science of aerodynamic downforce for creating faster cars. However, that doesn’t have to mean they will keep adding more and more harmful downforce such that they will never be able to race closely. The cars will combine front and rear wings that I predict will be efficient at creating a healthy useable amount of downforce, but not too much, and they will create much less wake for the trailing car. There will also be floor and diffuser work involved. The tire will be able to handle dirty air again too. It doesn’t have to be aero or no aero in the debate. What Liberty is doing now with Brawn’s wind tunnel team is to study and employ ways to still create some downforce while harming close racing much less than we have had now with teams that have only had to look out for themselves, not for the greater F1 picture. Don’t be fooled by what they are doing now, and with for example extending drs. These are only stopgap measure while they still deal with BE gen cars. Let’s give Brawn his chance to make cars (the rules for) that I predict will be like nothing we have seen before in terms of shapes and sizes of wings for example, and floor and diffuser work.

          1. @robbie I like your optimism (genuinely), I suppose it’s a case on not throwing the baby out with the bath water. If there’s still an aero battle teams can have while ensuring a cleaner wake is produced for the car behind, I’m all for it!

          2. @twentyseven Thanks. I truly believe there are much better days ahead in this regard, as it is in all the teams’ best interest to improve the product and hence the audience and the sponsor level. I’m so enthusiastic because what Liberty is doing with Brawn’s R&D team is unprecedented in F1.

        2. You’re not alone. Lots of people watch spec series. More watch F1.

    2. It is the aero that makes Modern F1 what it is. If they want to be road relevant then they should mandate that teams only use family cars that have a production run of at least 10,000 units and have road tyres. F1 has never really been about road cars it has been about racing. The fact that some road car manufacturers can uses success in that racing as a good marketing tool is just business. The fact that some tech will make its way to road cars is just a bonus.

    3. F1 is innovation, advancement, take that away and you have Indy car.

      1. F1 being road relevant is not a bonus. It;s the reason for the V6 Hybrid engine which made the cars slower (initially) and quieter.. Anyone would have said when this change was made that this wasn’t what F1 was about.

        @johnrkh As per my reply above I agree with this statement. My point is just that when we are restricting the aerodynamic development by simplifying the front wings we are taking a half measure, the full measure being full body aerodynamic standardization.
        There’s still room for F1 to distinguish itself from Indy through all the other development areas.

        Personally I like to see the innovative aerodynamic designs but I don’t like the tendancy for F1 to turn into jet fighters on the ground in an orderly procession.

        Also as you control this with half measures such as DRS and this new front wing the sport becomes more contrived and less pure IMO.

        Personally I’m prepared to sacrifice the aerodynamic innovation battle in favor of pure racing more akin to karting, while still enjoying the engine, chassis, mechanical grip battles throughout the F1 season.

        1. The V6 engine in an F1 car is about as road relevant as a jet engine! They can’t be started unless they are fully warmed up by the umbilical systems and are tuned to perfection for all out race performance. They are rev limited to 15,000 RPM! They are designed to last just 2000 or so miles, I am sure that would not be acceptable in a road car. They are made from exotic alloys due to the operating temps of up to 1000 degrees centigrade compared to the 200 degrees of a normal road car.

          They were reduced to V6 engines in order to reduce the power due to the introduction of the electric units not to make them road relevant.

          As to those electric units. They are not road relevant either. No normal road car is going to use the Turbo system that F1 cars use and in any case the F1 turbos and energy recovery systems are designed for the performance envelope of a race car not a road car. Plus Hybrids are yesterdays news in Road cars anyway as they are simply a bridge between ICE and Full electric which to be honest is not really needed anymore in developed countries.

          If you want road relevance for future cars then Formula E is the closest.

          1. “They were reduced to V6 engines in order to reduce the power due to the introduction of the electric units not to make them road relevant.”

            Why were the hybrid engines introduced then? Making F1 road relevant seems like the only logical explanation. Otherwise why not go with big V12 guzzlers that make exciting noise and break lap records?

            There have been many conversations on this site about the drive to make F1 road relevant. It may be a tenuous link but presumably it sells cars.

            My original point was that standardizing the aero in F1 wouldn’t effect this link because road cars can’t go at speeds to utilize aerodynamics the way that F1 cars do but it could improve overtaking and reduce costs for smaller teams.

          2. The Hybrids were introduced to make the engines more efficient and give F1 some form of green credentials in order to help the Brands claim green credentials. And as to road cars and aero. It is quite important. The Leaf for instance has significant aero design, from the shape of the light designed to deflect air flow past the mirrors to reduce noise to the working (unlike the ones for show on most ICE cars) diffuser to reduce drag. The aero on an F1 car would stick it to a roof at just 70MPH. However you do not need down force on a road car. so you are correct, it is not road relevant. But it is as road relevant as an engine that works at 1000 degrees and costs £5 million!

          3. digitalrurouni
            31st July 2018, 15:49

            Actually it seems to me that the MGU-H is quite road relevant in the days of turbocharged cars. Didn’t Ferrari just apply for an electric turbo charger patent recently for their road car? Also I think Mercedes and Audi have electric turbo tech coming soon. Pretty road relevant if you ask me.

          4. Firstly the e-Turbos are not quite the same as the F1 MGU-H. Secondly Ferrari and High end Audis are hardly standard road cars. Thirdly the Future is Electric so no turbos needed there. Plus Turbos are not great for emissions. The small engine petrol turbos that are common now are pretty bad for emissions. With regard to the larger engine turbos. I am not sure of the need as they can easily get to 70mph pretty damned quick without them and you can’t go much faster than that on most roads.

          5. digitalrurouni, Ferrari have indeed applied for a patent where, although it is not exactly the same as the current power units in F1, does indeed share technological components – Audi and Mercedes, on a more modest scale, are also introducing e-turbos that do utilise some of the same technology (and it does rather feel like lee1 is trying to shift the goalposts a bit by going from claiming no road relevance to then redefining what he considers to be “road relevant” to exclude cases that don’t fit his narrative).

            As for the engines themselves, I’m not sure where lee1 is getting the “exotic alloys” from – the regulations specify that the alloys used to make most of the components for the engines are mainly limited to fairly conventional steel, aluminium or magnesium alloys (most of the more exotic alloys, such as the beryllium alloys that were used in the past, were banned about 20 years ago).

            The claims about the operating temperatures are rather weird – especially when he is so vague about what exactly is supposed to be operating at 200ºC or 1000ºC – and also wrong given that there are components in a standard road car which have operating temperatures far above just 200ºC. It feels like there is a lot in his posts that are half explained and feel like they are only half understood by the poster in question.

          6. @Anon.

            I think you are trying to insult while not understanding the technology yourself.

            As far as I am aware the e-turbos on road cars do not generate electricity they simply are electrically spun to reduce turbo lag. Plus The MGU-H is being removed from the regulations so will no longer be on F1 cars anyway. They are also not putting these systems on F1 cars in order to develop them for road cars, they are on there for performance and efficiency reasons.

            As for operating temps. F1 Engines do operate at massively higher temps than a road car engine. They need to in order to produce the insane power that comes out of them. However they can also do this because they only have to last a couple of thousand miles and are made to super tight tolerances that would be impractical in a road car engine. They also use special alloys (even if it is still an aluminium alloy) because they do not have to worry too much about a profit margin when the engine costs £5 million! They use all sorts of metals in various parts of the Engine. The block has to be made from an aluminium based alloy, although these are not the same aluminium alloys used in road car engines. They use Iron based alloys for crankshafts, although not the same ones that are used in road cars. They can use iron, nickel, cobalt or titanium alloys for the valves, again different from road cars. These alloys need to withstand the temperatures and stresses of a race while also providing structural integrity to the car (as the engine is a fully stressed structural member of the car which is why they did not go with the proposed 4 cylinder engines due to them not being large enough to form part of the structure). How many road cars have engines that are part of the cars structure?

            I am not redefining what it means to be “Road relevant” that definition is normally assumed to be parts that are on the race car for the purpose of developing it for mass produced vehicles. F1 does not have this. Some parts do end up on road cars, however that is normally as a bonus rather than by design and even then they rarely appear on mass produced road cars and instead appear on exotic hyper cars. Plus even the tech on the hyper cars is pretty pointless as they can only normally go the same speed as my family car anyway so the high tech components are not really used properly unless they are taken on the track. If they are taken to the track to be made full use of then that is not exactly road relevant technology…

            As I said before, the ICE is pretty much a dying technology for road cars. Formula-e is far more road relevant than F1 as that is the technology that we will see in our cars going forward and the Jaguar i-pace series even more so. So even the small amount of road relevance in F1 is pretty much muted by that.

            I love F1, I love the engineering but I am not kidding myself that any of it is for the benefit of my family hatchback. But then that is why I love it so much. The engineering is insane and is for the sole purpose of going fast around a racetrack. There are also those rare occasions that something that was designed to make that car go really fast then appears on a standard road car somewhere.

    4. Let me be one of the many here to point out the flaw in your logic:

      “F1 seeks to be more road relevant. Aerodynamics doesn’t play a large role in the manufacture of road cars.”

      As some one who works as an aerodynamics engineer for a major road car manufacturer, your statement could not be further from the truth. I work in a large department of skilled engineers who work tirelessly to improve the handling, fuel economy, thermal performance and wind noise attributes of road cars all of which essentially form the field of aerodynamics. To have some one like yourself talk down the role these people play in vehicle manufacture is down right insulting.

      1. @f1abw Fair and interesting comment. Perhaps the mixup here is that the aero in F1 is presumed to be all about downforce, which it is not but is certainly associated as such, whereas is it safe to say that in what you do it is less about downforce and more about other things as you have described?

        1. @robbie For most road cars we are trying to eliminate lift, which is inherently difficult as the shape of normal road vehicle is inclined to generate lift.

          Downforce, or negative lift, is generated once the lift coefficient falls below zero. Our job is to get this as low as possible whilst minimising the drag effect. This usually means without the wings or flicks you see on F1 cars as these create large amounts of drag, which for mpg or CO2 is not a good thing.

          We also work on lift balance a lot, the ratio between the lift coefficient at the front and rear axle. At speed this could cause under or over steer when cornering or even changing lanes on a motorway. It can also make the steering feel light at high speed.

          Also, the lines are becoming increasingly blurred between road and track cars; Lambo Aventador SVJ, Porsche 911 GT2 RS and the like. I can’t say for sure as I don’t work for these companies, but I’d reckon that these cars are generating downforce either at the front, rear, or both. These cars will have been developed with input and guidance from people like myself.

          So to answer your question, and thank you for asking, no we don’t try and get downforce on most road cars, but we do manage the overall lift to make a stable and predictable handling car.

          1. @f1abw Great stuff, thanks.

          2. And with EVs you are even more important as the efficiency of the cars shape is even more in the spotlight. Keep doing the good work. My battery thanks you for it ;-)

    5. Aerodynamics is a huge factor in todays cars and every generation of vehicles it becomes a more and more important area of design as packaging becomes less of a problem. As is turbo technology and the crazy fuel injection used in todays F1 engines. As is inboard suspensiond dampening. F1 has a huge road car relevance. If anything they should “free” aero regulations to allow for use of ground effect and other extreme solutions.

      1. Although I agree with freeing up the regs a bit more. How on earth is ground effect relevant to a VW golf?

        1. The Golf R has intricate airflow shaping around the whole body, plus underfloor aerodynamics in the shape of a diffuser which reduces drag and specifically creates downforce. This helps with high speed stability. The airflow around the car body is also specifically designed to help close off the underfloor area between the sills and the floor, in much the same way F1 cars are currently using airflow (and in past time exhaust downwash) to seal the diffuser and increase the efficiency of the underfloor.

          So, yeah, actually, ground effect is relevant to a VW Golf.

          1. I am sorry but the diffuser on a golf is going to be next to useless. Diffusers need clean airflow on the underside of the car. The underside of a golf is not going to produce much clean airflow due to the mess of components under there. An EV can do it better due to the much smoother floor area but many ICE cars have messy exhausts in the way but these are used more for drag reduction than down force. Most of the obvious aero bits on performance golfs are just their for show like pretty much all chav cars.

            But yes it does have some other aero designed to reduce drag and lift.

            However my point was more to do with road car driving characteristics. There is no need for down force as there is no need to go around tight corners at high speeds (as that would be classed and dangerous driving). High speed roads have gentle corners. Low speed roads have tighter corners. There is a need to reduce lift but not to produce down force. Plus down force can be a bad thing for a road car. It can produce unpredictable behaviour as the down drops off as the speed reduces and the grip and braking is affected as this happens. F1 drivers are trained to cope with this but still get it wrong sometimes. It could be potentially very dangerous on a road car as an untrained driver could enter a corner with lots of grip and then suddenly lose it as they slow through the corner. Or they could break on entry and find that the cars brakes become less effective as they slow down (As the car is pressed in to the ground less). This is bad.

  16. I might look like an alien but those new front wings looks gorgeous.

  17. I’m not fond of them as I actually really love the technical aspect & complexities of what we have now.

    Seeing them makes these small changes to the wings, Adding a new little flap or tweaking a slot gap etc… & then diving into the effect it has on the car has always been fascinating to me, It’s a part of the sport I really love & appreciate & I always thought the wings as they are looked super cool.

    Sure these wings are simpler & may allow them to follow a bit closer but it does also feel a bit like F1 is been dumbed down, They look like they could have come off a junior category car and I don’t think you should have that impression of anything on an F1 car as F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of the sport, Technical & complex that is pushing performance to the limits.

    That is & always has been a huge part of F1’s allure to me, A big part of what put it above everything else. If there going to dumb it down so that the cars look like junior cars then whats the point of watching f1 instead of those? f1 is becoming gp1 & i don’t like it.

  18. I don’t see why they’ve allowed so many elements, and why make it that wide if one of the aims is to reduce outwash?

    Allow for an unbroken main plane and a max of 2 elements above that, and make the wing width the distance between the inside edges of the tyres.

    1. They don’t want them to lose that much performance. Those changes would probably equate to 3 seconds or so.

      1. You say that. However when they introduced a regulation in the early 2000s to raise the front wing by 50mm the down force loss was about 20%. By the end of the season some of the teams had managed to actually increase the down force past the previous years design! However they were able to test things back then, unlike the crazy rules around testing we have now.

  19. Neil (@neilosjames)
    31st July 2018, 13:38

    Quite like those. It’s immediately obvious that there’s a difference, and the width does stand out a little, but not in a bad way.

  20. They’re too wide! Why don’t you guys make them like <2008 era where they were almost the same size, width as the rear wings. That was so much better looking than this ugly ''grandstand'' wings…

  21. digitalrurouni
    31st July 2018, 15:50

    I like the wings but I still think there are too many elements on the wings. They look a little bit like mustaches. They need to simplify it down further. And I am curious to see if it helps cars chase each other around the track at a closer distance to actually make a pass!

  22. I love big, dumb wings and I don’t know why.

  23. God I’m so much in love with these, it’s almost disturbing

  24. The 2018’s front wing is a master piece with every itsy-bitsy details. This new one is a step back, kind of a downgrade to F2 level. Also too wide, the scale somehow off, compared to the whole body.

Comments are closed.