2016 F1 Constructor tech info/development thread. (READ 1ST POST)Formula 1 

TenEightyOne
I don't know that it's settled... surely he's saying exactly what every other team is thinking; after Melbourne they'll know if they can continue with their 4-engine plans and keep a "banker"?
Click to expand...

Yes a banker is one thing, but to make it a "performance special" as he put it, isn't a banker. It's basically gloating that they have power in the back pocket.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Yes a banker is one thing, but to make it a "performance special" as he put it, isn't a banker. It's basically gloating that they have power in the back pocket.
Click to expand...

I think this is the case with all the engine manufacturers. None of them are running their engines at their full potential so as to have that reliability margin. I think if Ferrari, Renault and Honda were to find themselves in the same position towards the end of the season they'd consider it too.

How much power they have to spare, now that's another matter.
 
[Nor]MclarenF1
I think this is the case with all the engine manufacturers. None of them are running their engines at their full potential so as to have that reliability margin. I think if Ferrari, Renault and Honda were to find themselves in the same position towards the end of the season they'd consider it too.

How much power they have to spare, now that's another matter.
Click to expand...

Why would they? No one else has shown Mercedes reliability. All the others have had engine issues, either through the works team or customers. No one has run the combined mileage either, and this engine is essentially a later evolution of what was already put into production at the end of last year.

Point is all of them will be transitioning to a 2017 model like last year and the year prior later this year. Thus it would be very risky to run a performance special unless you're Mercedes (potentially Ferrari). What they'll probably do is give the option of running a special version of the 2016 engine or running the new 2017 to their drivers. And with no tokens and basically an open book next season for engines getting started at the end of the year for next year seems probably the best bet.

We'll see soon enough, people don't want to see it as Mercedes already mapping their domination, but sorry that's just how it is. If I'm wrong good for all of us, that means a fight, but I doubt it.
 
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/03/07/compare-every-f1-car-of-2016-from-every-angle/

A really cool feature that allows you to compare the new F1 cars to one another so you can see the difference between each in a overlapping comparison. Pretty fun feature.

image1.img.1536.medium.jpg

Slotted bargeboards
Mercedes' F1 W07 Hybrid was not only incredibly reliable at the first test, the team were also the first team to introduce radical new design solutions when compared to the car seen at launch. Among them were these innovative bargeboards, with numerous vertical slots and finger-shaped vortex generators (red arrows) at the base of the slots. The whole design highlights the in-depth efforts being made to manage the airflow feeding under the floor to the car’s rear diffuser.
Click to expand...
http://www.formula1.com/content/fom...ted-bargeboards--suspension-aero--s-duc.html#


http://www.formula1.com/content/fom...---the-2017-bodywork-proposals-explained.html

image1.img.1536.medium.jpg
 
Last edited:
GTPorsche
A lower, wider rear wing along with wider rear tires. :D
Click to expand...

There is an image of the new Manor from behind that just looks so nice, that when I see the mock up for next year and think about that same image, I can't but help to think how cool. I mean a modern take on what we saw during the 70s and 80s before the tires got narrow in the 90s to today.

edit : here it is.

XPB_794506_HiRes.jpg


^ That with angle with the new regs will be so nice to look at.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/03/07/compare-every-f1-car-of-2016-from-every-angle/

A really cool feature that allows you to compare the new F1 cars to one another so you can see the difference between each in a overlapping comparison. Pretty fun feature.

image1.img.1536.medium.jpg


http://www.formula1.com/content/fom...ted-bargeboards--suspension-aero--s-duc.html#


http://www.formula1.com/content/fom...---the-2017-bodywork-proposals-explained.html

image1.img.1536.medium.jpg
Click to expand...
I just hope the 2017 regs give more mechanical grip than aero grip.
Surely a modern version of what we saw in F1 design of the mid to late 70's prior to the Lotus 78 would promote awesome racing. I just want to see flat out racing again instead of tyre & fuel economy runs.
 
GTPorsche
I'd much prefer to watch "balls to the wall" racing instead of the fuel and tire management that they do now for 90 minutes.
Click to expand...
Fuel and tyre management has always been a part of the sport.

Remember, teams used to deliberately under-fuel their cars to save weight and improve lap times at the start of the race, with the trade-off being that drivers had to conserve fuel at the end of the race. In the days of in-race refuelling, teams used to base their strategies around fuel consumption and lap time. It's absolutely nothing new to the sport.

As for tyre management, all tyres naturally lose grip. Even the ultra-sturdy tyres Michelin build for taxi companies, and they're designed to last for as long as possible. The current designed-to-degrade tyres were created as a response to the 2010 Italian Grand Prix, when Sebastian Vettel did fifty-two laps on a single set of soft tyres, and would have been able to do fifty-three if he wasn't required to use the hards. The Pirelli tyres do work, and can produce excellent lap times - they just punish drivers who make mistakes. When people say that they want an end to the designed-to-degrade tyres, what they really mean is "I want my favourite driver to be able to push hard without fear of being punished if they make a mistake", which is ironic given that they criticise circuit design for including tarmac run-off areas.

The reality is that when it comes to the regulations, the fans are no better than the likes of the Strategy Working Group. This whole "the drivers should be able to push as hard as they want for as long as they want" attitude will be about as effective at fixing the sport as elimination qualifying. The real problem is the teams, and the extraordinary amount of power they wield over the regulations. Why do you think that the sport keeps getting gimmicks? It's because the teams will publicly support reform in the regulations, but privately, they're terrified that any actual reform will adversely affect their performance and so they scuttle any regulations that might bring about meaningful change. And they've been playing the "FIA/FOM are evil" card for decades. It's a complete turd that most fans devour like clotted cream.

Put it like this: Manchester and Arsenal are playing at Old Trafford and there is a foul in front of the goal. Are the Manchester and Arsenal managers consulted on whether or not there is a penalty? Do they get a say on where the penalty is taken from? Are they given any ability to influence whether the offending player is given a red card? The answer to all three is no - so why are Formula One teams allowed to control the regulations?

Why do you think Force India - and more likely Mercedes - are opposed to an independent engine supply? It's not because it might create a two-tier system; Mercedes are already doing that by limiting the software of customer engines to prevent them from beating the works team. They're opposed to it because suddenly, a small team might be able to buy an engine for a quarter of the price that a customer team would pay, and be competitive - and as more teams pick up cheaper, competirive engines, the political power of the works teams will be diluted.
 
GTPorsche
I'd much prefer to watch "balls to the wall" racing instead of the fuel and tire management that they do now for 90 minutes.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if most of the current F1 grid agrees.
I certainly haven't heard one single driver, past or present, say they prefer the current system.
They're racers at heart & want to go flat out from go to whoa. Anyone that doesn't should take up endurance racing.
 
As I said in the other thread it isn't really a canopy in the sense they gave or people may have assumed due to their continual talks about the x car and how that should be the future of f1. Instead they just give a more beautified version of the Halo.
 
Martin Brundle mentioned that Mercedes went through sixty sets of medium tyres and ran the equivalent of twenty Grands Prix in winter testing, so I wonder if there shouldn't be a mileage cap or a maximum number of tyres permitted during pre-season testing.
 
prisonermonkeys
Martin Brundle mentioned that Mercedes went through sixty sets of medium tyres and ran the equivalent of twenty Grands Prix in winter testing, so I wonder if there shouldn't be a mileage cap or a maximum number of tyres permitted during pre-season testing.
Click to expand...

No their shouldn't, they played the smarter game, and everyone else had the chance to do the same. Especially the group that drew the short end after having a great start to the race.
 

Latest Posts

Back