2017 F1 Constructor technical info/developmentFormula 1 

I was under the impression that the FIA completely outlawed the shark fins to stop teams trying to manipulate the air flow over the rear wing with DRS active.
I was thinking that too, this is AMuS after all. Either way I think the aero feature could look pretty nice on the 2017 cars.
 
I was under the impression that the FIA completely outlawed the shark fins to stop teams trying to manipulate the air flow over the rear wing with DRS active.

No, they only outlawed them joining with the rear wing like in that picture. They can still have them, but there is a maximum size/minimum distance from the rear wing.

Red Bull had one in 2011 testing, then ditched it. I assume this is about what they'll be allowed.

C0JbaTWXcAAoeED.jpg:large
 
Thanks, Samus. I wonder if the regulations will allow for the return of the more anvil shaped fins we saw in 2008 and '09.
 
I made a quick sketch of what I thought the 2017 cars would look like. I suck at drawing wheels so sorry they're not there. If the shark fins look like this I'd be pretty happy. The shorter ones never really looked as nice as the big ones we saw from 2008-2010.

NRC17.JPG
 
I made a quick sketch of what I thought the 2017 cars would look like. I suck at drawing wheels so sorry they're not there. If the shark fins look like this I'd be pretty happy. The shorter ones never really looked as nice as the big ones we saw from 2008-2010.

View attachment 615882

You just need to add the massive barge board vanes, that make the car look like it's from the 90s.
 
If you ignore the proportions of the rear wing seeming a bit off, and the livery that looks like someone ingested then vomited logos onto the car, then it looks pretty much just like the current cars but with big wheels.
 
This makes me think, why change the rules this much between 2008-2009 when you return to the wide wings again for 2017?
 
This makes me think, why change the rules this much between 2008-2009 when you return to the wide wings again for 2017?
Because when the 2009 changes were introduced, the 2017 regulations had not been considered yet. It's not like there was some grand plan to return to wide wings.

It's also worth remembering that 2008 was the middle of the recession, and the FIA were concerned about the amount of money teams were spending on development. Once upon a time, $50 million would see you through the season; by 2010, you needed $50 million just to make the grid. Big teams were spending so much money that smaller teams were in danger of dying.

Furthermore, the 2014 generation of engines were incredibly experience. If the focus was on aero development, it was very possible that manufacturers would waste millions on an uncompetitive engine and be unaware of it because their aero development made up the difference.
 
You word that in a way that makes it seem like the FIA give a damn about small teams. Fiddling with regulations to restrict aero development post 2008, while still facilitating lopsided prize allocation, and straight up opposing customer cars or customer anything outside of gearboxes, gave absolutely no help to the new teams they allowed onto the grid and pretended to want to save. I still question the selection process, because anyone who would turn away household names like Prodrive and Lola for whatever the mess that Campos turned out to be, is either being bankrolled or is insane.

It would be more accurate to say the FIA make their decisions somewhere between being based on what the fans want at the time (better on track action post 2008 or right now, faster cars that the drivers can actually drive on the limit, and anyone but Mercedes winning) and pulling ideas out of a hat. Spending is no lower than it has ever been, and the fundamental redesign of the engine formula was a huge failure in any respect other than increased efficiency. There was no gradual change over time, it was one big leap and it's basically killed the sport for the last 3 years and perhaps more to come.
 
while still facilitating lopsided prize allocation
The FIA have no power over that. Prize money is paid out by FOM.

straight up opposing customer cars or customer anything outside of gearboxes
Williams scuttled customer cars. They didn't like the idea of someone showing up, buying a customer car, and having instant success while teams like Williams struggled for meaningful progress.
 
You word that in a way that makes it seem like the FIA give a damn about small teams....It would be more accurate to say the FIA make their decisions somewhere between being based on what the fans want at the time (better on track action post 2008 or right now, faster cars that the drivers can actually drive on the limit, and anyone but Mercedes winning) and pulling ideas out of a hat.

That's the TWG you're thinking of, that's where the technical changes come from. The FIA simply ratify those changes. On the TWG the big teams have the most say, little surprise therefore that the big teams might get the biggest advantage and/or block ideas that smaller teams could benefit from.
 
So there is some controversy brewing from last season that has carried over to the build up of winter testing. Supposedly RBR (no surprise) may have a suspension system, that is creating active aero in the car. From the reading it reminds me of the banned Lotus system from 2012.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012...eams-reactive-suspension-system-is-not-legal/

Here is the actual article on the supposed issues, that (no surprise again) were brought up by Ferrari to the FIA.
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analysis-what-s-behind-f1-s-suspension-controversy-863068/

Whiting seems to agree it wasn't legal.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/127615/ferrari-letter-prompts-f1-suspension-row
 
Last edited:
Always beats me how the teams know so much about each other despite pretty much being in their factories and doing little else at this point.

Maybe someone at Red Bull is getting fired.
 
Always beats me how the teams know so much about each other despite pretty much being in their factories and doing little else at this point.

Maybe someone at Red Bull is getting fired.

They watch footage over and over, they know how the cars should act and shouldn't. I highly doubt someone is passing along info. I mean these guys are smart engineers, so it doesn't surprise me. It's the same way they figured out EBD and F-Duct and Flexible aero on the RBR
 
Yep. It's pretty obvious when the car known for its extreme rake suddenly sits down along the straights.
 
Always beats me how the teams know so much about each other despite pretty much being in their factories and doing little else at this point.

Maybe someone at Red Bull is getting fired.
From the stuff I've read, other teams grew wise to Redbull by dissecting radio communications between RIC and his engineer at Abu Dahbi....they were talking about how suspension settings would effect aero stability...which caused the hamster wheels to start spinning, and the other teams pieced together what was going on.

The impression I get from this is that Ferrari were kind of caught napping, and got wind of something the other successful teams (Merc and RB) were doing. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Ferrari either hasn't pursued this idea, or are miles behind in its development.
 
The impression I get from this is that Ferrari were kind of caught napping, and got wind of something the other successful teams (Merc and RB) were doing.
So, in other words, Ferrari were being Ferrari. It's not the first time that they have missed a trick, and nor is it the first time they've thrown the rule book at someone.
 
Ferrari are back in full-on Italian mode, they have been ever since the dream team left. Someone on Reddit summed it up far better than I could, minus the nonsense about Kimi being purposely sabotaged.

Let me tell you a story: Before 1996, Ferrari was in complete shambles. They hadn't won a WDC since 1979, their pit stops and strategies were the laughing stock of the paddock, their cars were unreliable, (Italian) team principals got hired and fired at whim, top level drivers arrived at the team with high hopes but soon got frustrated and either quit or were booted out. For example: Prost was fired after 1991 for criticizing the car (but was still paid his salary for 1992). Wins by year after 1979:

1980 (0)
1981 (2)
1982 (3)
1984 (4)
1985 (2)
1986 (0)
1987 (2)
1988 (1)
1989 (3)
1990 (6)
1991 (0)
1992 (0)
1993 (0)
1994 (1)
1995 (1)

In 1993 they hired a French team principal called Jean Todt. Todt then proceeded to sign a German driver called Michael Schumacher (the reigning two-time WDC) for 1996. Schumacher brought with him British technical director Ross Brawn, South African car designer Rory Byrne and many others. This "Dream Team" improved the team massively and their input led to Ferrari finally taking their first WDC in 21 years in 2000 - they went on to win the WDC five times in a row between 2000-2004 and the WCC six times in a row between 1999-2004. The strategies and pit stops were the class of the field and won them many races they shouldn't really have won, their cars were bulletproof and they were dominating the sport. Wins by year after 1995:

1996 (3)
1997 (3)
1998 (6)
1999 (6)
2000 (10)
2001 (9)
2002 (15)
2003 (8)
2004 (15)
2005 (1)
2006 (9)

But the Chairman of Ferrari, Luca di Montezemolo (Italian) wasn't happy. He felt that Schumacher and Todt had too much power inside the team. So he made his masterstroke: he pushed out Schumacher at the end of 2006, even though he had finished 2nd in the championship, and signed Kimi Räikkönen on a +30M/year contract to replace him. This led to Todt, Brawn, Byrne and many other loyal Schumacher supporters to leave the team soon after, breaking up the "Dream Team" - Montezemolo replaced them all with Italians because tutti frutti mamma mia. Räikkönen won the 2007 championship during his first year with Ferrari and was in the title battle the following year when Ferrari started to mess with him (like changing his suspension to a different one without telling him).

The reason? Santander was coming onboard to sponsor Ferrari and their condition was that Fernando Alonso would be one of the drivers - and Ferrari couldn't afford to lose Felipe Massa because of the importance of the Brazilian market. So, they made sure that Räikkönen didn't win a second WDC and then fired him after 2009 - but still had to pay his salary for 2010 (like with Prost). With Alonso, Ferrari came tantalizingly close to the WDC twice but didn't quite get the job done. And now that the team was fully Italian again, the politics and infighting were happening again - Montezemolo got fired, team principals started getting hired and fired like crazy, Alonso left the team on bad terms, Vettel is starting to get frustrated and will probably quit/get fired in the near future, their strategies are ****, their car is unreliable, nobody knows what's going on inside the team, they ****ed up singing Adrian Newey (a car designer with 10 championships to his name), they keep firing their non-Italian technical staff seemingly at random... Inertia kept it together for two years after Schumacher and his buddies left, but after the massive rule changes of 2009, their true decline started. Wins by year after 2006:

2007 (9)
2008 (8)
2009 (1) - a year of massive rule changes
2010 (5)
2011 (1)
2012 (3)
2013 (2)
2014 (0)
2015 (3)
2016 (0)

They need someone like Todt to keep everything together within the team and a driver of Schumacher's stature to back him up when the Italian higher ups get trigger happy and try to fire him. If Vettel had been able to bring Horner and Newey with him from Red Bull, the situation would be hell of a lot different to what it is right now. /rambling
 
Interestingly the entry rights are held in Manor GP Racing, it's not impossible for somebody to take the shot even if the "operating team" is wound up.

Indeed, but time is very short on that happening unfortunately, and given this, it seems they're not expecting anything.

 
Ferrari are back in full-on Italian mode, they have been ever since the dream team left.
According to Autosport, Ferrari's solution to this dilemma is to use less white in their livery. Their reasoning for this is apparently superstition - they used more white than usual in 1993, and had a winless season. They used more white again in 2016, and had another winless season.
 
According to Autosport, Ferrari's solution to this dilemma is to use less white in their livery. Their reasoning for this is apparently superstition - they used more white than usual in 1993, and had a winless season. They used more white again in 2016, and had another winless season.

I saw this too...and thought well gee if you knew how to actually call a strategy you'd have potentially won a race or two when Mercedes weren't in the running.
 
Interestingly the entry rights are held in Manor GP Racing, it's not impossible for somebody to take the shot even if the "operating team" is wound up.

I was thinking that this would be a perfect opportunity for a major team to create a B team similar to Torro Rosso seeing as much more is already in place than you would get starting a fresh including a ready to go workforce and a place on the grid. I know it's not realistic but I would have loved Mercedes to take it over.
 
I was thinking that this would be a perfect opportunity for a major team to create a B team similar to Torro Rosso seeing as much more is already in place than you would get starting a fresh including a ready to go workforce and a place on the grid. I know it's not realistic but I would have loved Mercedes to take it over.

It could potentially happen, Manor GP Racing still exists, is technically solvent (they have few practical assets or liabilities) and has an approved entry for 2017.
 
Back