|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
22 Feb 2017, 17:27 (Ref:3714059) | #151 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,147
|
Ugh, these fins need to go.
They banned the 1997-1998 X-Wings based on looks didn't they? |
||
|
22 Feb 2017, 17:46 (Ref:3714064) | #152 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,912
|
||
|
22 Feb 2017, 18:32 (Ref:3714071) | #153 | |||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
|
Not being argumentative here, but just discussing.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Richard |
|||||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
22 Feb 2017, 19:06 (Ref:3714076) | #154 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,912
|
Don't worry, I knew you wouldn't be. I won't quote everything on the way back as we'll be here forever.
I do think the low nose and the sudden transition are linked. Teams want a high chassis, for multple reasons. The rules dictate a low nose. So the only possible solution to this is a sudden drop. Whilst last years Force India is the best example of what can be done, it still has a flat plane and then a sudden drop. Remember that aero isn't the only reason we have this. The suspension is now much more complex and is housed in there. The days when teams had lower chassis, the teams often had raised lumps to fit the chassis arms it. You further extend the flat plane since the entire nose of the chassis was made longer some time ago for driver safety. So given that engineers all want high chassis, the only possible solution to fit with the nose regulations is what we're seeing. There is no other effective way of doing it. I don't believe this would actually introduce more rules. Are you suggesting there is no maximum or minimum chassis height? And no maximum or minimum nose height? I believe both of these will be defined, and their numbers just need moved to match them up closer. They actually already did this to a lesser extent to get rid of the step. That appeared due to a mismatch in max/min heights of the chassis and nose, and then allowed the vanity panels to finish the job. These aren't new rules, just tweaks of current ones. The current regulations have ended up with everybody having the same result anyway - long flat panel, suddenly downward change, and a low flat wide nose with a nub on the end. If everybody has the same solution, then adjusting the rules so the solution is aesthetically pleasing is not going to hurt creativity since nobody was being creative in the first place. They have all converged on the same result within the regulations anyway. The safety risk is a relatively valid one, but I'm not asking for ultra high noses. I think a happy medium exists. Like you say, the noses were lowered for safety - but it isn't like we were having regular cockpit intrusions of the nose was it? And doesn't mandating lower noses actually make it more restrictive? Isn't my proposal of raising the maximum height of the nose actually opening the available window to work in, and therefore less restrictive? I don't really understand your point about the nose trip regulations and safety. Some teams abused it, so ok it was adjusted to make sure it was an effective crash structure. But that doesn't say anything about aesthetics. The regulations actually have minimum and maximum widths of the nubs. So why don't they just make those the same as the entire nose width, and suddenly it just looks like a nose? The only reason the teams have almost identical nubs on the front of every car is because the regulations dictate it. Adjusting the regulations doesn't limit creativity, just forces them all to move from solution A to solution B. Solution B is better looking, so what's the harm? The changes I propose aren't really anything new apart from the fin removal. The nose height and widths, and the chassis height are already set within certain parameters. That's why every single car has a sudden dropped nose and a nub on the end. All I'm saying is those parameters should be adjusted so that they look better. They're already very specifically defined - moving the definitions won't make it more or less restrictive. The exception to that is of course the fin, as I suggested a way of getting of it. I suggested that because other people hate the fin, but I don't mind it. The Force India one is quite ugly, but the Sauber one looks fine to me. I don't believe series should ban things based on the aesthetics of a single solution. But I do believe that the current regulations have forced every team to converge on a similar aesthetic, which is absolutely hideous*. If the rules are forcing a certain look, and/or limiting engineering solutions that only a certain look can be a proper solution, then I believe the rules should at least force a good look, rather than an ugly look. * I specifically mean the front end of the cars. The new rear end, rear wing and rear tyres is pretty bad ass. The front is just complete garbage. Thank you for the good discussion Richard. |
|
|
22 Feb 2017, 19:37 (Ref:3714083) | #155 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
|
|||
|
22 Feb 2017, 20:02 (Ref:3714086) | #156 | ||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
|
Quote:
Quote:
The same goes for your comments on the suspension side. I don't think regulation drive that, but rather teams wanting unobstructed airflow. So... high front suspension mounts. Quote:
I was taking your comment about lowering the chassis as really being to lower the front of the chassis (where the nose mounts) which I believe would be a new regulation. That would trigger a massive redesign on the aero side of things. Quote:
Quote:
Richard |
||||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
22 Feb 2017, 20:46 (Ref:3714094) | #157 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,912
|
Quote:
There is a maximum height of 625mm of the chassis at the front of the cockpit. This maximum height continues along the top of the chassis (seems to also be technically called the nose, even though that isn't what we'd refer to it as in general talk) until the point where the bulkhead is. Basically every car utilises this dimension to its maximum, as you rightly point out, to utilise under car aerodynamics as much as they can. Lowering that maximum height before the bulkhead does not introduce a new rule, it simply changes the dimension they have to work with. There is an argument to say that is more restrictive, but my response to that is to point out they all have identical solutions, so moving this down for aesthetics does not restrict anybody. Just to add some more stirring to the pot, it may also mean less effective aero. That would lower aerodynamic grip and help cars follow each other. So potentially not only would this solution look better, it might help the racing. However I believe the nose height is regulated: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/07/1...ren-2015-nose/ The nose will be lowered further and must sit 135mm to 220mm above the floor So they have an area of 9cm to play with, and the highest it can be is approximately 1/3 of the height of the car. The result of these regulations is that everybody has to have a low nose. The current aero dependant regulations mean that everybody has been forced into the same solution of a high chassis. Therefore the only things we're going to see under these cars is a high chassis with a long flat plane which then suddenly curves downwards and ends up at a long flat nose, most of which have silly nubs on the end to extend the car out to the minimum length. If we're going to have regulations which force teams down certain paths, then I'd rather have them forced down a path which is pleasing to look at. F1 has suffered in recent years IMO, and the appeal of the cars is part of that problem. When F1 cars look so ridiculous that they get compared to sex toys, and sound so bad that they are compared to hair dryers, the series has a fundamental problem. There's also an argument to say that this is a business and a sport, and for it to survive and be successful, it should be appealing to the views. I can't say the current crop of vehicles is appealing to watch, in all honesty. |
||
|
22 Feb 2017, 21:38 (Ref:3714101) | #158 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
|
On that point we will have to disagree.
Quote:
Yes, for sure it is. I hope I didn't imply or say otherwise. The shape while not totally free is pretty free. More free than the designs we see today. Quote:
Quote:
I just have a strong negative reaction to rules that would explicitly define aesthetics which is what I think some here want. I think this is a bit off topic and I am worn out on the topic at the moment. So I am likely to move on. Richard |
||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
22 Feb 2017, 22:47 (Ref:3714111) | #159 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
That would be a novel idea ...😊
|
||
|
22 Feb 2017, 23:24 (Ref:3714115) | #160 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
|
We LOVE our pedantic discussions and disagreements here!
Back on topic... We can expect Mercedes to reveal tomorrow? Do we think it will be anything radically different than what we have seen so far? My expectations is that while there will be all sorts of differences, the larger differences between the teams will be the various aero bits on and around the sidepods. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
22 Feb 2017, 23:26 (Ref:3714117) | #161 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,719
|
the Sauber on track for their filming day.
imo colour scheme looks sharp on track and sounds pretty decent too (old engine though right?). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v1SKqAzmzo |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
22 Feb 2017, 23:34 (Ref:3714119) | #162 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
22 Feb 2017, 23:51 (Ref:3714122) | #163 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Come on McLaren and Mercedes, we know you are going to be awsome !
🚀🚀🚀😊😊😊 |
||
|
23 Feb 2017, 00:48 (Ref:3714129) | #164 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,721
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Interviewer: "Will the McLaren F1 be your answer to the Ferrari F40?" Gordon Murray: "Hmm... I don't think we have anyone at McLaren who can weld that badly..." |
23 Feb 2017, 02:03 (Ref:3714147) | #165 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,144
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
23 Feb 2017, 02:20 (Ref:3714149) | #166 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Force India looks like they are lost in space,the car looks like a bunch of spare parts that they had laying around! ...its shocking really, come on Ross Brawn put the hammer down ..
|
||
|
23 Feb 2017, 12:37 (Ref:3714252) | #167 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,912
|
Quote:
However on the original topic, heres a Mercedes! |
||
|
23 Feb 2017, 12:51 (Ref:3714253) | #168 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,270
|
And that's far and away the best looking so far.
|
||
|
23 Feb 2017, 12:52 (Ref:3714254) | #169 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,912
|
Indeed. The nose and wing is far from pretty, but the rest of it is very nice. I particularly like the detail on the sidepods, how tightly wrapped they are. Actually looks like muscles, like it's been in the gym lifting weights all winter.
|
|
|
23 Feb 2017, 14:19 (Ref:3714270) | #170 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,144
|
Quote:
Like Williams, they haven't opted for the Shark fin and interesting to note what they have done to the floor, particularly the rear, with what looks like slots. |
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
23 Feb 2017, 14:24 (Ref:3714272) | #171 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,147
|
What was the thinking behind the "swept back" rear wing?
|
||
|
23 Feb 2017, 14:57 (Ref:3714276) | #172 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
|||
|
23 Feb 2017, 15:57 (Ref:3714285) | #173 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Yes it's a lovely looking race car, it flows beautifully, hopefully Mercedes will stay with the small shark fin ..
|
||
|
23 Feb 2017, 15:59 (Ref:3714286) | #174 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,470
|
It's approx. four Valteri Bottas' long if laid end to end.... this car is just a hair's breadth shorter than the Queen Mary... I mean, it's possible that it's going to require a four point turn to get around the Loews hairpin at Monaco with a "I have a huge blindspot on this side" sticker you often see on the back of a lorry...
|
||
__________________
“We’re trying to close the doors without embarrassing ourselves, the France family and embarrassing (the) Grand American Series,” he said in the deposition. “There is no money. There is no purse. There’s nothing.” |
23 Feb 2017, 16:11 (Ref:3714288) | #175 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,719
|
yeah the Merc is the best looking so far for me as well...rounded nose, almost no fin, clever approach to the step, sculpted sidepods, narrow rear...
i am assuming that much of this comes down to how much more money and resources Merc have relative to the other teams who have launched so far. actually find myself wondering if its really about beauty or if i am just equating (or confusing) aesthetics with money. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
All-New Mini Libre Formula To Launch In 2017 | mab01UK | Historic Racing Today | 6 | 16 Dec 2016 23:27 |
[Team] The 2012 F1 CAR LAUNCH THREAD | Marbot | Formula One | 293 | 6 Mar 2012 18:39 |
The 2010 F1 Car Launch Thread | Marbot | Formula One | 554 | 25 Feb 2010 19:00 |
Ferrari F2008 launch tomorrow. Launch season begins! | Knowlesy | Formula One | 110 | 7 Feb 2008 14:13 |