[Team] 2017 Car Launch Thread

[Neppatsrev Xam]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

their kit looks pretty similar to last years (maybe a bit more purple this year). surprised to see such a prominent Aston Martin logo on their team shirts this year.

https://www.redbullshop.com/en/c/rbr...teamline-2017/

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/ne...tions-launched

[bjohnsonsmith]

Just going back to the FW 40, it's interesting to see they haven't opted for the Shark fin. Will we be seeing teams taking a different approach to how aero affects the rear of the car?

[BSchneiderFan]

Originally Posted by bella

the trucks are the same matte blue (maybe a bit lighter) as that picture of verstappen's new lid posted upthread, so i'd say so

the renault looks a bit weird from the side - is it the combination of the rake and the engine cover fin pointing upwards?

Attachment 49185

Yes, it almost looks like it's sagging in the middle. I dare say we'll get used to it.

[F1Pete]

Heard on Reddit that Ferrari has some serious engine problems. Arrivabene missed a press event this week. Will their car be available for their own launch?

[FormulaFox]

Liking the Renault. Still suffering from "the bulk of the car hasn't changed" issues(as they all will), but the areas that have been changed are an order of magnitude more aggressive than the Sauber and Williams, IMO.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by F1Pete

Will their car be available for their own launch?

You don't need a working car for a launch.

[marcel82]

Originally Posted by Neppatsrev Xam

the Red Bull livery will probably be unchanged judging by Max his new helmet

Pierre Gasly's Team Mugen car for Super Formula suggests the same.

[F1Guy]

Overhead shot of the RS17 shows a LOT of black than last year.



Loving the look of the 2017 cars so far. The bigger rubber and rear wings in particular look good. 50/50 on the front wing.

[old man]

It may be the way the Renault is photographed but the front wing looks, well, over complex, ugly, don't really know how to take it. Would like to see, in due course, all front wings shown in a way we can compare but another thought is that they may be more vulnerable than ever?

[F1Guy]

A sneak peek at the W08.

[JeremySmith]

The Renault RS17 is stunning !

[Richard C]

Generally speaking I think they are a real improvement. I could live without the fin and larger bargeboards/turning vanes/aero treatments on and around the sidepods however.

Richard

[bella]

yeah, i'm so much more excited to see these in person than i ever was about seeing those daft little winged thingies. these are in proportion, and proportion makes eyes happy.

[Neppatsrev Xam]

The VJM10

[marcel82]

that nose
and that rear wing sponsor

[Akrapovic]

lol nose. I don't agree that these are in proportion - the noses and front wings are horrendous. At least they've sorted the rear wing. From the rear they look kinda mean and awesome. From the front they look like someone accidentally slipped when trying to draw the nose, and they scaled up the front in in AutoCAD.

[Richard C]

Ouch! Force India clearly the worst of what we have seen so far.

Richard

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Ouch! Force India clearly the worst of what we have seen so far.

Agreed - they've got that dodgy 'duck billed platypus' nose thing going on again - I thought (hoped) we'd seen the last of that. Also from their re-done website, social media etc I was expecting a lot more orange on the car.

[BSchneiderFan]

If it's orange you like, maybe McLaren will make your day.

[Akrapovic]

They've all got the duck look, just the Force India is the most extreme version.

You're not going to be able to get rid of that anymore. Minimum chassis height with maximum nose height means the only possible current solution to this is the sudden drop. Some drops are more sudden than others, but they all had it before and they'll all have it again.

If they match up the max and min height for the nose and chassis better than it'll get rid of it.

[Matt]

Dildo nose, barn door shark fin, and stepped nose.

That's the tri-fecta of awful from 2009-present!

[BSchneiderFan]

The fact that fin is (or at least seems to be) higher than the rear wing makes it look particularly awful. The lowered rear wings could have given the cars a really sleek look, but the fin ruins it.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

They've all got the duck look, just the Force India is the most extreme version.

You're not going to be able to get rid of that anymore. Minimum chassis height with maximum nose height means the only possible current solution to this is the sudden drop. Some drops are more sudden than others, but they all had it before and they'll all have it again.

If they match up the max and min height for the nose and chassis better than it'll get rid of it.

I am not sure we are all talking about the same thing when we say "duck look". To me that means the wide flat nose. The other issue is the transition between the very high monocoque/crash structure and the regulatory low nose for the crash structure. The change to the lower tip from the very high tip (for safety reasons) is what triggered the start of the "ugly nose" issue.

I like to blame the regulations for being constrictive and even driving the look as much as anyone, but I don't blame the regulations for the steep transition from cockpit to nose. I might be wrong, but I don't actually think there is a regulation that makes the front of the cockpit (where the nose structure is bolted on) as high as it is.

From a bit of looking at the regulations, there are a number of strict dimensions around the cockpit opening itself (including a minimum height), but from there it is focused on interior dimensions, taper of the cockpit toward the feet, roll structure height, etc. I believe they could very well make a cockpit that has the feet much lower that today if they wanted. Which would result in an easier transition to the regulatory low nose tip. As it stands today, they keep the lower legs and feet as high as they can and still allow the driver to see over the front of the car. It's all for aero reasons. The same applies these days to prototype racing with full bodies. The driver's feet are up high so they can channel air through the front underbody wings and then around the interior sidepods. F1 and prototype racing have converged on the same solution with different regulations. Prototypes just have a full body that generally hide the solution.

The initial (2009?) solution was the abrupt transitions with a combination of large bumps and steep steps. I seem to remember there may have been an additional regulatory change to help alleviate that (with I think many teams using a cover that was not part of the crash structure to smooth the transition). So they have been better over the past few years.

Just look at the 2016 Force India. It had a pretty smooth transition. Only Force India knows why they reverted to a very abrupt transition on the nose of the 2017 car. I believe there was nothing in the regulations pushing them in that direction. And other teams so far are not doing it that way.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

The duck look and the sudden transition are inherently linked though. You wouldn't get this low flat nose without the sudden downward transition. The 2016 Force India is better, but it still has it. It still has the long flat horizontal part before a downward curve. Cars which are considered good looking tend not to have this change, as the whole part is a continuous curve (or straight line).

Whilst the regulations may not specifically state you have to have the chassis high, if that is the best solution (and engineers cannot unlearn things), then that is what they are going to do, and the regulations should be written to take this into account. I doubt there's anything in the rules that says you must have a rear wing, but they are written with the idea of it being used since that's the best solution.

If the best solution is utilising the maximum height available for the chassis, the lower the maximum height available for the chassis. In conjunction with that, raise the minimum height of the nose and suddenly you'll have no massive transition. You could even match the maximum and minimum heights and make sure the steps don't reappear.

The regulations have actually gone the other way recently. The 2015 changes meant the noses were lowered even further (thus giving the impression of even bigger transitions) and the chassis height was untouched. At this point they even started regulating the nose tips - no wider than 140mm and has to start midway along the front wing.

So why can't you just write in that the chassis height should be lower, the nose height should be higher, and the minimum width of the nose tip should be identical the rest of the nose - thus eliminating the tip altogether? You could also regulate the fins using simple templates, just like they use for NASCAR.

[S griffin]

I don't know about Force India being the worst, I do like the silver and the car is only spoiled by the shark fin. I like the nose