In an exclusive Q&A, renowned Formula 1 technical expert Craig Scarborough explains all on the 2017 regulation changes and analyses this year’s challengers.
Q: There have been concerns that overtaking will be more difficult with increased downforce. Why is that the case, and do you believe it will pan out that way?
A: The cars will find it harder to follow another car in the corners because of the complex aerodynamics. Also overtaking will be difficult because braking zones will be shorter, however the cars are slower in a straight line and this gives them more time on the straights to make a pass, especially if the DRS zone is made longer.
Q: We’ve seen many teams opt for a ‘shark fin’ on their cars. What are the advantages of that system?
A shark fin has many functions, mainly related to directing [air] flow to the rear wing, which this year is much lower. Therefore the wing gains much more from the air flow effect of a shark fin.
Q: Just how significant are these changes? Will they shift the balance away from horse power and towards aerodynamic prowess?
A: I don’t think the balance between power and aero will change, but as the cars will have a lot more drag from these huge tyres, the only way to gain top speed is going to be more engine power, but this is the perennial problem of race cars. This year with the engine rule changes, we can expect the engine horsepowers to be similar between the manufacturers.
Q: On a similar note, will these regulations allow creative minds within each team to flourish and reward risk-taking?
A: There is definitely scope for a midfield team to come up with a design that can outpace other midfield teams, but we should not lose sight of the fact that the top three teams have far larger budgets and resources and therefore should do a better job.
Q: What is the significance of either the arched or straight-beamed rear wing designs in terms of airflow?
A: There are different things you can do with the shape of the rear wing to make it more effective, that is to arch to meet the oncoming air flow or reduce the drag created at the wing tips. A straight wing is a much larger compromise, so with the need to cut drag this year, we can expect to see lots more curved rear wings.
Q: We’ve seen teams offer a number of different solutions when it comes to the nose. Many have gone for the ‘thumb’ design, while Force India have gone for a more radical ‘trident’ style. What are the aerodynamic benefits of each of the systems?
A: Nose designs all have to meet a minimum cross section for two areas of the nose tip. The three types of different design are just changing the shape of these cross-sections.
A thumb tip nose will want to pass more airflow under the nose, the Mercedes rounded nose wants to pass more airflow around the side of the nose, while the Force India nose is trying to do a better job than the thumb nose in passing air flow underneath. So it is just what the teams want to do with the airflow passing over the middle of the car, that dictates what shape nose they would prefer. There is not a better or worse solution, just what works best for each team.
Q: As with all regulation changes, teams interpret the rules in different ways. Which is the most radical solution you have seen so far?
I think we all expected the barge boards to be the most exploited area of the new rules. Clearly Mercedes have gone the furthest with this area, while Ferrari have completely revised the front of their sidepods which was quite unexpected.
Q: Having had a look at each of the challengers so far, which are you most impressed by?
The Mercedes is impressive but that is what we would have expected. Ferrari really have attacked the new rules in a way we have not seen them do for many years, but for me the standout cars are the Force India and the Toro Rosso.
Q: This year, will there remain a real variation in terms of design among the teams, or will the cars become much more similar as the season progresses? Generally, are the regulations more open in 2017?
There will definitely be some convergence, as all the teams take up the ideas of their rivals. But this will be in details rather than the whole look of the car, so I expect it will be a year or two before the cars really centre on the same solutions.
Q: Finally, with Red Bull notoriously strong in the aero department, will these changes be enough for them to really challenge Mercedes, or have we too long focused on the Silver Arrows’ engine and ignored their aerodynamic strength?
There is no doubt that the Mercedes chassis is a close match for Red Bull. We have yet to see the full detail of the Red Bull, but our predictions are that Red Bull will be challenging Mercedes on raw pace this season.
