Sauber C29

[Rod_in_Chile]

I can agree with all of that

[WhiteBlue]

To put things into perspective one should remember that the teams with good DDD implementation like Brawn were almost one second ahead of the average non DDD runners at the begin of the season.

Teams with good KERS implementation like McLaren only temporarily ditched it when they had no testing time available. They used it for the first races and also in the last races. So there must have been a performance penalty if they had ditched it. Other teams had worse KERS and they may have gained one or two tenth by ditching the development.

The way I see this the performance impact of allowing DDDs or not was much bigger than the decision to have KERS or not.

[ISLAMATRON]

The way I understand it, BMW was the only team within FOTA to oppose postponing KERS for one year to the 2010 season.

Apparently they miss-judged their KERS-development somewhat, as well as missing the diffuser-train big-time, why they decided ditch KERS and focus on the latter, which had far more potential?

Or maybe they were thinking that they had spent a good deal of money on it and would rather use it than having it sitting on the shelf collecting dust for a year... The KERS technology had moved as far forward as it could without some extensive track testing. So they focused on KERS rather than some new fangled aero trick flick up winglets that the OWG was trying to get rid of with the 2009 rules in the first place.

What most have seemed to neglect is that KERS would have been much more valueable this year if the DDD was not implemented. No doubt the DDD was within the letter of the rules but definatly not within the spirit, and 2009 would have been better without them.

[xpensive]

Aware this a long shot, but can we possiby agree that FIA allowing the DDD was a serious mistake, before we move on?

Just to make sure we are on the same page, Islam, WB?

[ISLAMATRON]

Allowing it before the season started was definatly was a mistake, but once the season started the DDD was within the letter of the rules and so had to be allowed for true fairness.

[marcush.]

I don´t see the point why a development of a electricelectronic device should have
a disatrous effect on aerodevelopment.But sure it had to have a fundamental influence on car layout .Packaging was not easier with additional weighty systems to integrate.
If someone really thought those power bursts would be more significant than the rest of the car ,they were dreaming.So some teams realised it would not warrant the big investment and others just did not get it right.
and I don´t think any of the aeroguys spent a lot of time designing building or validating the KERS.
So the one thing left is you had to package the KERS clever so as to avoid :big changes in CGheight due to kers moving fueltank a lot higher ,increase of frontal area and drag due to cooling demands and space needed to store the battery pack,electronics and motor ,possible norrowing window of setup possibilties as weight distribution could not be altered as easily with KERS weight eating away amount of ballas to be placed freely in car.

[xpensive]

Allowing it before the season started was definatly was a mistake, but once the season started the DDD was within the letter of the rules and so had to be allowed for true fairness.

All I needed to now, Islam.

Though I await in awe what the likes of Newey and other aerodynamicists might come up with for 2010.

[WhiteBlue]

Aware this a long shot, but can we possiby agree that FIA allowing the DDD was a serious mistake, before we move on?

Just to make sure we are on the same page, Islam, WB?

Unless I'm badly mistaken the final decision wasn't made by the FIA but by the ICA, but that is a mere technicality. I agree that allowing DDDs was totally against the spirit of the work that had been carried out for three years and culminated in the OWG proposals.

I suspect that there may have been tactical considerations at work at several stages of the rule making process. It is documented that Ross Brawn warned against loop holes in the 2009 aero rules when they were conceived in 2007. It is also not logical that the FIA technical delegate let those systems pass in 2008 when they were first presented to him. The infringement of the rule spirit is totally obvious and of much greater impact than a mass damper, a flexible wing, deforming tyres, brake steer or a moving floor.

All these conflicting technologies were eventually stopped because they were against the desired development direction and either McLaren or Ferrari made a protest. The confederation was not directly involved in the consequences and made a decision with a view on the long term impact.

It is even more difficult to understand why the discretionary power of the federation wasn't used in the fall and winter of 2008 to rectify the foolish wording of the diffuser rules. One can only speculate why this took place. The power play between FIA and FOTA is often cited as an explanation. Some people think that the FIA wanted to punish the exponents of FOTA (top teams) who missed the boat on DDDs for a conflicting strategy on cost limiting and new teams. If this is really what happened one can only be sad for it. It has send the technology in a completely different direction. 2009 could have been fought on KERS if the DDD issue had been decided the other way. To come back to the topic of Sauber a different outcome could also have had a big impact on the eventual decision of the BMW board to exit F1.

At the moment it looks as if 2010 could see another big mistake. FOTA demands that engines should not be performance differentiators and that fuel consumption is equalized. I do not agree at all with this. It can only serve to stall all development towards more fuel efficient engines as the diffusor issue has increased performance instead of fuel efficiency.

[Fil]

I'm sure Peter Sauber agrees with all that.

I wonder how long Sauber have had Ferrari data to modify early designs for the transplant, and whether this will affect the competitiveness of the car (i understand Brawn's example, but we all know the true reason of their speed was the long development time, something Sauber haven't done.)

[Slife]

Did the FIA/FOTA purposly design the KERS rules/specs, so that you could get a bit more power, but would have to deal with the balast issues ?

[WhiteBlue]

Did the FIA/FOTA purposly design the KERS rules/specs, so that you could get a bit more power, but would have to deal with the balast issues ?

There was certainly someone at work who cut he KERS spec down below what was physically achievable. Many people think that this was done by the famous Ferrari veto. The ballast issue was known some time before but the existing rule change mechanism requires a unanimous consent in order to increase the minimum weight.

[Fil]

Did the FIA/FOTA purposly design the KERS rules/specs, so that you could get a bit more power, but would have to deal with the balast issues ?

Unlikely to have been a specific target.
The front tyre miscalculation of Bridgestone compounded the issue more specifically, forcing teams to adjust the balance of the cars much further forward than in recent history - KERS severely compromised the flexibility to do so, for those running it.

[meves]

Part of the reason the manufacturers stuck with KERS was it was seen as a way to prove its relevance to road cars to assist with the new EU regulation coming in on CO2 levels.

Limit value curve: the fleet average to be achieved by all cars registered in the EU is 130 grams per kilometre (g/km). A so-called limit value curve implies that heavier cars are allowed higher emissions than lighter cars while preserving the overall fleet average.

Phasing-in of requirements: in 2012, 65% of each manufacturer's newly registered cars must comply on average with the limit value curve set by the legislation. This will rise to 75% in 2013, 80% in 2014, and 100% from 2015 onwards

Not a good reason but it was part fo the thinking behind it and why only the manufacturer teams stuck to it, other than Williams who have a spin off business to commercialise their offering.

[Skunk0001]

C29?
http://is.blick.ch/img/gen/f/2/HBf2dWPv ... 00x484.jpg

More:
http://www.blick.ch/sport/formel1/das-s ... shi-136440

[thestig84]

Interesting pic there. Good find but I dont think its the new car as it has the old refueling rig connection.