Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[WhiteBlue]

If you want F1 to be the ultimate test for driver, then you need to make it the fastest out there because driving at speed is what makes the difference. And until now..downforce is the only mean to do so.

There are lots of people who disagree. With enough downforce you can drive through the Monaco tunnel upside down but that is hardly a challenge. Excessive downforce has messed up some of the best challenging corners like Eau Rouge by making it easy flat out. All you get for the excessive downforce is processions, drivers with very strong right side neck muscles and ultimately black outs if it continues that way.

[Pingguest]

If you want F1 to be the ultimate test for driver, then you need to make it the fastest out there because driving at speed is what makes the difference. And until now..downforce is the only mean to do so.

There are lots of people who disagree. With enough downforce you can drive through the Monaco tunnel upside down but that is hardly a challenge. Excessive downforce has messed up some of the best challenging corners like Eau Rouge by making it easy flat out. All you get for the excessive downforce is processions, drivers with very strong right side neck muscles and ultimately black outs if it continues that way.

You're right.

In 1983 ground effect underbodies were banned and flat bottoms became mandatory. It was the general consensus that the 1983 cars were slower, physically easier, but technically harder to drive than their 1982 predecessors.

[Ogami musashi]

More speed doesn't necessarily mean more difficulty.

Of course it is! Of course i could quote you simple facts like "Try to race a rotax junior kart then a KZ1.." but i will simply call your common sense:

Take a roundabout at 50km/h then at 100km/h, which one will be harder??

This is the trend of ALL racing series; Be it nascar, F1, rallying whatever you want, the different between junior series and the highest class lies only in the speed of the cars;

Pretending that speed doesn't make things more difficult is ignoring one of the fundamental parameters in all physics that influences the results.

The flat out example of eau rouge are just a special case where the power of the engine is not adapted to width of the corner that's all...

And more speed doesn't necessarily mean more downforce. An increase of mechanical grip, lowering the weight and increasing engine power are other means.

Not even in dreams could a tyre produce (around a track) the same lateral forces than a current modern race car;
If downforce was so easily replacable most race series would do without, but even NASCAR or rally have their share of downforce;
There's simply no other mean at the moment to have the same level of performance.

[WhiteBlue]

The flat out example of eau rouge are just a special case where the power of the engine is not adapted to width of the corner that's all....

I was actually referring to the whole of the Eau Rouge/Radillion complex. You cannot cure Radillion by more power. Proposing to neutralize too much downforce by more power is creating more safety hazards. Sometimes cars break as you know very well. The faster you go in fast corners and the more you pile on the DF the more dangerous it gets.

Btw, Copse corner in Silverstone has the same problem as many other corners. They had to spend huge money some years ago to move the track away from the grandstands just to get the crash zone increased. That would have been unnecessary without too much downforce.

[Ogami musashi]

The flat out example of eau rouge are just a special case where the power of the engine is not adapted to width of the corner that's all....

I was actually referring to the whole of the Eau Rouge/Radillion complex. You cannot cure Radillion by more power. Proposing to neutralize too much downforce by more power is creating more safety hazards. Sometimes cars break as you know very well. The faster you go in fast corners and the more you pile on the DF the more dangerous it gets.

Btw, Copse corner in Silverstone has the same problem as many other corners. They had to spend huge money some years ago to move the track away from the grandstands just to get the crash zone increased. That would have been unnecessary without too much downforce.

There's no need to discuss that; Speed makes things more dangerous for sure.
But that's the deal when you chose to put yourself to limit; Again, you could argue that you can't be too close to athletes in a stadium or in a ski track..yes if you collide with one sprinter at 35km/h or worse with a skier at 120km/h you can be dead but that's the deal.

Let me add that at GP tracks only exterior curves of some corners have public far away, actually many sections are close to the track, at SPA for example you have more sections where you are 5 meters away from the track than those infamous runoff areas; It is silly in the first place wanting to be in a corner's exterior curve, no need to be fast to kill someone here as rally show, if people want to go there and still be safe then they are far away that's normal.

So for once, i don't have any problem with you not liking speed but for god's sake stop trying to make it like it is a universal law..Actually if you ask drivers, like fighting pilots, the faster the happier they are.


And please don't put driver skill in a big giant mix; Controling the car is a way of testing driving skill, having fast cars is another; This has been the natural evolution of machines since the begining, they are easier to operate now so that the pilot can actually do his job, and in a race car, his job is to be the quickest.

[autogyro]

High downforce results in a reduction in vehicle performance not an increase.
The vehicle will use more fuel to go the same distance and it will not be able to reach as high a top speed as it could without downforce.

Downforce is an illusion designed to obscure the other types of engineering essential in building a high performance vehicle.

[Scotracer]

And F1 was never pure engineering either. It's first and foremost a competition on a partially level playing-field.

We don't want either extreme - both would be bad for the sport.

The problem with trying to get rid of aero is that it's such a brilliant way to improve the performance of a car. It increases the force on the tyres without increasing momentum or inertia...it's almost like getting something for nothing. And it squares with speed! Oh my.

Aerodynamics aren't a symptom of poor regulation writing, they are a symptom of the universe we live in.

It depends how you define performance. Downforce does decrease lap times but only on pre designed circuits that have a balanced number of braking areas and corners to give this decrease. On a wide banked oval the high downforce would increase lap times. So downforce in car racing is only a fabricated benefit and not a true performance increase.
Streamlining is by comparison a pure performance increase and also reduces the amount of fuel used where as downforce increases the fuel used.
Now I was always taught that performance also included how efficiently the engineer made use of the fuel to achieve both the highest speed and also for the longest time. Downforce is the complete opposite of this and wastes fuel through the excess drag it creates.
I do not want to do away with downforce completely, I would just like to see regulations that forced it to be reduced by at least 50 percent to give more relevence and exposure to other more important technology.

I do not want to see F1 directly relevent to road cars, however lets be fair an F1 car is a road vehicle and can be compared to other road vehicles.
The spectators do make this comparison and the conclusions they make dictate the future of F1 as a sport and as a technology motivator. Of course many of them want to see noisy hugely powerful ic engined cars but an increasing number are demanding that F1 reflect the need to make the most out of energy and for F1 to become more relevent to the latest technology in vehicle motive power. There is a conflict of interest here that has to be dealt with and soon. It is of no use ignoring it and going brrm brrm with the motor heads.

I know you have a hatred of aero but don't be stupid. Of course aero is an increase in performance. If a car can do 2.5G max cornering without downforce but 5G peak are you really telling me that's not a performance increase? Be it centripetal acceleration or linear acceleration; they are both increases in performance. Yes you get some circuits where one suits straight-line performance over cornering performance but that should be pretty obvious; compare Monza with Silverstone.

And maybe you outta look at the fact you demand that downforce be reduced before your so-called 'more important' technologies are noticed shows that they aren't so vital afterall.

That discussion has the problem and the solution included.

Many people share Jean Todt's view that aerodynamic is over emphasized nowadays and has been for many years. I call all designs over emphasized that substantially disadvantage a following driver from using the slipstream of the front man.

The endless discussions how clever the aero is and how little drag is produced disregard the fact that you cannot loose downforce that you do not have in the first place. So if the following driver looses too much downforce to pass in most cases then there is simply too much of it. Simple straightforward logic.

The solution is similarly simple. Downforce is not a game of getting something for nothing. Downforce and the inevitable drag it creates require power and energy to generate in the first place. If you don't have excess power over accelerating and overcoming the natural drag of the car you cannot pile on downforce. Really simple.

We want F1 racers to be vastly powerful and impressively performant but we also want to showcase driving talent and skill. Most people accept that managing a fuel budget is not adverse to the ethos and DNA of F1. It requires skill and good thinking in the heat of the battle. So the solution is obvious. Reduce the fuel budget to the point where X-amount of fuel for the race is sufficient to generate spectacular acceleration and speed but not enough to create aero forces that over advantage the leading car.

I'm all for the aero/power ratio to be modified somewhat. I think cars should have more power than they have grip to fully utilise as that tends to create more dramatic and uncertain races. Next year this balance will be restored by a fair margin with the removal of double-diffusers and if we get a power-increase on the KERS even more so.

However, you are over-simplifying the problem. You state that if you lower power you get less downforce (or less power to create downforce). That might be true but what you inevitably create is a scenario where the engineers have to work the air more to claw back that downforce. Go compare a 2008 car with a 2005 car. Same aero regulations but drastically different looking cars in just a couple of years and that's because in 2008 they didn't have the power they once had (around 200BHP less) but they like their headline aero figures. So what you end up with is some extremely-hard worked air that comes off the car in front and then the car behind has air that's virtually unusable. They want to get the same downforce for less drag...and that creates some nasty wake profiles and cars that are extremely sensitive to the air they're driving in.

You are correct in the sense that if we reduced F1 cars down to 200-300BHP they wouldn't be going fast enough to truly get the most out of aero development and it wouldn't be worth the cost in development...but I don't think you'd find many people who'd go for that.

But ultimately we're left with the thing that you've ignored in most posts that I've conversed with you on this matter: raw downforce figures aren't the problem, it's how it's produced that is.

[autogyro]

Nope downforce is an increase in force, not an increase in performance.
If you disagree, please define performance.

[autogyro]

Simply regulating a set amount of fuel to finish the race will force a reduction in downforce if the amount is set correctly.
Designers would have to reduce drag to reach the end of the race and the cars would change from being ineficient grounded aero drag producers, to streamlined efficient racing vehicles making the most of the energy supplied.
High downforce is only made possible by allowing the cars to waste fuel, which is a poor advert for F1 in the present world ecological situation.

[Ogami musashi]

Nope downforce is an increase in force, not an increase in performance.
If you disagree, please define performance.

LOL. According to your criteria:

-slick tyre is not increasing performance

It increases rolling resistance increasing the needed power to go at a given speed, it is not durable so you need to stop to change it.
Large diameter increases drag so top speed is diminished


-An F1 engine is not increasing performance:

It requires to rev at high speed, producing combustion losses requiring more fuel that a low reved higher capacity one.

-An F1 car is not increasing performance:

It drag more than a closed wheel and cockpit car dimishing top speed and requires more horsepower for the same speed.


We could go on for a lot of things which would end up...in a solar endurance car..
G.R.E.A.T



Have the honesty of saying you hate aeros for an obscure reason, not for fishy logics that comes out of your head.

[Just_a_fan]

Without wings and diffusers, Formula 1-cars will stay being open-wheel single seaters. People will recognize them as race cars and as something different to prototypes, touring cars and rally cars.

Here you go


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_Ford

Now that you have a series that fits your requirement for no-downforce open wheelers, can the rest of us get back to 'big boys' racing?

[Just_a_fan]

Nope downforce is an increase in force, not an increase in performance.
If you disagree, please define performance.

Performance is the ability to circulate around the track in the shortest possible time. Thus where downforce allows the lap time to reduce then it is also increasing performance.

On some circuits, such as Monza, excessive downforce will increase lap time and thus is detrimental to performance. At circuits such as Hungary, or Monaco, downforce reduces lap times and thus improves performance.

As with any complex system, the key is balancing the improvements that can be gained in one area against the losses in another.

[WhiteBlue]

That discussion has the problem and the solution included.

Many people share Jean Todt's view that aerodynamic is over emphasized nowadays and has been for many years. I call all designs over emphasized that substantially disadvantage a following driver from using the slipstream of the front man.

The endless discussions how clever the aero is and how little drag is produced disregard the fact that you cannot loose downforce that you do not have in the first place. So if the following driver looses too much downforce to pass in most cases then there is simply too much of it. Simple straightforward logic.

The solution is similarly simple. Downforce is not a game of getting something for nothing. Downforce and the inevitable drag it creates require power and energy to generate in the first place. If you don't have excess power over accelerating and overcoming the natural drag of the car you cannot pile on downforce. Really simple.

We want F1 racers to be vastly powerful and impressively performant but we also want to showcase driving talent and skill. Most people accept that managing a fuel budget is not adverse to the ethos and DNA of F1. It requires skill and good thinking in the heat of the battle. So the solution is obvious. Reduce the fuel budget to the point where X-amount of fuel for the race is sufficient to generate spectacular acceleration and speed but not enough to create aero forces that over advantage the leading car.

I'm all for the aero/power ratio to be modified somewhat. I think cars should have more power than they have grip to fully utilise as that tends to create more dramatic and uncertain races. Next year this balance will be restored by a fair margin with the removal of double-diffusers and if we get a power-increase on the KERS even more so.

However, you are over-simplifying the problem. You state that if you lower power you get less downforce (or less power to create downforce). That might be true but what you inevitably create is a scenario where the engineers have to work the air more to claw back that downforce. Go compare a 2008 car with a 2005 car. Same aero regulations but drastically different looking cars in just a couple of years and that's because in 2008 they didn't have the power they once had (around 200BHP less) but they like their headline aero figures. So what you end up with is some extremely-hard worked air that comes off the car in front and then the car behind has air that's virtually unusable. They want to get the same downforce for less drag...and that creates some nasty wake profiles and cars that are extremely sensitive to the air they're driving in.

You are correct in the sense that if we reduced F1 cars down to 200-300BHP they wouldn't be going fast enough to truly get the most out of aero development and it wouldn't be worth the cost in development...but I don't think you'd find many people who'd go for that.

But ultimately we're left with the thing that you've ignored in most posts that I've conversed with you on this matter: raw downforce figures aren't the problem, it's how it's produced that is.

I believe that you have not completely understood my proposal. I do not propose to cut the power of the engine. In fact the top power of the engine is rather irrelevant in my scheme.

What I propose is a fuel cap that will not allow the teams to utilize the engine power as much as they do today. I want the energy taken away that is today dissipated by the excessive aerodynamic forces. If you cannot take that energy with you you simply force the designers to reduce the downforce to the point that makes the car reach the finish. I do not advocate that they take way all the energy needed for the downforce but lets take away what we feel is excessive.

The consequence of a leaner energy budget would be even more efficient aero that produces more DF and less drag. Another consequence would be lower performance. Performance is proportional to average speed and inverse proportional to lap time. The question is how important is sheer performance. If you give a driver a 600 bhp Auto Union monster, a 1400 bhp turbo in quali trim and a contemporary F1 car you will find that they all have different performance. But the point is they all are exciting and demanding to drive. So performance alone is not an all important criterion. It also matters how the performance is reached. Lower DF F1 cars accelerate faster but reach lower speeds in fast corners. Nevertheless the corners actually feel much faster since you know you cannot take them flat out. You will always try to get closer to the limit and that will be a more rewarding challenge than just having your head weight as much as a complete stack of tyres.

[ESPImperium]

That discussion has the problem and the solution included.

Many people share Jean Todt's view that aerodynamic is over emphasized nowadays and has been for many years. I call all designs over emphasized that substantially disadvantage a following driver from using the slipstream of the front man.

The endless discussions how clever the aero is and how little drag is produced disregard the fact that you cannot loose downforce that you do not have in the first place. So if the following driver looses too much downforce to pass in most cases then there is simply too much of it. Simple straightforward logic.

The solution is similarly simple. Downforce is not a game of getting something for nothing. Downforce and the inevitable drag it creates require power and energy to generate in the first place. If you don't have excess power over accelerating and overcoming the natural drag of the car you cannot pile on downforce. Really simple.

We want F1 racers to be vastly powerful and impressively performant but we also want to showcase driving talent and skill. Most people accept that managing a fuel budget is not adverse to the ethos and DNA of F1. It requires skill and good thinking in the heat of the battle. So the solution is obvious. Reduce the fuel budget to the point where X-amount of fuel for the race is sufficient to generate spectacular acceleration and speed but not enough to create aero forces that over advantage the leading car.

I'm all for the aero/power ratio to be modified somewhat. I think cars should have more power than they have grip to fully utilise as that tends to create more dramatic and uncertain races. Next year this balance will be restored by a fair margin with the removal of double-diffusers and if we get a power-increase on the KERS even more so.

However, you are over-simplifying the problem. You state that if you lower power you get less downforce (or less power to create downforce). That might be true but what you inevitably create is a scenario where the engineers have to work the air more to claw back that downforce. Go compare a 2008 car with a 2005 car. Same aero regulations but drastically different looking cars in just a couple of years and that's because in 2008 they didn't have the power they once had (around 200BHP less) but they like their headline aero figures. So what you end up with is some extremely-hard worked air that comes off the car in front and then the car behind has air that's virtually unusable. They want to get the same downforce for less drag...and that creates some nasty wake profiles and cars that are extremely sensitive to the air they're driving in.

You are correct in the sense that if we reduced F1 cars down to 200-300BHP they wouldn't be going fast enough to truly get the most out of aero development and it wouldn't be worth the cost in development...but I don't think you'd find many people who'd go for that.

But ultimately we're left with the thing that you've ignored in most posts that I've conversed with you on this matter: raw downforce figures aren't the problem, it's how it's produced that is.

I believe that you have not completely understood my proposal. I do not propose to cut the power of the engine. In fact the top power of the engine is rather irrelevant in my scheme.

What I propose is a fuel cap that will not allow the teams to utilize the engine power as much as they do today. I want the energy taken away that is today dissipated by the excessive aerodynamic forces. If you cannot take that energy with you you simply force the designers to reduce the downforce to the point that makes the car reach the finish. I do not advocate that they take way all the energy needed for the downforce but lets take away what we feel is excessive.

The consequence of a leaner energy budget would be even more efficient aero that produces more DF and less drag. Another consequence would be lower performance. Performance is proportional to average speed and inverse proportional to lap time. The question is how important is sheer performance. If you give a driver a 600 bhp Auto Union monster, a 1400 bhp turbo in quali trim and a contemporary F1 car you will find that they all have different performance. But the point is they all are exciting and demanding to drive. So performance alone is not an all important criterion. It also matters how the performance is reached. Lower DF F1 cars accelerate faster but reach lower speeds in fast corners. Nevertheless the corners actually feel much faster since you know you cannot take them flat out. You will always try to get closer to the limit and that will be a more rewarding challenge than just having your head weight as much as a complete stack of tyres.

I think im the only one that has the idea you are conveying.

Reduce the cars engine power by limiting the fuel available at each race. According to my figures, Hungary is the most fuel at 152Kg/217Litres per race, Spain the least at 141kg/202Litres per race (Going on Williams figures for the Toyota RVX-09 and Cosworth CA2010 engines from 2009 and 2010).

Say if you take it as say 650 Newton’s of force for a current engine and that fuel tank to create the current levels of downforce, why not make it that it should be say 200 Newton’s of force to create forward motion, but with reduced aero, you would only need 105Kg of fuel per race. Make it 100Kg and you’ll see the wake of cars and cars drag being so reduced that driver skill would come into it.

Result would be cars would move around, power would be the same or close. Designers would instead be looking at making their cars faster around corners, but more efficient on the straights to conserve fuel.

Ideally Id like to see energy recovery systems come into the sport, but not like the KERS push to pass, but to make the cars fuel mileage go further. The way to do this is to have them controlled by the gas pedal only.

I think its something that would need looked into in detail, but less fuel is the only way to pair back the aero into a area where the car behind can slip-stream and get past and create overtaking.

[Scotracer]

That discussion has the problem and the solution included.

Many people share Jean Todt's view that aerodynamic is over emphasized nowadays and has been for many years. I call all designs over emphasized that substantially disadvantage a following driver from using the slipstream of the front man.

The endless discussions how clever the aero is and how little drag is produced disregard the fact that you cannot loose downforce that you do not have in the first place. So if the following driver looses too much downforce to pass in most cases then there is simply too much of it. Simple straightforward logic.

The solution is similarly simple. Downforce is not a game of getting something for nothing. Downforce and the inevitable drag it creates require power and energy to generate in the first place. If you don't have excess power over accelerating and overcoming the natural drag of the car you cannot pile on downforce. Really simple.

We want F1 racers to be vastly powerful and impressively performant but we also want to showcase driving talent and skill. Most people accept that managing a fuel budget is not adverse to the ethos and DNA of F1. It requires skill and good thinking in the heat of the battle. So the solution is obvious. Reduce the fuel budget to the point where X-amount of fuel for the race is sufficient to generate spectacular acceleration and speed but not enough to create aero forces that over advantage the leading car.

I'm all for the aero/power ratio to be modified somewhat. I think cars should have more power than they have grip to fully utilise as that tends to create more dramatic and uncertain races. Next year this balance will be restored by a fair margin with the removal of double-diffusers and if we get a power-increase on the KERS even more so.

However, you are over-simplifying the problem. You state that if you lower power you get less downforce (or less power to create downforce). That might be true but what you inevitably create is a scenario where the engineers have to work the air more to claw back that downforce. Go compare a 2008 car with a 2005 car. Same aero regulations but drastically different looking cars in just a couple of years and that's because in 2008 they didn't have the power they once had (around 200BHP less) but they like their headline aero figures. So what you end up with is some extremely-hard worked air that comes off the car in front and then the car behind has air that's virtually unusable. They want to get the same downforce for less drag...and that creates some nasty wake profiles and cars that are extremely sensitive to the air they're driving in.

You are correct in the sense that if we reduced F1 cars down to 200-300BHP they wouldn't be going fast enough to truly get the most out of aero development and it wouldn't be worth the cost in development...but I don't think you'd find many people who'd go for that.

But ultimately we're left with the thing that you've ignored in most posts that I've conversed with you on this matter: raw downforce figures aren't the problem, it's how it's produced that is.

I believe that you have not completely understood my proposal. I do not propose to cut the power of the engine. In fact the top power of the engine is rather irrelevant in my scheme.

What I propose is a fuel cap that will not allow the teams to utilize the engine power as much as they do today. I want the energy taken away that is today dissipated by the excessive aerodynamic forces. If you cannot take that energy with you you simply force the designers to reduce the downforce to the point that makes the car reach the finish. I do not advocate that they take way all the energy needed for the downforce but lets take away what we feel is excessive.

The consequence of a leaner energy budget would be even more efficient aero that produces more DF and less drag. Another consequence would be lower performance. Performance is proportional to average speed and inverse proportional to lap time. The question is how important is sheer performance. If you give a driver a 600 bhp Auto Union monster, a 1400 bhp turbo in quali trim and a contemporary F1 car you will find that they all have different performance. But the point is they all are exciting and demanding to drive. So performance alone is not an all important criterion. It also matters how the performance is reached. Lower DF F1 cars accelerate faster but reach lower speeds in fast corners. Nevertheless the corners actually feel much faster since you know you cannot take them flat out. You will always try to get closer to the limit and that will be a more rewarding challenge than just having your head weight as much as a complete stack of tyres.

Effectively what you are proposing has little in the way of differences than with a fully mandated power drop. If you have a power drop you will still get, as I demonstrated with my 2005/2008 comparison, the engineers trying to improve the L/D ratio...but the problem we've seen with this is that it actually makes the overtaking harder. Back when the cars were relatively inefficient (loads of drag but still a ----tonne of downforce) in say 2004/2005 you had overtaking due to the wake profiles but you also made drafting easier...and this gradually got worse and worse up until the end of 2008 where it was a mess. These are the same changes that you'd have with a fuel limit (and frozen engine regs, of course) as the engineers can quite conceivably calculate the ultimate power they have to play with to complete a race.

F1 is and has been for the last 30 years at least a fight between corner speeds and straight line speeds...and the engineers try to keep the balance the same for a given circuit. If you start killing power, they need to keep both the cornering speeds the same but regain the lost straight-line speed.

My main complaint with 2010 F1 is that the cars are on full throttle for a lot of the lap. I never thought I'd say a 750BHP race car was lacking power but it is the case with these cars; they're getting close to 2004 levels of downforce and a lot less power...they may as well lay a railway line on the circuit.

Let's get hypothetical for a second.

Take an RB6 and reduce the RS26 engine's rev limit down to 16,000rpm. A quick bit o' arithmetic gives me a power output of around 650BHP. We'll have an engine that can last 5 Grand Prixs too. Brilliant. What will the engineers first do with their new toy? Kill the wing angle firstly; pretty obvious. After that they'll get to work on their DDD even harder to claw some downforce back whilst keeping the drag down. So we have less drag and ultimately yes a downforce loss but did we need the downforce in the first place? Eau Rouge, 130R, Copse and Turn 8 are ultimately drag-limited corners with the current V8 cars and they'll be even more so with the lower power...so do they need to increase the downforce to compensate?

The last question is for someone who doesn't have to get to bed to work out. Get out your paper and pencils and work out the corner entry speed loss with just a power reduction of 100BHP...not that hard to do. Assume everything else constant for now.