Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[raymondu999]

Makes sense to me.

[MIKEY_!]

They should let them develop the KERS unrestricted for a couple of years, say till 2014 or 2015 like they did for the old v10s then look at it again.

[MIKEY_!]

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/page/4/
What's stopping this rear wing arrangement next year? Or now for that matter.

[raymondu999]

Was that not the years when they had 2 decks of rear wing? Kind of like the 2008 bridge wings but on the rear wing?

[MIKEY_!]

Not sure, they cheated the "2 closed cross-sections" rule by extending the slot gap separators to form outward curving vanes on top of the wing connecting to the cascade wing.

[wesley123]

scarbs had an really interresting article about it;

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/06/1 ... rear-wing/

[PNSD]

That wing is now in Prodrive's hall of car's fitted to the 006.

[victorsaver]

Well today consumes about V8 65l/100km to reduce it to 52 liters may be reducing the capacity of 2 liters and let's say 10 or 12 cylinders? A 2-liter V10 or V12 at full HERS / KERS would still sound good, and the plan have been maintained at current levels, it will produce an effect of about 620BHP. With 200kW of KERS adds to the subject would simply 790BHP.

[scuderiafan]

As base as this sounds, wouldn't reducing aerodynamic dependency through cutting of downforce and how much is spent on aerodynamics increase the "show" aspect of F1 racing, as well as reduce costs?

A serious answer would be appreciated.

[MIKEY_!]

Very likely. Unfortunately the rules would have to be pretty watertight, it's not been easy to limit the complexity (that's where the real expense lies IMO) of the aero devices. Just take post-2008 front wings for example. They started off simple, as the FIA wanted. However it didn't take long for them to get seriously complex again. And then flexy wings come into it, not sure how expensive they are but they aren't easy to get right, as Ferrari showed us recently.
One way to really cut down on aero would be to use these radius rules that killed winglets on the whole car. Then make an exemption for a few standard parts supplied by FIA to the teams. But then the cars will soon all look the same and you get Indycar. If people want Indycar they'll watch Indycar. For me the technical side of it is part of the show.
Surface area limits might help with the complexity problem to some extent.

[Mr Alcatraz]

Post subject:

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015













As base as this sounds, wouldn't reducing aerodynamic dependency through cutting of downforce and how much is spent on aerodynamics increase the "show" aspect of F1 racing, as well as reduce costs?

A serious answer would be appreciated.

[WhiteBlue]

.. wouldn't reducing aerodynamic dependency through cutting of downforce .. increase the "show" aspect of F1 racing, as well as reduce costs?

This is the theory that the FiA promotes in order to make racing greener. They want less aerodynamical forces in order to reduce the consumption and power use of the cars. The pro argument is largely that we had thrilling racing before the aero forces went through the roof in the late eighties and the nineties.

The contra position is mainly held by the constructors and Bernie. Bernie doesn't care for green policies, he simply wants the show to be as loud and impressive for petrol heads as can be. The constructors have a different interest in aerodynamics. They currently control the rule making largely through their FOTA association.

Their main interest is to protect the current superiority of chassis technologies in creating competitive advantages. That way skills that they control between themselves will always determine the championship. The constructors hate to see tyres or engines decide championships. Aerodynamics is their biggest tool in the box to cement their own control of the sport.

.. and how much is spent on aerodynamics..

A typical pattern that has emerged in the last seven years are constant small changes to the aerodynamic configuration. Some things get banned and downforce is largely juggled between the floor, the diffusor and the wings. This game means that easily 50% of the research and development - which is the real money in F1 - goes into aerodynamics.

I think that it is more an issue of control what determines the performance than an issue how much is spent in F1. The level of spending is largely controled by the resource restrictions of the RRA. If they wanted to further cut cost they would approach it through a cut of aerodynamic and other resources.

IMO that is not very likely to happen. The big push for change was the eco friendly engines which will come in 2014. It has successfully been delayed by Bernies tactics and FOTA will not allow major and significant changes to coincide with that change. They have shot down an attempt to simultaneously move to a low downforce tunnel configuration which was planned by the FiA for 2013 to coincide with the new engines.
So the most likely move is to introduce the new engines with very little change in wings, floors and diffusor shapes.

2012 will have the blown diffusors banned which cuts downforce in corners and reduces performance, but will have little effect on most other packaging aspects. In 2013 I expect the noses to come down further and perhaps some other safety aspects to be implemented. A big push for lower downforce and higher aerodynamic efficiency could be on the cards from 2016 earliest IMHO.

[wesley123]

Post subject:

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

As base as this sounds, wouldn't reducing aerodynamic dependency through cutting of downforce and how much is spent on aerodynamics increase the "show" aspect of F1 racing, as well as reduce costs?

A serious answer would be appreciated.

That is what they state and logically it sounds true, yet it shown otherwise. I for instance(and I believe lots of others do agree with me) enjoyed the racing pre-2009 much more than now.

What I do not understand is why mechanical grip adds to the show, for example when you go off the racing line you lose mechanical grip, but do you lose downforce? No you do not. In my opinion you should therefore go for aerodynamic grip.

Apart from that there is more need for mechanical grip(what they want), these Pirelli's arent helping with this, the off racing line is full of marbles, no way you can overtake on that.

What they have (in my eyes) done is make every product with a different goal, add it together and you have a parade of formula 1 cars

[MIKEY_!]

The best way of improving 'the show' is to get rid of marbles IMO. Next they should mandate a larger section of the front wing to create lift, thus keeping front downforce more constant for the following car, allowing closer racing in the corners. As for aerodynamic efficiency simply reducing the size of the rear wing (so it looks more like a Monza wing) would help a lot.

[wesley123]

You are forgetting a lot there, so you reduce rear df a lot, but increase front df, guess what is going to happen? And apart from that, with what you propose, you have the whle front wing in the other cars airstream, doenst change a thing really