Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[MIKEY_!]

Do you accept that the performance of a wing deteriorates in dirty air when following another car?

If so then a lift creating section on the front wing will be disputed just as the DF creating sections are. That way the affect of the sudden loss of DF in dirty air will be reduced by the the lift being reduced as well.

Also if you reduce rear DF the teams will have to reduce front DF otherwise the car will not be balanced.

[wesley123]

Using a full span wing just gives more area for dirty air to give effect on, this is the reason f the central section, so a car loses less df.

Allowing same front wings but with Monza style rear wings is just a rubbish idea. You are just saying; 'Look guys, you can drive an overly pointy car and keep some downforce or you can lose an even larger amount of downforce and keep your driving style' Rules should always balance front and rear out, both to keep cars driveable as well as allow different driving styles to have the same chance of winning. With the idea you propose a driver like button would have no chance at all in winning anything, he either has to drive an overly pointy car which doesnt suits his driving style at all, or he has to drive with an huge downforce deficit.

Apart from that, I think F1 is just trying to control too much, we have seen great racing pre-2009 and apart from that teams had more possibilities for a car, causing 2 completeley different cars with different philosophies have a similair chance of winning.

And then we have the recession, now suddenly every team has to cut costs, have an RRA etc. etc., recessions have been there before, and then nothing has changed, why do they need to now? I agree with that there is too much spent, but why fix it now and not 20 years ago? Teams back then survived really well, so why cant they now?

[raymondu999]

Wes I think Mikey means lift lift, and not negative lift. He's proposing increasing the central span I believe.

[MIKEY_!]

Yes, either make it wider or have greater AoA. Or both. The current version doesn't have enough impact I think.

[scuderiafan]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96694

Just read this article about Merc getting ready to put their 2014 engine on the dyno. They mention how they thin the engine will sound "very nice" and this reminded me...why is everyone so concerned about how the engines will sound? Are thousands of fans going to quit watching because the engines don't wail anymore?

[WhiteBlue]

why is everyone so concerned about how the engines will sound? Are thousands of fans going to quit watching because the engines don't wail anymore?

As always a bunch of people are opposed to change due to the unknown. Some others have their marketing schemes affected by the engines that use fewer cylinders and less petrol. That can be perceived as tamer than the old V8s.

My concern is uncontrolled spending by Merc and Ferrari on engines. The Merc opinion says it will not happen but I will reserve judgement until a later point in time when news about the development budgets come out. I would feel much better if the engines were under an RRA as well.

[dren]

Merc stated today in Autosport that they felt the regulations were so tight and in the right areas reguarding the engines that it kept costs down.

As for the sound of the engines, didn't people complain when they went from V10s to V8s? They still sound good. I expect them to as V6 turbos as well.

[MIKEY_!]

Well actually people did complain. Just not nearly enough to influence the outcome.

[Holm86]

The V10's were amazing. The current V8's dosnt sound bad but they are not that exciting. Very cleen sounding. The V10's sounded rougher.
But the V8's defenetly sounded better when they were allowed unlimited revs.

[Tyler]

I have a question about exhausts - I didn't really know where to post it, I hope this is the right place for it.
All the talk of the rule change for 2012 got me interested on how the exhausts were positioned before the EBD's came along.
Ferrari were the ones to pioneer the periscope exhaust in 1998 , what were the other teams doing with their exhausts at that time?
I noticed on a picture of the McLaren MP4-13 that the exhaust outlets seemed to be low and towards the back of the car, seemingly exiting before the diffusor.
The picture was quite unclear so I may be mistaken.
I was under the impression that EBD's were a new development, can anyone explain the exhaust position of the MP4-13 and other cars of that period please.

[MIKEY_!]

Have a look on scarbs, there was a 'history lesson' on periscopes. From memory the other teams were blowing the diffuser but not in quite the same way as today. They also lacked hot blowing etc so they had to have the exits quite near the rear of the diffuser (meant less peak DF but more consistent DF). That meant longer pipes which restricted engine power so Ferrari gave up on the diffuser blowing completely!

[Bazza]

Do you accept that the performance of a wing deteriorates in dirty air when following another car?

If so then a lift creating section on the front wing will be disputed just as the DF creating sections are. That way the affect of the sudden loss of DF in dirty air will be reduced by the the lift being reduced as well.

Also if you reduce rear DF the teams will have to reduce front DF otherwise the car will not be balanced.

I think this is part of the problem.

Currently, and in the past, Formula 1 cars are/have been terrible when following another car.

Say that all aerodynamic appendages stuck to the nose (wings, winglets, etc), lose 50% efficiency when in dirty air (yes, I'm making up numbers, but you get the point).

Say the 2008 wings made 200X downforce. The 2009 wings made 180X downforce (ends) and 30X lift (center section), totaling 150X downforce.

So in dirty air, the 2008 front wing made 100X downforce, and the 2009 wings made 75X downforce.

Now, while it's true that the 2009 front wing lost less ABSOLUTE downforce, at only 75X compared to the 100X ABSOLUTE the 2008 car lost.

However, they both lost a significant PERCENTAGE (50%) of downforce, and therefore have (herp derp simple physics) 50% less front grip.

And lets go with drag as well, assuming a 3:1 lift to drag raion, the 2008 had 60Y drag and the 2009 50Y drag (yes, this will be different, I know). So the 2008 lost 30Y drag and the 2009 lost 25Y drag.

Now, obviously I've simplified this to the extreme, but my point should be clear.


The issue is that the cars are still losing downforce a lot faster than they're shedding drag. A LOT faster. So what benefits to be had in a slipstream (loss of drag) are outweighed 3-to-1 by the loss of grip.


One solution, that means the cars lose much more drag than downforce is compulsory downforce at a low speed. If a car can maintain a significant level of downforce at lower speeds, then at high speeds it will make a lot of drag and the relative downforce gains drop off. That means, when in behind another car in dirty air, it will lose a lot of drag and very little downforce.


I imagine the way to regulate this is to show that flow underneath the main wing profile/s (front and rear) is attached at maybe 80km/h.

To compensate for the inevitable increase in drag, more powerful engines would be needed, something around the old V10's power would be fine.

[beelsebob]

However, they both lost a significant PERCENTAGE (50%) of downforce, and therefore have (herp derp simple physics) 50% less front grip.

That was indeed a derp – you forgot gravity.

[Bazza]

That's still not a whole lot - wouldn't be much off 300kg based off the current regs.


You're right it makes the front grip lose less as a percentage, but now in absolute terms it's still a significant loss.

[beelsebob]

That's still not a whole lot - wouldn't be much off 300kg based off the current regs.


You're right it makes the front grip lose less as a percentage, but now in absolute terms it's still a significant loss.

The last estimates I saw were that the front wing generated around 350-400kg of downforce in the days before having the centre section, your calculations were based off having 75% downforce under the new regs, so we're talking 260-300kg of downforce from the front wing now. If we take 50% away:

Under the old regs a car would normally have a 6500-7000N force on its front end, when following closely it would have a 4750-5000N force on its front end. That is, it loses 27-29% of the force applied to its front end when following closely.
Under the new regs a car would normally have a 5600-6000N force on its front end, when following closely it would have a 4300-4500N force on its front end. That is, it loses 24-25% of the force applied to its front end when following closely.

So the new regs did indeed improve the situation re following closely, though not all that much.

Note – all numbers based on your estimate of 50% downforce loss on the front end. Note also, this is pretty obvious when you think about it – a hypothetical car which doesn't rely on downforce at all would not suffer at all in the wake of another car, and hence suffers a 0% penalty. Reducing the amount of downforce produced by the front end of the car will *always* make following closely less of a penalty.