Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[raymondu999]

DRS has an added benefit though - sometimes; it's just enough to help you stay in the DRS zone next lap. ie. it's not enough to make a move stick; but if someone is just 2 or 3 tenths quicker; that can easily be nullified by the DRS each lap; and keeps the field close.

[f1316]

What I find the most disagreeable about the current regulations is the engine freeze. It's *motor* racing and yet you can't do anything to develop the speed of the *motor*. Ok, they're going to have new V6 engines - somethng I could do without but understand the motivation for - but they still won't be able to develop them.

It's cutting off yet another avenue of development and making it all about aero, which I think is a shame. I understand this is about cutting costs, but I, personally, think it's antithetical to the whole concept of the sport. I also think it would encourage manufacturors - who I like to see in the sport - to participate if they were able to develop something that is actually useful for their road cars.

On a side note, I was just watching the 2001 Australian GP and, despite the fact the field was more spread out and the overtaking was less frequent, I found it much more exciting. Firstly, the sound was more ferocious with the V10s, but more importantly the cars *looked* faster. It was exciting to see the cars being pushed to the limit, and in those days you actually got to see Schumi and Hakkinnen going lap for lap, who was the faster. These days they like to build up Hamilton vs. Vettel on the front row, but it never materialises as a proper fight because they're both limited by the style in which they have to drive.

[Trocola]

I think they should have done something with KERS. Since they introduced in 2009, the rules have been the same: 6,6 s and 80 bhp. They could increase the time of using it, one second each year. 7,6 seconds in 2010, 8,6 in 2011, this year 9,6... The same power output, but more time, wich is not too expensive, as cars can produce much more energy while braking


Trocola

[f1316]

I think they should have done something with KERS. Since they introduced in 2009, the rules have been the same: 6,6 s and 80 bhp. They could increase the time of using it, one second each year. 7,6 seconds in 2010, 8,6 in 2011, this year 9,6... The same power output, but more time, wich is not too expensive, as cars can produce much more energy while braking


Trocola

Yes, I agree with that too. Again, it's an area of development that could have some application to road cars which, for me (and probably the majority of lay men), is more interesting than the finer points of aerodynamics which are lost on most.

[Trocola]

I agree about the tires, there crap...I wanna see drviers going for it, pushing for every last tenth, not tippy toeing around trying to keep the tyres in one piece. If they want extra stops mandate that teams need to stop a minium of 2/3 times a race.

I think exactly the same. F1 should be more like DTM: 2 mandatory pit stops between two given laps. And then, drivers can take different approachs: stay with the same tyres, change them and go faster but with traffic...
Also, tyres should be good, no this crappy Pirellis, that you have to nurse them from lap 1.


Trocola

[MIKEY_!]

Tires with less (or no) marbles would make for much more overtaking.

[beelsebob]

Tires with less (or no) marbles would make for much more overtaking.

I disagree... no marbles implies no degradation, which destroys the primary reason we're getting overtaking now – because people have tyres that have degraded more than others.

Note also, several overtakes in china were the result of people running onto the marbles and losing a little traction.

That said – I *do* think that better tyres would mean that drivers could actually drive at their limit, and I'd love to see an F1 where the drivers with the ultimate ability to control the car won, rather than the drivers with the best ability to drive perfectly smoothly.

[MIKEY_!]

Apparently there are two kinds of degradation. One involves bits of tire falling off (creating marbles naturally) (this is called wear) and the other which is chemical change due to overheating (degradation). Not sure if that chemical change would result in bits falling off anyway but it does reduce grip. We sometimes see this at the hotter races on some cars.
It has the potential to make a much sturdier tire, resistant to flat spotting etc (if that was of interest) but one which will not last very long at full pace. There a plenty of positives and negatives but removing marbles is the primary goal.

[MIKEY_!]

Here's an idea to stop the exhaust being used for aerodynamic purposes:
Have a mandated exhaust pipe size, shape and position from the point at which it leaves the sidpods to the exit. Have the exit in the area above the sidepods where no bodywork can be placed so no coanda or downwash will be of use. Have the exit in line with the rear of the engine, aimed between the beam wing and rear wing, with no angle inwards/outwards or upwards/downwards. This would mean exposed pipe so an FIA regulated aerodynamic cover might be required. Opinions please

[f1316]

Here's an idea to stop the exhaust being used for aerodynamic purposes:
Have a mandated exhaust pipe size, shape and position from the point at which it leaves the sidpods to the exit. Have the exit in the area above the sidepods where no bodywork can be placed so no coanda or downwash will be of use. Have the exit in line with the rear of the engine, aimed between the beam wing and rear wing, with no angle inwards/outwards or upwards/downwards. This would mean exposed pipe so an FIA regulated aerodynamic cover might be required. Opinions please

Your suggestion sounds plausible to me - although I have to say I wasn't previously familiar with the coanda effect and therefore expected this year's regulations to stop exhausts being used in this way!

I was thinking that they could have stipulated that all cars must have the 2011 Renault type mid exhaust, from which they were unable to extract any blown diffuser benefit (and were therefore left behnid as the season progressed).

I presume the reason something like this would not be done, however, is because it produces a less pleasant exhaust note, which we know is regarded as a major part of the F1 experience.

[raymondu999]

IIRC the earlier version of 2012 exhaust regs would have guaranteed practically no exhaust benefit - with the exhaust pointing some way rear of the diffuser exit and rear axle.

[MIKEY_!]

Yes but that meant very long pipes and that is bad for the engines so teams complained a lot.

[Pingguest]

Also the paragraph about limiting the downforce to 1.25 tons was interesting. As we all know it was opposed by the teams and they brought in their own solution. Charlie now confirms that the target has been missed by 100%.

Charlie Whiting wrote the following statement.

Considering the possibility of a downforce limit

CW: Yes, there has been lots of talk about that. In fact, at the beginning of 2009 when we introduced the new aero rules for the wider front wing, arguably, what we wanted to do was restrict overall downforce – though, arguably, it didn’t work particularly well. We drafted a regulation that restricted downforce to 1250kg but it is extremely difficult to police, so we ended up, unfortunately, with more restrictions on the way cars are designed. As usual, the rules were intended to work with a certain level of downforce but the designers have doubled that.

I would explain it as that the downforce limit was too difficult, practically impossible to enforce.

[N12ck]

downforce limits take the fun out of f1, like, all the cars will be the same! which means no decent race, this is becoming more and more like indycar, we want to see different cars not same cars,

[Pingguest]

downforce limits take the fun out of f1, like, all the cars will be the same! which means no decent race, this is becoming more and more like indycar, we want to see different cars not same cars,

Downforce is not the sole performance parameter, is it?