Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[turbof1]

You can have challenge driving slower cars for sure, but for the vast majority of its history F1 cars have been the fastest cars on a track (and often by a large margin) and speed brings difficulty, so i'm a bit sceptical of 2014 aero rules and think it is sad cars were not maintened to 2004 levels. I recently browsed back F1 rejects interviews, not one driver when asked is favourite type of car answered anything else than "single seaters, F1 cars" with justification that "you can't attack as much with other cars".

I think the problem for the FIA is that they can't control de performance as much as spec series so they're stuck between allowing development and constraining performance. The ground effects plans were good, it was a near spec floor, would have made the car quick enough and yet the developments would still be engine oriented; But no..teams refused it and now if the current regs are finalized we'll end up with monza levels of downforce at monaco...

I also don't see why they don't want to allow ground effect; yes it is a cost, but they have to redesign the complete car anyway, so it's not going to weight up that much if you need to start from a blank sheet. Furthermore, ground effect would be the perfect solution to overtaking, being rather a drag-free, less-aerosenstive solution. A real shame.

[WhiteBlue]

..between 2000 and now cars generally have become slower instead of faster. The FIA banned consistently area's of development. For 2014 rules will become even more stringent. So we have slower cars with less methods of developing. In the end F1 will end up being like GP2: a development-sterile series.

I see a number of inaccuracies in your view.
From 2000 to 2004 performance of the F1 cars did continually rise. So your statement does not hold true there.

The ban on development wasn't entirely done by the FiA for safety purposes. The rules are heavily influenced by the teams and the promoter in the F1 commission which ultimately is the regulatory power house of F1. Some of the development curbs were done by the teams to keep F1 sustainable in the face of the economic crises in 2007 that is still no entirely overcome. To balance this situation we have also seen the addition of movable aerodynamics (DRS) which has made the cars faster and has added a substantial development and sporting interest for the fans.

We are to see the biggest regulatory change in 2014 since the introduction of the engine freeze. There will be massive development potential for both aerodynamics and mechanical systems. So a comparison with GP2 regarding development intensity is far off the mark if you take a fair look at the regulation changes to come.

[WhiteBlue]

The ground effects plans were good, it was a near spec floor, would have made the car quick enough and yet the developments would still be engine oriented; But no..teams refused it and now if the current regs are finalized we'll end up with monza levels of downforce at monaco...

I also don't see why they don't want to allow ground effect; yes it is a cost, but they have to redesign the complete car anyway, so it's not going to weight up that much if you need to start from a blank sheet. Furthermore, ground effect would be the perfect solution to overtaking, being rather a drag-free, less-aerosenstive solution. A real shame.

The reason for rejecting the ground effect plan was conservative thinking by the leading teams. A radical departure from the aero configuration together with a new power train would potentially upset the grid order big time. Particularly Ferrari were not happy about the prospect of a massive aerodynamic shake up. But I think that Merc and McLaren were not supportive either. The working group was lead by Patrick Head from Williams. So we can assume that the mid sized teams would have profited most from a shake up. I agree that it is a shame.

[turbof1]

..between 2000 and now cars generally have become slower instead of faster. The FIA banned consistently area's of development. For 2014 rules will become even more stringent. So we have slower cars with less methods of developing. In the end F1 will end up being like GP2: a development-sterile series.

I see a number of inaccuracies in your view.
From 2000 to 2004 performance of the F1 cars did continually rise. So your statement does not hold true there.

The ban on development wasn't entirely done by the FiA for safety purposes. The rules are heavily influenced by the teams and the promoter in the F1 commission which ultimately is the regulatory power house of F1. Some of the development curbs were done by the teams to keep F1 sustainable in the face of the economic crises in 2007 that is still no entirely overcome. To balance this situation we have also seen the addition of movable aerodynamics (DRS) which has made the cars faster and has added a substantial development and sporting interest for the fans.

We are to see the biggest regulatory change in 2014 since the introduction of the engine freeze. There will be massive development potential for both aerodynamics and mechanical systems. So a comparison with GP2 regarding development intensity is far off the mark if you take a fair look at the regulation changes to come.

The statement holds, because I am counting from between 2000 and 2012. I do agree they got faster between 2000 and 2004, however from then off we got ever more stringent rules: 2005 aero restrictions. 2006 no more V10; 2007 engine freeze; 2009 simplification of aerodynamics, 2011 ban of DD's and worse performing tyres. For 2014 we will simplified aero. Yes the first year there will be development on the aero and engine part. However aero will only about optimizing; you are not going to see much aero development after 2014. Engine and all the energy recovery systems are heavily restricted. I am certainly seeing another engine freeze after 2014 too.

[FW17]

[quote="WhiteBlue"] Particularly Ferrari were not happy about the prospect of a massive aerodynamic shake up. But I think that Merc and McLaren were not supportive either. /quote]


For a moment it sounded just like the late 70's early 90's when the manufacturers (Renault, Ferrari, Alfa) could not fit in with the ground effect configuration of the garagistes.

But this time I think Williams, Red Bull and few other private guys were also not in favor as they were worried about run away winners (like brawn)

[WhiteBlue]

..I am certainly seeing another engine freeze after 2014 too.

I don't share that view. My prediction is that the F1 commission will be successfully introducing resource restrictions for both chassis and power trains. This will negate the need for the bulk of development curbs and offer more freedom. Safety curbs will be done by reducing the fuel allowance and will not impact so much on the aerodynamic and engine technology as it has done in the past. The general direction of seeking more efficiency will lead to more application of ground effect and adaptive aerodynamics. At least that would be the preferred development vision I have for F1. I'm pretty sure it is shared by some of the strategic thinking people in the FiA and the teams.

[WhiteBlue]

But this time I think Williams, Red Bull and few other private guys were also not in favor as they were worried about run away winners (like brawn)

Hard to say. They keep these meetings secret so that the fans have no clue who voted the plan down. We can only say that the majority of teams demanded to abolish the plan and the FiA allowed the motion. I believe that there could have been a junctim with the turbo engines. The engines were more essential for the long term plans of the FiA to reduce the fuel consumption. So they temporarily binned the ground effect plan to establish that paradigm change first. There is only so much you can do at one time.

[turbof1]

..I am certainly seeing another engine freeze after 2014 too.

I don't share that view. My prediction is that the F1 commission will be successfully introducing resource restrictions for both chassis and power trains. This will negate the need for the bulk of development curbs and offer more freedom. Safety curbs will be done by reducing the fuel allowance and will not impact so much on the aerodynamic and engine technology as it has done in the past. The general direction of seeking more efficiency will lead to more application of ground effect and adaptive aerodynamics. At least that would be the preferred development vision I have for F1. I'm pretty sure it is shared by some of the strategic thinking people in the FiA and the teams.

That would indeed be a good overall solution, but we already have top teams not being too keen on resource restrictions (red bull being clearly at the head of that group). Resource restrictions are commonly difficult to push through. That's part of competition: you want to win, so you want to put as much as you can into it without being limited. There will be teams certainly pro restriction, but teams who are against will do anything to block it. So fia will try it differently then, by trying to reduce costs with what they control: technical regulations. Not that is that much helpfull: engine manufacturers are still spending 30-50 million dollars on developing (as in without the production!) freezed engines.

[WhiteBlue]

We should only have some weeks to wait until we learn how the debate at the FiA about resource restrictions, the turbo formula, the money to the FiA and the other Concord Agreement issues turn out. Todt has said that the talks were constructive and will lead to a new agreement in some weeks. We should know better by then were F1 is going.

[Ogami musashi]

Furthermore, ground effect would be the perfect solution to overtaking, being rather a drag-free, less-aerosenstive solution. A real shame.

The solution is not so simple. GE are prone to disturbances too and this is amplified by the fact F1 cars have vastly different flow fields from one car to another. When your car is made to work with the air flowing a certain way and the one leading works the other way, the wake is necessarily more detrimental to you.

But that's another topic. The problem as it is now is that the aero regs are more and more restrictive leading to slowing down the cars and at the same time because downforce is the most efficient performance differenciator teams spend millions in it.

[turbof1]

Furthermore, ground effect would be the perfect solution to overtaking, being rather a drag-free, less-aerosenstive solution. A real shame.

The solution is not so simple. GE are prone to disturbances too and this is amplified by the fact F1 cars have vastly different flow fields from one car to another. When your car is made to work with the air flowing a certain way and the one leading works the other way, the wake is necessarily more detrimental to you.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVDDiz7uSv0[/youtube]
I think that shows the potentional of GE, doesn't it? I mean look how close they can drive one to another in the corners, with such ease!

[WhiteBlue]

I think that shows the potentional of GE, doesn't it? I mean look how close they can drive one to another in the corners, with such ease!

Very impressive indeed! IMO the main reason for banning ground effect was two fold.
First they did not have run offs as we have nowadays on fast tracks. So component failures and other accidents with interruption of ground effect were causing fatal accidents.
Second they did not have a suitable way to curb excessive performance.
From 2014 onwards it will be very easy to curb excessive cornering performance and speed. You just take away more fuel flow from the engine and force designers to keep cutting drag from the aero configuration. It will simply become an issue of introducing the fuel cuts at a sensible point of the performance development. As this will happen we will see more ground effect and movable aerodynamic elements appear in F1.
F1 can still be the pinnacle of road racing but it will be much more sophisticated in terms of energy use. Performance will be generated with ever decreasing fuel use and more clever engineering.
There is very little doubt that you can today generate the performance of the 1987 cars with a third of the energy expenditure if you use clever aerodynamics. Ground effect, movable aero, flexible aero and adaptable aero will be the tools of such future developments.

[Ogami musashi]

Your video, while great, shows monaco and cars cornering at speeds where the main element is tyre's grip.
If you find other videos you'll see close racing but the track were fairly different with long bends. Was watching a GTP race yesterday, commentator in 92 noted that it was hard to overtake sometimes because of the wake of the other car.

Now one thing for sure, nowadays you have so many flow conditioners (and they are here because of restricted aerodynamics on the main surfaces) that disturbances cause serious downforce variations.

I'm not as sure as WB ground effects and moveable aeros will be seen soon..

[turbof1]

Your video, while great, shows monaco and cars cornering at speeds where the main element is tyre's grip.
If you find other videos you'll see close racing but the track were fairly different with long bends. Was watching a GTP race yesterday, commentator in 92 noted that it was hard to overtake sometimes because of the wake of the other car.

Now one thing for sure, nowadays you have so many flow conditioners (and they are here because of restricted aerodynamics on the main surfaces) that disturbances cause serious downforce variations.

I'm not as sure as WB ground effects and moveable aeros will be seen soon..

There alot of videos out there where cars with ground effect (and not in 92 when it was almost a decade banned) racing that close, on different tracks. All show cars following eachother with ease, even on circuit which have corners like the ones today, and indeed: 2 cars battling it out for laps, overtaking eachother constantly. You'll have to look for yourself.

Concerning flow conditioners: in the current generation of f1 cars that has been largely reduced compared to the previous one: pre-2009 f1 cars where absolutely littered with flow conditioners, all over the bodywork. Suprisingly, cars back then didn't had more trouble to overtake then today. It shows 2009 rules clearly failed at what they were supposed to do.

[Ogami musashi]

92 is for GTP, not F1; GTP cars produced up to 10 000lbs of downforce with Venturi channels has the largest contributor.

On a F1 car, the front wing itself is the largest flow conditionner;

Two independent studies, one by the Overtaking Working group, and the other by an american university studied ground effects in wake and both found that venturi channel were prone to mass flow decrease when in the wake, additionally BMW did a study in 2007 focusing on a diffuser oriented downforce device and found the results in wake being worse than the standard package. That's why 2009 F1 cars focused on having the rear wing as a powerful sucking device instead of having a diffuser focused downforce.

The fact that they succeeded in or not is largely dependent on what i said, the Overtaking working Group worked on a standard F1 car and they studied 2 identical cars and they found real improvements but the reality is that all F1 cars are different and thus their flow fields are different so losses following one F1 car differ from another one. This was noted by pilots saying back in 2009 that for example the toyota was the hardest to follow.

Back in the GE days in F1 the cars did not corner as fast as now which means any loss of downforce could be coped with (they could afford to slide) and the large bends of the then tracks were also good for that.

The actual trend in research for overtaking is not in going for a venturi or not, but is having devices that clean the wake.