2014 aero regs revert to 2012 regs

[Blanchimont]

https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/stat ... 5587431424

Read the last two comments, Benson seems to be absolutely sure about his article.

[Hobbs04]

Interesting to see how many DRD device we see showing up on the cars. Now with DDRS banned and DRS banned in quali, this is really the only silver bullet left. Scarbs mentioned DDRS could be used to blow many different things, side pods, beam wing, stalling diffuser etc. Mercedes may not have overall package but those Brackley boys like to come up with the loop holes (no pun intended). It might have been something teams wouldn't have invested in but now with the extension of current rules could see a reasonable return on investment.

Another question any benefits from this waste gate exhaust http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2012/01/wa ... users.html

Let's get back on topic

[WhiteBlue]

Another question any benefits from this waste gate exhaust http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2012/01/wa ... users.html
Let's get back on topic

The comments on that web page assume that the new exhaust regulations in 2014 will not cover the position of waste gates and only the position of proper exhausts. My first doubt would be regarding the validity of that assumption. We cannot know this until we have seen the regulation in wording.

My second concern with the theory is the general design principle of an electrically assisted turbo charger. Any excess torque from the turbine will typically not be released via a waste gate but used to generate electricity. I do not know if the advantage of adding that electric energy to the acceleraion torque would not exceed the benefit of using the waste gasses to blow a diffusor.

Third, it would be very easy to issue a directive to stop a practise that is clearly in violation of the intentions of the rule. Teams typically approach the FiA before relying on the exploitation of such a loop hole. I would think that at this point the plan would be shot down.

So from an over all point of view i see little probability for such a device playing a role in 2014.

[FrukostScones]

automotorundsport.de Michael Schmidt reports the same as the BBC guy. http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 97002.html
No revert back to full 2012 regs, only efficient (formely inefficient declared) turning vanes allowed now, 685kg minimum weight maybe more depending on 2014 tyre weight.

Target was and is 5sec slower lap times, now they see it will be more, maybe also with turnign vanes.
Only 100Kg Fuel allowed, so small tanks won't allow any in season power hike (unless they bring back refueling).
I didn't know that the 2014 coming "greenwashing try too hard wannabe efficient till I die" Formula was so bad.

Rest in pieces F1. Have fun with your low noses guys.

(I hope I m wrong)

[hollus]

How much ballast is there currently in an F1 car?

[WhiteBlue]

Only 100Kg Fuel allowed, so small tanks won't allow any in season power hike (unless they bring back refueling).

The fuel limit has been known for a very long time. And power hikes are still possible. They simply have to find efficiency increases now to raise the power. A fuel flow formula is a game changer and engineers must think out of the box to gain advantages.

685kg minimum weight maybe more depending on 2014 tyre weight.

That is massive and much more than I would have thought. It means we have 50 kg less fuel but 45 kg more mass of the power train. I wonder what is causing this huge weigh increase. Most likely the batteries, the MGUs and their associated power electronics.

[autogyro]

Well the electronics are still very much in their infancy as far as F1 goes.

[turbof1]

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... 111212.pdf

quoted from Keith Collantine (f1fanatic):

The minimum weight will be further increased from 642kg in 2012 to 685kg to account for the rise in weight from the new power units. The regulations on power units, electrical systems and transmission have been extensively revised – see the full rules below for details.

Although parts of the rules on aerodynamic bodywork have been moved closer to the current rules (articles 3.7.3-6), the planned reduction in front wing width from 1,800mm to to 1,650mm has been retained (article 3.4.1).

[WhiteBlue]

There is also a fixed weight distribution for 2014 only.

[RobS]

Am I reading those wrong, or does the 2014 regs state 550mm high nose, same as 2012 regs, blowing Andrew Benson's BBC article out of the water?

[WhiteBlue]

I was looking for the nose paragraph but I have been unable to find it. Can somebody point that out to us.

[Blanchimont]

The nose is described in article 15.4.3 and is still limited at ~185mm.

15.4.3
An impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell.
This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but must be solidly attached to it.
It must have a minimum external cross section, in horizontal projection, of 9000mm² at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point.
Furthermore :
a) No part of this cross-section may lie more than 500mm above the reference plane.
b) The centre of area of this section must be no more than 185mm above the reference plane.
c) No part of this section may be more than 50mm below its centre of area.

[RobS]

Ah excellent, thanks for that, I am fairly new at trying to decipher the regulations.

[WhiteBlue]

Am I reading those wrong, or does the 2014 regs state 550mm high nose, same as 2012 regs, blowing Andrew Benson's BBC article out of the water?

The nose is described in article 15.4.3 and is still limited at ~185mm.

15.4.3An impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell.
This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but must be solidly attached to it.
It must have a minimum external cross section, in horizontal projection, of 9000mm² at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point.
Furthermore :
a) No part of this cross-section may lie more than 500mm above the reference plane.
b) The centre of area of this section must be no more than 185mm above the reference plane.
c) No part of this section may be more than 50mm below its centre of area.

So Bensons article on BBC is pretty much on the money? What did the experts find on the claim of banning the beam wing?

[WhiteBlue]

So, according to Mr. Benson here, what the FIA really said in their press release was: "Changes made to bodywork design, originally aimed at reducing downforce and drag for increased efficiency, have reverted to 2012 specification [except for front wings, front wing end plates, noses, beam wings, exhaust, etc.]."

I mean, really, the man didn't have the decency to attribute the information in this "article" to even an "unnamed source." He just thinks he sees tea leaves.

This is what I like to call "bullshit."

It turns out bhallg2k was wrong. Mr. Benson obviously knew what he was talking about, at least on those points we have verified so far.