2014 aero regs revert to 2012 regs

[raymondu999]

As pointed out previously, the nose might still have gone through anyways, because it was a safety change. I haven't downloaded a copy of the regs myself. What do the front, rear and beam wings look like?

[Ogami musashi]

Haven't finished yet but the main thing so far that changes from the previous draft is the allowance of turning vanes and comples endplates.

But so far the beam wing (banned), front (narrower) and rear wing (shallower) are untouched (compared to previous draft).

[WhiteBlue]

That adds beam wing of items confirmd to the list then. The 185 mm low nose was already confirmed by Blanchimont. So the list is pretty much complete now?

[Ogami musashi]

Well actually i'm searching through for the shallower rear wing, because i thought i had it but the paragraph is also into the 2012 regs...

But beam wing banned is pretty clear with :

3.10.1 There must be no bodywork more than 150mm behind the rear wheel centre line which lies
between 75mm and 355mm from the car centre line and between 150mm and 750mm above
the reference plane.

[Joie de vivre]

Can someone tell me a quick summary what was reverted from 2014 to 2012? Will stepped noses still be there? Are cascades on FW banned or not?

[bhall]

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.

Nah, that wasn't me. That was bhallg2k Technology.

[Ogami musashi]

3.10.1 stipulates the shallower rear wing as well as banning of beam wing.

But there's a potential big change from the previous draft:

Furthermore, the distance between adjacent sections at any longitudinal vertical plane must
lie between 10mm and 15mm at their closest position, except, in accordance with Article 3.18,
when this distance must lie between 10mm and 65mm.

Instead of 65mm the previous draft was like 2012 at 50mm. This means that the lower RW element is now flatter and the upper RW element (the one that is DRSable) has now a larger chord to make most of the downforce....And coincidently the rule of using the DRS only when allowed have disappeared! It may mean that the DRS will be now use free not on/off anymore.

[turbof1]

3.10.1 stipulates the shallower rear wing as well as banning of beam wing.

But there's a potential big change from the previous draft:

Furthermore, the distance between adjacent sections at any longitudinal vertical plane must
lie between 10mm and 15mm at their closest position, except, in accordance with Article 3.18,
when this distance must lie between 10mm and 65mm.

Instead of 65mm the previous draft was like 2012 at 50mm. This means that the lower RW element is now flatter and the upper RW element (the one that is DRSable) has now a larger chord to make most of the downforce....And coincidently the rule of using the DRS only when allowed have disappeared! It may mean that the DRS will be now use free not on/off anymore.

The use of drs is a sporting regulation, not a technical one. You have to look at the corresponding pdf for that one.

So to get things straight: all the bodywork changes that were previously announced for the 2014 season, excluding the ones that were vaguely outlined, are still going through? If that happens and nothing is going to be added to compensate the df loss, I'll quit watching. Cars generally are going to be much slower and I cant find any good reason why so. Lower noses: ok fine, that is a safety issue, but wanting to make the cars that much slower is just idiocity. Whats next: usain bolt faster then a f1 car?

[matt21]

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

I cannot find anything in the regulations stating that you´re only allowed to use 100kg of fuel for a race.
The maximum fuel flow is restricted to 100kg/hr. So in an typical 80 min race you can burn 133kg.

Furthermore, the distance between adjacent sections at any longitudinal vertical plane must
lie between 10mm and 15mm at their closest position, except, in accordance with Article 3.18,
when this distance must lie between 10mm and 65mm.

The difference is the DRS-activation.

[Tommy Cookers]

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

I cannot find anything in the regulations stating that you´re only allowed to use 100kg of fuel for a race.
The maximum fuel flow is restricted to 100kg/hr. So in an typical 80 min race you can burn 133kg.

27.8 gm/sec is 100 kg/hr if the engine is on 100% torque demand (and 10500 rpm or more) for every second of that hour

with typical racing 100 kg fuel would give about 75 - 80 min race time ?
the longer races would need up to 130 kg ?

[Blanchimont]

I cannot find anything in the regulations stating that you´re only allowed to use 100kg of fuel for a race.
The maximum fuel flow is restricted to 100kg/hr. So in an typical 80 min race you can burn 133kg.

You're right with the maximum fuel rate of 100kg/h, but your estimation of consume per race is to simple.

You assume that at every single time in the race you are feeding the engine with 100kg/h, but you do not consider that cars are also braking, cornering and doing pit stops and therefor consume less fuel than at full throttle.

A better estimation for total fuel consumption per race should be:

Monza
race time: 80 min
time at full throttle: 70%
fuel consumption: 80min*0,7*100kg/60min = 93,3 kg
add 20% for braking/cornering: 112 kg

Monaco
race time: 105 min
time at full throttle: 45%
fuel: 105min*0,45*100kg/60min = 78,75 kg
+20% = 94,5 kg

Barcelona
race time: 100 min
full throttle: 57%
fuel: 95 kg
+20%: 114 kg

[Tommy Cookers]

3.10.1 stipulates the shallower rear wing as well as banning of beam wing.

This means that the lower RW element is now flatter and the upper RW element (the one that is DRSable) has now a larger chord to make most of the downforce....And coincidently the rule of using the DRS only when allowed have disappeared! It may mean that the DRS will be now use free not on/off anymore.

the FIA's aero rules have since the 1967 ban on moveable aero devices promoted inefficient (high drag) downforce
now the FIA is to be praised for reversing this policy ?

(similarly they have reversed after 100 years the policy of requiring engines to be volumetrically efficient and fuel-inefficient)

[WhiteBlue]

The ban on movable aero was done for safety purposes in the old time when we had gas up to the gills. Now we are beyond peak oil and soon our kids and grand kids will start scraping the bottom of the barrel so to speak to satisfy the demand for fossil fuels. On top we have a global warming problem that is accelerating with the global acceleration of fuel use. So the basic philosophy is changing according to our supply situation. We now use more technology instead of unlimited use of fuel. That is fine with me in principle. Movable aero should be much safer in 2014 than it was in 1964. We should give the FiA some credit for reviewing their policies from time to time and adjusting to the new realities. It is hard enough to convince the petrol heads that it is necessary and sensible.

[mozza_84]

I don't think there was really any incentive for change. This past season was apparently the most popular one in ages, which presumably means most fans need only DRS and silly putty tires to be completely entertained. Why spend more to make the smaller "F1T contingent" happy when the sport is quite healthy both critically and financially as it is?

At any rate, I guess this removes most doubt as to whether or not the V6 will be introduced as planned.

EDIT:

So... Lewis Hamilton doing a happy dance?

I'd totally forgotten about that one. I bet he's livid.

Hamilton alone can pull half a second extra out the car alone that's without Mercedes plowing millions into the new engine and the complete overhaul of the aero ill think he will just fine.

[Ogami musashi]

The use of drs is a sporting regulation, not a technical one. You have to look at the corresponding pdf for that one.

No, it's in the technical regs 3.18 paragraph. It is there for 2012, was there in the previous 2014 draft has been promptly deleted in the new one.

The difference is the DRS-activation.

No. The physical point of rotation is the same as now, the volume is fixed and the relative dimension of lower RW element to upper RW element as well as their minimum radius are fixed and the same than in both previous 2014 draft and current regs.
This means this changes the placement and dimensions of both elements which, because of said fixed volume means the dimensions and AOA are potentially changed.