Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[SilverArrow]

That's the point: TC will bring you closer to the apex speed. If you go too hot into a corner, you will have too much speed for the current level of grip. You'll start to slide and loose time.

Can you please explain how the TC will help a driver when going/braking into a corner?

For my understanding TC only helps if the throttle is a activ, i.e. when accelerating from the apex onwards.
Does it also increase stability during braking?

One final OT post on the subject - if you have a good understanding of what TC is, just listen to an onboard lap from one of the years it was still in use to hear where and when it comes into play. I find it more audible on the Ferrari onboards (particularly the F2004 - partly due to how awesome their system was). Seeing and hearing it at work beats any textual explanation!

[SilverArrow]

The point here is, what if there is a tire or suspension failure mid-corner? The driver has nothing to do with this, other than being at higher risk of injury when they plow in to the wall, at higher speed.

I think you're slightly overestimating the performance impact of active suspension.

I certainly concede the possibility. But between the aerodynamic gains (constant ride-height plus eliminated body roll/pitch,) optimized contact patch of tires, zero compromise on race day for changing fuel levels... I can't help but feel it would be fairly significant.

Fully agree. I should have been more clear and distinguished between lap time performance and performance in terms of power output. Would it impact performance? Significantly (several tenths at the least). Is it a safety concern despite this performance increase? Extremely improbable. Despite the big time gains, velocity through corners would increase by a rather small amount, and the overall stability benefits would more than offset this. For drivers it gives more of a "driving on rails" feeling, rather than say a sudden torque boost which would be dangerous. So yes it does increase performance, but you could say that it increases safety as well. After all the nature of the system is to provide safety - the performance benefit is a bonus.

I'm not for or against active suspension, just pointing out that safety is one factor that shouldn't be used against it!

[Juzh]

I think active suspension in this age and time at this level of sophistication and technology availabe to the teams, would give much more lap time than merely couple of tenths.

[WhiteBlue]

Yep, I agree that active suspension would be a good way to increase performance and reduce the amount of power needed.

[ell66]

could anyone tell me aside from the engine changes what other things are being changed for 2014? much areo or kers?

[Tommy Cookers]

regarding KERS, in 2014 energy recovered as electricity must be arranged to power the car continuously with use of the engine
that is electrical power and power from combustion of fuel are simultaneously controlled proportionate to the drivers use of the accelerator pedal (so there will not be short bursts of electrical power, and the term KERS will no longer be used)

electrical power will be harvested under braking in the same way as in KERS and harvested from the exhaust flow by the exhaust turbocharger driving a generator (that can also act as a motor)
the exhaust ('heat') energy recovery will be more continuous and total more than the braking (''kinetic') energy recovery
both sources of recovered energy power the electric motor driving the car, but the recovered exhaust energy will mostly be used directly, not stored (eg in the battery)
the electric motor can now be up to 120 kW (161 hp) max power

[WhiteBlue]

Aero will be a smaller front wing, no beam wing, a different air intake, a very low nose compared to this year, probably a shorter engine causing a shorter car and bulkier radiators for inter coolers.

[ell66]

Aero will be a smaller front wing, no beam wing, a different air intake, a very low nose compared to this year, probably a shorter engine causing a shorter car and bulkier radiators for inter coolers.

smaller front wings and no beam wings? pretty big changes there. Hoping for a shake up ala 2009, but hopefully a mediocre driver wont win the championship this time.

[Pandamasque]

lol))

Weren't these changes canned for fear that LMP1 will be faster?

[godlameroso]

lol))

Weren't these changes canned for fear that LMP1 will be faster?

Honestly if a LMP1 car weighed the same as an F1 car the (modern hybrid) LMP car would undoubtedly be faster.

[stfn_ger]

regarding KERS, in 2014 energy recovered as electricity must be arranged to power the car continuously with use of the engine
that is electrical power and power from combustion of fuel are simultaneously controlled proportionate to the drivers use of the accelerator pedal (so there will not be short bursts of electrical power, and the term KERS will no longer be used)

Few days back when autosport released the article about Mercedes presenting their 2014 engine they wrote:

The current KERS currently produces 80hp for 6.7 seconds per lap, while the new ERS will deliver 161 hp for 33.3 seconds per lap.

If the MGU-K is is going to support the engine continuously, where do these 33.3 seconds / lap come from?

[Tommy Cookers]

regarding KERS, in 2014 energy recovered as electricity must be arranged to power the car continuously with use of the engine
that is electrical power and power from combustion of fuel are simultaneously controlled proportionate to the drivers use of the accelerator pedal (so there will not be short bursts of electrical power, and the term KERS will no longer be used)

Few days back when autosport released the article about Mercedes presenting their 2014 engine they wrote:

The current KERS currently produces 80hp for 6.7 seconds per lap, while the new ERS will deliver 161 hp for 33.3 seconds per lap.

If the MGU-K is is going to support the engine continuously, where do these 33.3 seconds / lap come from?

161 hp is the maximum permitted electric motor power output (120 kW)
this is the MGU-K operating as a motor, this is the only electric motor that can power the car's wheels
the energy recovered from storage and delivered by this motor is limited to 4000 kJ per lap
(this recovered energy can be from braking ie the MGUK and from the exhaust turbine, the MGUH)
so if this motor was run at the 161 hp limit the 4000kJ would be delivered in 33.3 sec
but the motor power can only be used in proportion to engine power (torque really)
and stored energy will be frequently needed to drive the turbo up to speed by the MGUH acting as a motor
so the delivery of 4000 kJ of recovered energy would be dispersed over the lap, not concentrated eg 33.3 sec at full power

but this motor will be fed both recovered electricity from storage and (exhaust energy) electricity supplied 'directly' from the MGUH
there is no rule limiting the amount of such 'direct' electrical power
as long as all electrical power delivery is proportionate, ie integrated with the ICE power, and within the 161 hp limit

[Pandamasque]

Honestly if a LMP1 car weighed the same as an F1 car the (modern hybrid) LMP car would undoubtedly be faster.

F1 shouldn't even worry about that. They try to achieve repugnant tasks really. You can't make a breakthrough in technology, while saving money primarily on research development; you can't achieve good on-track battles when the cars are optimised for fastest qualifying laps in circuit racing, complete with gimmicky tools added to achieve passing without fighting for position. F1 is bipolar.

[Blanchimont]

The appendix to the 2013 regs

defines the nose cover as:

Article 3.7.9 Non-structural fairing laminate specification

General laminate: 1 ply woven 200g carbon (0.2mm) / 3mm Nomex core / 1 ply woven 200g carbon.
Edge reinforcement: The edge of the laminate may be reinforced with a further 2 plys of woven 200g
carbon (1 either side of the core) which may extend no further than 20mm in from the perimeter of
the fairing.

[godlameroso]

Does anyone think the 107% rule should in fact be more like a 103% rule?