I need help interpreting 3.10.1 (2008)

[Jagboy]

For my model I want the rear wings to abide by regs. I am having trouble understanding these, though. If someone could help me out by explaining these regs a bit I'd appreciate it. http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/ ... ations.pdf


JB

[Ciro Pabón]

Jagboy:

You are pointing us to the 2008 regulations. They are not in force yet, nor next year. If you were using the 2006 regulations, you could take a look to the 2005 technical drawings. I wonder if you have seen them (probably).

They are there to facilitate the life of stewards (they are the base for the layouts they use to check the bodywork at park fermé). I could not understand the 2006 version without these drawings.

Anyway, you could use the 2006 regulations (the crossed text on the 2008 version) and start from there, eliminating the areas which are not regulated anymore to get a drawing for 2008. I would be most grateful if you could post the result of your work. This way we would be the first forum with "non-official" layouts. The drawings are like these, in case some of you haven't seen them:







I've never understand why the drawings are labelled 2005 technical drawings at the FIA site. Haven't they published the 2006 version? Are they the same? Thanks in advance if anybody can answer my doubt.

[Jagboy]

I actually do need help on the 2008 regs. I am building a model F1 car on SolidWorks (viewtopic.php?t=3206) that abides by the 2008 regs and reached the CDG rear wing last night. It's hard for me to understand the part about how close the elements can be, what shape they can be, and things like that. Those pictures proved extremely useful, though, when I was designing the body. Thanks for being willing to help.


JB

[Ciro Pabón]

I've been reading 3.10.1 once and again and I do not understand very well how this relates to rear wings. I suppose they are part of the bodywork (?), but where in the regulation 3.10.1 there is something about the shape of the elements or its spacing?

Could you explain a little better what your problem is? I won't be able to help, I am sure , but perhaps what you are doing could be helpful for future generations of mechanical engineers confronting the same problem at college...

Thanks for the drawings on the other thread. I am sure that the amateur aerodynamicists in the forum will appreciate that.

You know, I've been able to solve many problems simply by stating them. While you are explaining it, sometimes you have an "Aha!" moment. I've been known for outlining complicated engineering problems to the girl that cleans the office and with her "help", solving them! My colleagues make jokes about me on that...

[JimmyK]

I've never understand why the drawings are labelled 2005 technical drawings at the FIA site. Haven't they published the 2006 version? Are they the same? Thanks in advance if anybody can answer my doubt.

yeh, they were there last year as well if I remember correctly.

I think the 2006 drawings would probably be very similar, there's been very few (only 1 that I know of) notable aerodynamic changes this year.

[Jagboy]

With the exception of 10mm on each of their outer extremities and 25mm on each of the inner
extremities, within these areas bodywork may lie no less than 740mm above the reference plane and
315mm behind the rear wheel centre line. When viewed from the side of the car, all longitudinal cross
sections in this upper area must :
- be identical ;
- be arranged in order that their rearmost points are no less than 695mm behind the rear wheel
centre line or 965mm above the reference plane ;
- contain no more than three closed sections, the distance between adjacent sections at any
longitudinal plane not exceeding 15mm at their closest position.
Any horizontal section taken through bodywork located in the areas 515mm to 540mm and 990mm to
1000mm from the car centre line may contain no more than one section which is symmetrical about
its major axis which in turn is parallel to the car centre line.

That part seems to describe what is in between the two outer plates. What does it mean? Does the "be identical" part mean that the elements must not curve like the front wing does?


JB

[joseff]

Yes, that means no curve

Also:
- contain no more than three closed sections, the distance between adjacent sections at any
longitudinal plane not exceeding 15mm at their closest position.

means a 3-element wing (cascade, not triplane). I think your model shows a biplane, which is against this rule.

[Ciro Pabón]

Thanks, jagboy, now I see.

joseff:
it says "no more than three". Two is "no more" than three.

jagboy:
Now that I see that the bodywork is the wing (how funny, in spanish at least) I can see why are you wondering if "identical" means if the section must be constant and at the same height. I can think of a couple of curved forms that have constant section (the wing has the same thickness along its width) but are curved.

However, "identical" does not give you much margin. Probably, they must have not only the same thickness but also be located in the same position in the cross section, which means flat wings.

As joseff points out, they must be 15 mm apart. The rest of the regulation indicates, as I read it that:
- the lowest point of the wing has to be 740 mm over the reference plane
- the rear edge of the wing cannot be more than 965 mm above the reference plane and cannot be closer than 695 mm to the wheel center line.

What I find mistifying is the part about the sections taken between 515 and 540 mm (and 990 to 1000) from the center line to have just one section, simmetrical and with an horizontal major axis...

[Jagboy]

What do you mean by cascade? Triplane?

Hmm... I was hoping that it was going to be curved wings. And major axis, how does that apply to a curved surface?


JB

[joseff]

it says "no more than three". Two is "no more" than three.

Yeah, I meant to say that Jagboy's wing elements look too far apart (in a biplane configuration) which is against the rules that specifies "max 15mm" apart. Also the wings are curved, which is against "identical cross sections"

However, "identical" does not give you much margin. Probably, they must have not only the same thickness but also be located in the same position in the cross section, which means flat wings.

You're obviously more imaginative than I am... when I read this I immediately thought "flat wings!" but yes, obviously, you can curve the wing and maintain the same cross section. I think we've found a gray area here. However, "identical cross sections" should mean the end of fins, spacers, and whatnot on the wings.

What I find mistifying is the part about the sections taken between 515 and 540 mm (and 990 to 1000) from the center line to have just one section, simmetrical and with an horizontal major axis...

Hmmm... sounds like endplates to me. "One closed section", right? That also means no more cutouts or grilles in the endplates. "Symmetrical about a horizontal axis" simply means the endplates can't curve inwards or outwards (ie. left or right), it has to be straight front to back.

I'm also looking at 3.10.1.b, that looks like a really tiny diffuser, with a flat inclined top. I could be wrong here. 3.10.1.c looks like the wing mount/strut.

[Reca]

I suggest you to not waste time with these regulations, some weeks ago it was decided that any change on aero will be applied in 2009, so for 2007 and 2008 rules will stay as they are and most likely real 2009 rules will have nothing to do with that draft (that honestly I never read since just the vague descriptions of the basic in news gave me an headache...).

In particular, AFAIK (it was reported by Italian media) the CDG wing concept was rejected by teams technical directors several months ago, at the TWG meeting the week after the Imola race, because the first results from teams tests were “unpromising” to say the least. Last I heard, months ago, is that FIA was working on something else (apparently in the Fondmetal wind tunnel) but it should have nothing to do with twin wing concept.

If we are lucky the next two years with hard rock tyres (and hopefully one with slick) will open people eyes to the fact that problems in overtaking had lot more to do with ultra-sticky marble generating tyres than with aero. That, coupled with a drastic limitation of engine power increment and to the control of speed via single tyre supplier, will possibly lead to new aero rules removing all the senseless restrictions added in the last years, putting the front wing down on the ground where it belongs and allowing teams to easily generate downforce without wasting months to optimise the shape of the zillionth idiotic winglet attached somewhere to gain that crucial 10 N of downforce.

[Jagboy]

That's good to know. I'll stay with the 2008 regs for now because everything is designed around them. It wont be hard to change when the next regs come out, though. When are they going to write the 2009 rules?


JB

[Reca]

I don’t know, but I would hope they’ll wait at very minimum last races of 2007 to start the discussions about them so to have a clear idea of the effects of single tyre supplier on racing and speeds.
Actually if it was for me it would be easy... back to pre-2005 rules on aero bar the front wing, for that one back to pre-2001. And then back to 1997 for car’s width and tyre dimensions. That will do IMO for racing way more than any CDG wing could ever do because IMO, excluding safety requirements (that I sincerely applaud), everything else was modified in the last 10 years in the technical rules was in the wrong direction...