Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[Ogami musashi]

As there's too many thread on the subject i thought about starting one general topic on future regulations.
(I'll update this first post as updates comes)


2009 technical rules :

The goals:

-Control costs
-Improve the show by decreasing aerodynamic efficiency loss when following someone
-Develop ecological solutions


The means:

-Downforce reduced to half 2006 levels (around 1250KG maximum at the end of a straight)
-Slick tyres re-introduced (4 compounds for the season)
-NO tyre warmer ban
-75cm wide,95cm high rear wing (2 elements permitted)
-180cm wide, 7,5Cm high adjustable front wing (2 times per lap)
-KERS system, about additional 80HP usable during 7 seconds per lap, unlimited use of the KERS over the race.
-KERS could be used as handling device by transfering torque at certain times.
-Budget cap test year, cap is 175M euros (no penalty if a team use more money than planned)

Detailed new regulations:

Full regs aviable at: http://www.fia.com

Overall
-Width stays the same than in 2008 (1800mm max, 1400mm bodywork)(3.3)
-Max height 950mm (3.6)

Front
-Bridge wings/ferrari wings banned but 2005 renault style upper plans authorized (3.7.3-4,3.7.
-Standard part for the front wing's lower central element, 50cm wide, no flaps authorized (3.7.3)
-Limited (minimum and maximum) surface for the front wing lower element 20 000 mm² (3.7.4-3.7.7)
-Front wing maw width 1800mm (3.7.6)
-cockpit to nose minimum height lowered to 75mm max 125mm (front wing included) (3.7.1)
-No boomerang/ear/vikings wings (3.11.1,3.11.2)
-hole nose permitted? (3.11.x, 3.8.x)
-Nose width may be extended/front wing bring forward (3.14.2,3.17.x)
-The adjustable part be the lower element of front wing starting from the outer edge of the standard part to the end plates. (2 adjustments per lap max 6°, except while at the pits) (3.18)

Between wheels
-No appendices authorized (chimneys, flips up, ramp wings, etc..) (3.8.1,3.8.4,3.8.5,3.9.1)
-Minimum sidepods radius fixed at 75mm from rear wheel center line through the cockpit, applies for bodywork 100mm above the reference plane (3.8.4)
-Sidepods lengthen till cockpit (3.8.4)
-Barge boards cut dimensions (3.8.4)
-sidepods height limited to 600mm (decreasing as you move towards rear wheels) (3.8.3,3.9.1)
-No apertures authorized in the sidepods except: exhaust parts and suspension travel members (3.8.4,3.8.5)
-Shark fins authorized (3.8.x,3.9.x)
-ramp wings banned (3.8.4)


Rear
-Bodywork less than 200mm above the reference plane, 1000 mm wide (3.5.1)
-Rear wings 750mm wide (3.5.2) up to 950mm high (3.6, no article limiting the rear wing height)
-No rear wing (main elements) below 730mm above reference plane (3.9.2)
-Beam wing no less than 300mm above the reference plane(3.10.1)
-Beam wing must be one element max (3.10.1)
-Rear wing must be 350mm behind wheels center line at maximum (3.10.2)
-Rear wing must be two element max between 730mm+ and 950mm+, one element between 200mm+ and 730mm+ (3.10.2)
-Minimum vertical spacing between beam wing and rear wing (3.10.8 )
-Diffuser moved rearwards by 330mm (from rear wheel center line to 300mm behind it)(3.12.1)
-Lateral diffuser height may be less than 50mm (3.12.2)
-Diffuser height raised to 175mm (3.12.7)

2010 regs:

The goals:

-increase the objectives from 2009

The means:

-Budget cap in place
-KERS limits loosened (more power usable)


2011 regs(Teams proposal to be made october 2011 at last):

The goals:

-Retain lap times/top speeds from the 2008 era
-More Cost control
-Decrease drag
-Decrease fuel consumption
-Improve the show
-More ecological solutions

The means:

-20% fuel consumption reduction (compared to 2008)
-KERS limits loosened even more (front wheel braking energy recovery planned/more power usable)
-adaptive aerodynamics planned
-slipstreaming giving grip advantage
-Fuel flow limit
-technical rules proposed by teams, approved by FIA, if not, rules by FIA.

2013 regs(Engine formula to be decided in july 2011):

The goals:

-Extend the ecology trend

The means:

-New engines formula (based on hybrid technologies)



2015 regs:

The goals:

-Extend the ecology trend

The means:
-50% fuel reduction (compared to 2008)

[Ogami musashi]

News is that max mosley has issued a new letter on 2011 regulations with some subtle changes.

The letter is aviable here http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68801

But more some of the details
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=35276

What has changed in relation to the proposed 2011 framework is that the FIA doesn't propose anything!

They just let teams make their proposal.

I also noted some slight changes in direction. First they want to retain the same lap times, they don't want to cut downforce necessarily, and seem to want a kind of fuel consumption formula.

The initiative of asking teams to arrange technical details is a very good thing i think!

The OWG has some work to do.

[Scotracer]

Well currently the V8s consume roughly 65l/100km so to reduce this to 52 litres maybe reduction in capacity to 2 litres and say 10 or 12 cylinders? A 2 litre V10 or V12 with full HERS/KERS would still sound great and if revs were kept at current levels it would produce a power of roughly 620BHP. With 200kW of KERS added on that would equal 790BHP. In other words, roughly the same power levels as today.

I dunno, it's just a possibility. I am all for any changes as long as the noise and speed of the cars is kept the same

[bazanaius]

I'm interested in the regulation of speed and other factors through increasing the required life of components. Rather than have an engine freeze, or prescribe a universal chassis, just specify that the engine has to last half a season, or the chassis must be used at 40% of the races.
Probably wont help reduce costs, but I think it is worth investigating as a way of regulating development without losing the 'engineering' side of F1, plus I can see the developments enhancing the amount of high technology that enters the comercial market as often it is the cost and lifetime of components that limits this.
Possibly not very well put, but hopefully people get what I mean

[Ogami musashi]

The FIA would be interested in that, for example by extending the engine life to 10 races instead of 4.

Just remember that they call for proposals though, those are not final rules (as we see with 2009 ones...we may get the 2011 one just at the last minute!)

[WhiteBlue]

This sounds to me like a very sensible proposal. Most of the things you find has been pursued by the FIA for some time.

A surprise is the price tag of the power train for 10 races at 2 mil € per season. It seems like a low price considering that engine supplies were priced 10-16 mil in the past. But I guess it is an opening price and the manufacturers will do something about it.

I like the objective to keep performance, cut fuel consumption and improve the spectacle of racing. Also doing something for independant teams is good. I hope things will move.

[Conceptual]

So, Max and the FIA say "This is what we want, now you must figure it out, and we will either accept or reject your answer based upon the politics of the situation."

I think the teams, along with FOM should make the rules, and send them to the FIA for enforcement, not agreement.

I read the letter as a cop out. Anyone here on this board could have written that letter by just reading the info on this board. There is nothing in there that is even helpful. I mean, it is not even a complete concept.

The part about sharing technology was news, since I have said it before, but never got a positive reaction for it.

Anyways, we will see!

Chris

[Ogami musashi]

I think this is not true.

There's a significant change there. Prior to that, the TWG of the FIA issued regulations, teams discussed it and everyone had to agree.

Now FIA issue goals, teams make the rules, and FIA agrees or not.

This is a major change i think.

There's always far more than what it seems, imho all of this takes place in the struggle between FIA and teams which is far from resolved.

Teams want more money, but on the technical side, they want more freedom and be sure F1 stays on top of the motorsport (at least technically and performance wise).

The FIA wants spectacle to ensure revenues so that it can still run the F1, and to this they don't mind slowing down cars or going to a spec series.


Till now the FIA imposed dramatic rules, teams reacted to that, and usually a compromise was found.

Now it seems the FIA has changed its mind and prefer to set goals and let teams do whatever they want within those limits.

So in contrary to you, i think we have something new there, something that can change the future of F1.

Remember, since a lot of years, there's a conflict between teams and FIA over technical regulations, and since 2005 the conflict increased.

The fact that the Overtaking Working Group ,which is not an FIA group, was accepted by the FIA is also to me a sign that they decided to go for a mutual design of regulations rather than a raw cut.

[WhiteBlue]

I do not expect the teams to be capable of directing F1 towards a any higher goals. Their job is competing. But they must be consulted and if they put their mind to a task they can come up with sensible proposals as we have seen with the work of the OWG.

Ultimately they also have to make a majority decision how they want to go forward. I find it appropriate that the FIA as the owner of the championship sets specific high goals, consults the competitors for proposals and pushes the decision making that ultimately is done by the teams.

[WhiteBlue]

I think this is not true.

There's a significant change there. Prior to that, the TWG of the FIA issued regulations, teams discussed it and everyone had to agree.

Now FIA issue goals, teams make the rules, and FIA agrees or not.

This is a major change i think.

There's always far more than what it seems, imho all of this takes place in the struggle between FIA and teams which is far from resolved.

Teams want more money, but on the technical side, they want more freedom and be sure F1 stays on top of the motorsport (at least technically and performance wise).

The FIA wants spectacle to ensure revenues so that it can still run the F1, and to this they don't mind slowing down cars or going to a spec series.


Till now the FIA imposed dramatic rules, teams reacted to that, and usually a compromise was found.

Now it seems the FIA has changed its mind and prefer to set goals and let teams do whatever they want within those limits.

So in contrary to you, i think we have something new there, something that can change the future of F1.

Remember, since a lot of years, there's a conflict between teams and FIA over technical regulations, and since 2005 the conflict increased.

The fact that the Overtaking Working Group ,which is not an FIA group, was accepted by the FIA is also to me a sign that they decided to go for a mutual design of regulations rather than a raw cut.

The TWG and the OWG were both set up in the framework of the FIA. In both groups the teams were playing the major role and the FIA did preside or provide consultants.

The process is not so different as the one that was started in 2004. At that time most of the teamns boycotted the process due to the dispute with the GPMA.

Most people are unaware that the FIA has seldom set rules without prior consultation and seeking approval by teams. The problem usually was an unability to agree in the frame work of the concord rules.

The discussions we are seeing now are likely to be more constructive. Let's assume for a moment that McLaren and Honda are closely allied to Bernie and will be tempted to boycott the talks. They will not have much chance. As soon as one opinion leader gets 5 other teams to agree to a compromise tghe thing will pick up motion. So if lets say Ferrari, BMW, Toyota, Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Force India are in one boat they can go ahead with that proposal. Of cause it is the same for any other combination of teams.

I think the 2011 rules will not be so difficult. There is in reality only the option to use the existing V8 and decide on a level of regeneration. Perhaps they can look at active wings if the adjustable solution is as akward as I expect.

[Ogami musashi]

The Technical Working Group and the Overtaking Working Group have nothing in common.

The TWG is a part of the FIA and is directed by FIA members (is think Peter Wright is the current director of the TWG). It existed even before the 1997 concord agreement.

The TWG consults not teams (well of course there're discussions but not on the first instance) but rather technical experts (from automotive and/or relevant fields).

That's how they came to the 1.8meters+grooved tyres for example, or like more recently, the FIA proposed a 1.5liters V6 turbo later dropped when the reaction from the teams was against it.

They issue rules, then the rules are discussed with the teams.
In the actual concord agreement, the rules have to be unanimously adopted that's why there's always compromised (the most recent example being the tyre warmers).


The OWG instead was set up as an initiative of the FIA to hand a part of the technical rules to the teams.

The OWG has no FIA members in it, only paddy lowe, pat symonds, rory bryne and Fondmetal's Jean pierre bigeot.

[WhiteBlue]

Sorry to disagree with you. The only difference is that the TWG is defined in the appendix 5 of the 2008 sporting regs.

1. Changes to the Technical Regulations will be proposed by the Technical Working Group (TWG) consisting of one senior technical representative from each team and chaired by a representative of the
FIA.
2. (SWG)
3. Decisions in the TWG and SWG will be taken by a simple majority vote. The FIA representative will not vote unless the teams’ representatives are equally divided, in which case he will exercise a casting vote.

There you find that it is mainly composed from the technical directors of the teams and makes majority decisions. we can agree on that. The OWG is just a subgroup that established itself to do research work for the TWG. I don't believe it was meant to be permanent. So we can see that more as a project based on team resources. I agree with the members as you have descibed them. One could say that the TWG is more codified but the OWG also is working for the objectives of the FIA. At least we can say that it was commissioned to satisfy a FIA initiative.

[Ogami musashi]

I said wrong in saying the TWG issued rules, well that's true but it was incomplete.

The FIA issues rule, then TWG is to discuss it and then adopt it or not.

The OWG just comes with proposals and work for the TWG.


The change here, imho, is that the FIA issue goals rather than rules now.


For example in 2005 they came with the CDG idea, which was dismissed by the TWG.
The FIA then changed its way of operating by stipulating that overtaking should be increased and then the OWG went to life.

So i think there's indeed a change going on. I know sometimes it is pure PR, but during the last WMSC meeting the FIA announced it will review the way F1 is handled by them so to me the move is quite logical, as there's a real conflict with teams right now.

[WhiteBlue]

apparently Bernie is happy

The bottom line is simple - we have moved to patch up our differences. I am happy that the FIA has taken the initiative to allow the teams to write the regulations. They will be able to control their expenditure. What Max put in the letter is correct - it's a little cranky that it takes 1,000 people to put two cars on the grid.

[bazanaius]

Hey guys,

I've been reading the technical specs for 2008, and I'm about to move onto 2009. What strikes me are the rules obviously formed in response to a previous issue - the 'plank', the spacers between wing planes, the rules against skirts.. the list goes on.

So I'm wondering whether anybody has any copies of past technical regs that they can share - Any time from now back to 1950 when the championship started. I'm interested in how they evolved, what was added when etc. (if we can get them in the same format we could even do some form of difference analysis).

Also, there are several situations where I read the rules and can instantly think of someone who I think of as breaking it One mild example is rule 3.8.1

Other than the rear view mirrors, <b>each with a maximum area in plan view of 12000mm²</b>, no bodywork situated more than 330mm behind the front wheel centre line and more than 330mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, which is more than 600mm above the reference plane, may be more than 300mm from the centre line of the car.

I instantly thought of FIF1 - their mirrors have the wing things integrated yes? Surely this is greater than 0.012m2 in plan view? Where does the mirror start and bodywork stop?

Yes - I have some spare time to kill on a Friday afternoon...