Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[WhiteBlue]

... The new concord agreement is not signed and 2009 will in any case run under the extension of the previous one.

I believe this to be incorrect. The only concord agreement currently in effect is the one signed by Ferrari, Williams, Red Bull and Midland in 2005 and 2006. The only exception to this is the the rule quoted in the technical regulation about latest changes to the regulations. Certainly the rules change mechanism is defined by appendix 5 and not by the 1998-2007 concord.

[Ogami musashi]

Maybe, but in any case they are not under the new concord agreement for this season and AFAIK the next one.

A critical part of the new concord agreement is to give team the possibility to write the rules.

[WhiteBlue]

I wonder what is meant by writing the rules. The teams were invited to provide a draft. If that draft is not provided in time the FIA will provide a draft. My understanding is that the decision making will be by majority according to the appendix 5 rules. Perhaps they will propose some modifications to this but I would expect the FIA to be fairly robust on the principle. Teams can have the rules within the FIA defined objectives if they vote for it by majority.

[Ogami musashi]

The change for 2011 rules is what you said: the teams are to propose rules otherwise FIA will make them.

It wasn't the case until the 2011 rules if i'm not mistaken.

Anyway in a recent interview adrian newey told he thought it won't work because the FIA issued a two short dead line (the proposals have to be made before end of october) and he think a unity is needed within the teams which is not the case, so in his opinion he thinks the FIA will again make the rules for 2011.

I hope he's wrong.


Still reading in detail the 2009 rules, they are a bit more complicated.

A schema would be helpful, i'll try to do it.

[WhiteBlue]

The 2011 and 2009 rule making is essentially the same as every detail can be changed with 50% majority until the shut off time the rules are essentially made by the teams. It isn't so important who does the first draft. You see that quite a lot has changed from the 2006 version of the 2009 draft to the final which was decided by the teams.

[Ogami musashi]

The things that changed are all bodywork related.

The OWG was constituted under the initiative of both teams and FIA so that's not surprising.

It has nothing to see with the new concord agreement and the fact FIA has agreed to let teams make the rules.

Teams are always consulted but it changes because before teams and FIA arguing were essentially on biasing the rules.

Thus, the 2009 are kind of hybrid because the OWG is the first entity to run under the "new idea" of the FIA to let the team write rules.

Apart from that, not a great deal of things have changed from 2008 regulations.

[mariof1]

According to the regs, this is how the wings will look like in side view. Sorry for the low quality, this is not what I do best. Proportions are accurate though.

[Ogami musashi]

what paragraph do you refer to?

[mariof1]

what paragraph do you refer to?

3.7.1
3.10.2
3.10.4 (not visible in the picture)
3.10.8 (the rear endplate in the picture refers to max allowed dimensions)
3.11.1
3.14

Please let me know if I misundertood them.

[WhiteBlue]

I believe that "letting the teams make the rules" is an euphemism for Bernie accepting the appendix 5 rules. So the next concord will be precisely reflecting that rule changing constitution IMHO. The FIA will perhaps retract their initial input to fewer big objectives and give the teams the chance to have a quick go. But everybody knows that the teams can never work out anything complex unless they have some entity that structures the issue down to some alternatives that are ready for voting. So I reckon the FIA will serve them a multiple choice menu and they will vote that through. Perhaps some issues will be held back for an engineering evaluation or simulation by a working group such as the OWG.

[D'Leh]

what paragraph do you refer to?

3.11.1

Please let me know if I misundertood them.

Hi

I just registered to talk about regulation changes. I saw your conclusion and wanted to add that 3.11.1 is talking about plan view.

I used the paragraph to draw a sketch with Google Sketchup:

• black are the wheels obviously
• green is the cockpit entry template thingy the rule is talking about
• light blue is the area the paragraph is defining

My conclusion is, that this paragraph essentially rules out most parts of the barge boards. Also star fighter wings respectively "ear wings" or whatever you call them do not comply with this rule anymore. Even pod shields would have to be cut short if they weren't forbidden because of another rule (haven't checked yet).

Well those are my first impressions about this area of the car. I'll probably try to make a sketch from side view sometime soon.

Cheers

[Ogami musashi]

thanks for the diagram, i'm trying to sum up every bodywork paragraph and its implication.

For the moment i'm struggling a bit with the 3.8.4 rule and whether it bans ramp wings or not (i think that i does it indeed).


If someone has a drawing of an actual F1 cars with correct dimensions that would help!

I would need a 3 view one (top, side, bottom).

So far i came with this, please correct if you think i'm wrong:

F2009 regs sum up:

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 (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)


Some questions:

-I do not find anything preventing from using a hole in the nose
-I see nothing about the length of the diffuser(compared to the 2008 one)
-Nothing seems to prevent from using shark fins

[bazanaius]

i would guess the diffuser length is deliberate, to try and cut down on the turbulent wake the large angled diffusers produce at the moment.
Also I can see them not banning the shark fins because they provide such large advertising space

[Ogami musashi]

The length of the diffuser was supposed to be cut down, and diffuser itself moved aft, but i can't see nothing in the regs stating it.

I guess yes marketing may have a reason, but shark fin may not create too much turbulence so they may be retained.

The hole nose is a surprise however as it was planned to ban it.

[timbo]

The hole nose is a surprise however as it was planned to ban it.

I thought at first they feared that it would give too much of advantage to Ferrari, as it turnes out it looks radical but adds not THAT much.