Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[D'Leh]

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).

np

And yes, that's how i understand it too. First point says no apertures 300+ mm behind cockpit entry template. Second point basically allows those fins at the airbox that are/were quite common. And third point allows little winglets on the headrest/around the cockpit.


What irritates me is the article 3.7.x. Especially point 5 looks strange. Is this supposed to force the teams to put their front wing endplates there? I wonder what happened to the plan to get rid of those little elements on the outside of the endplates. And while we're here already, you think the bridge wings are allowed because the rules are basically only limiting the "projected areas in plan view" and number of profiles in a certain hight?


Cheers

[Ogami musashi]

Yes as far as bridge wing are concerned, the rules stipulate that, at the point were the front wing is, on the lower part one element is permitted, and on the upper two symetrical sections.

"symmetrical sections about the car center line" are for me the bridge wing since either ferrari or mclaren style you need to attack them at the nose now.


In any way the difference in height is quite important for that to be only some end plates.

What do you think?

i'll look at your other points to see.

Those rules are not easy to understand but that's for sure on purpose!

[mariof1]

Regarding the diffuser:

3.12.1 All sprung parts of the car situated more than 330mm behind the front wheel centre line and more than
330mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, and which are visible from underneath, must form surfaces
which lie on one of two parallel planes, the reference plane or the step plane.(...)

3.12.2 Additionally, the surface formed by all parts lying on the reference plane must :
- extend from a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line to the centre line of the rear
wheels;(...)

3.12.7 No bodywork more than 150mm from the car centre line, which is visible from beneath the car and which
lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 330mm forward of it may be more than 125mm above
the reference plane.(...)

3.12.8 All sprung parts of the car situated behind a point lying 330mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, which
are visible from underneath and are more than 250mm from the centre line of the car, must be at least
50mm above the reference plane.

In short, a current car must have its diffuser placed between the rear wheel center line and a line 330mm forward of it, with the reference plane/plank extending to the rear wheel center line. Max height is 125mm (out of the central section) and only the central section is allowed to be lower than 50mm.

In comparison with 2008 regs, 2009 ones force the diffuser to be moved rearwards by 330mm, whilst allowing it to be a bit larger:

3.12.1 All sprung parts of the car situated from 330mm behind the front wheel centre line to the rear wheel centre line, and which are visible from underneath, must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes, the reference plane or the step plane.(...)

3.12.2 Additionally, the surface formed by all parts lying on the reference plane must :
- extend from a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line to the centre line of the rear wheels;(...)

3.12.7 No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 175mm above the reference plane.(...)

3.12.8 All sprung parts of the car situated behind the rear wheel centre line, which are visible from underneath and are more than 250mm from the centre line of the car, must be at least 50mm above the reference plane.

D'leh, I considered 3.11.1 only to move the front wing forwards in my side view sketch, that was all.

Keep your ideas coming, they're enlightening.

[Ogami musashi]

Thank you marioF1, this seems logical now, the diffuser will have less coupling but be larger so more efficient by itself.

i'll update the list.


by the way, in the list i wrote, is there anything you think is incorrect?

[mariof1]

Thank you marioF1, this seems logical now, the diffuser will have less coupling but be larger so more efficient by itself.

i'll update the list.


by the way, in the list i wrote, is there anything you think is incorrect?

You're welcome.

As of 3.11.1 and 3.11.2, I wouldn't say that boomerang/ear/vikings wings aren't allowed at all. As far as I can see it, aero bits can be placed on the top of the nosecone (forward of the front wheel center line), perhaps something like the current BMW nosecone, however not that wide, of course.

Front wing regs are way too complicated. All I can get from them is that overall dimensions remain the same with the exception of the width (1.4 to 1.8m) and that the wing is moved forwards and downards (+100mm and -75mm respectively). Also, flaps are somewhat forbidden in the cetnral section. I didn't quite get all the restrictions right though, so I can't really comment.

Other than that, you came up with a very good summary of the regs.

[Ogami musashi]

I'm struggling too with the front bodywork rules.

3.7.2, what they are talking about??? the bodywork to front wing attachements??
What are thoses "two closed sections"? and how does "project vertically to join" translate?


Plus 3.7.8 seems to be in pure contradiction with this rule as is state that no closed section must be contained in any longitudinal vertical cross section more than 125mm above the reference plane..

[Conceptual]

All i know is that nobody really believe cars will be slower.

Everyone does. On a track like Monaco it won't make a huge difference, but on Spa or Silverstone lozing all that downforce in the highspeed corners is huge. It could easily mean 3-5 seconds a lap on these tracks...

But that's only if the cars are actually at the 50% reduction...

As a general example:

2008 max grip = 1.8**x(600+2700) = 5940
2009 max grip = 2.5x(600+2000***)= 6500

** assuming the control tyres have this coefficient of grip
*** assuming 75% downforce of todays levels

If we do assume 50% downforce:

2.5x(600+1350) = 4875

So as you can see, it is completely depandant on how much downforce the teams can claw back.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR!

THANK YOU SCOTT!

Chris

[D'Leh]

I'm struggling too with the front bodywork rules.

3.7.2, what they are talking about??? the bodywork to front wing attachements??
What are thoses "two closed sections"? and how does "project vertically to join" translate?


Plus 3.7.8 seems to be in pure contradiction with this rule as is state that no closed section must be contained in any longitudinal vertical cross section more than 125mm above the reference plane..

3.7.2 is defining the limitations to pillar design which holds the front wing. That's how i understand it.

3.7.8 doesn't contradict, because here they're talking about doing a vertical, longitudinal cross section. To me this reads like "no wing profiles in this area". Meaning the only wing profile in this area to be allowed is the standard part of the front wing (the spoon shape if you want) which is below 125mm above reference pane. Does this sound correct?

[Ogami musashi]

3.7.2 is defining the limitations to pillar design which holds the front wing. That's how i understand it.

3.7.8 doesn't contradict, because here they're talking about doing a vertical, longitudinal cross section. To me this reads like "no wing profiles in this area". Meaning the only wing profile in this area to be allowed is the standard part of the front wing (the spoon shape if you want) which is below 125mm above reference pane. Does this sound correct?

Yes if by "longitudinal vertical cross section" they mean "airfoils" that's okay, so in this case, 8.7.4 means that ferrari style nose (F2008 airfoils) are allowed (as they could end at the pilars) but bridge wings won't (since anything other than the standard part can be located within 250mm of the center line).

What do you think?

[D'Leh]

3.7.8 doesn't contradict, because here they're talking about doing a vertical, longitudinal cross section. To me this reads like "no wing profiles in this area". Meaning the only wing profile in this area to be allowed is the standard part of the front wing (the spoon shape if you want) which is below 125mm above reference pane. Does this sound correct?

Yes if by "longitudinal vertical cross section" they mean "airfoils" that's okay, so in this case, 8.7.4 means that ferrari style nose (F2008 airfoils) are allowed (as they could end at the pilars) but bridge wings won't (since anything other than the standard part can be located within 250mm of the center line).

What do you think?

Well, the nose cone would have to be 500mm wide in order to still attach wing profiles to it. If it is not the wing profiles would be inside the forbidden area. The bridge wing seems to be forbidden by this rule. Also Honda's solution doesn't comply with the rule. And BMW's solution has the same problem like Ferrari's solution, the nose cone would have to be 500mm wide.

I believe any wings attached to the nose cones we know so far are deemed illegal with this rule. The reason is no one will have nose cones wide enough. In fact that wouldn't even be allowed. The rule i was referring to earlier in this thread (3.11.1; remember my sketch) says, that from a point 875mm in front of the rear face of the cockpit entry template the body work has to be 480mm wide at most. And from there it has to narrow. So i don't see a possibility to attach any wing or flap to it in the area 3.7.8 is talking about.

Maybe we will see the old versions of Renault and BMW again.


edit: oh and one thing that seems to be rather confusing. 3.7.8 is talking about two "sections". The first one is the "longitudinal vertical cross section". As i understand it this is supposed to be an imaginary "cut" through the car anywhere in the defined area.
The second one is just named as "closed section". I believe what is meant is an airfoil. The term is somewhat strange but that seems to be the easiest way to exclude the nose cone itself as it isn't a "closed section". No "longitudinal vertical cross section" in the defined area will enclose the nose cone.
Articles like that are very much bureaucratese.

[Ogami musashi]

Yes for sure i was think of it because there's definitely rules for airfoils 250mm of the center line.

I would have liked bridge wings to stay though as they could manage the flows aft.

[D'Leh]

Thinking of the discussed articles i have another impression about Ferrari's hole in the nose cone. I believe 3.7.8 is actually ruling it out. The reason is, that when you do a virtual cut right through the nose cone in the defined area the front part of the nose cone would be fully enclosed by the intersecting plane. Therefor it doesn't comply with the rule.

And another thing i was thinking about are the wings that are connecting the engine covers to the ramp wings (or T-wings or chimneys).
Honda, McLaren, Red Bull, Williams
All of those are going to be banned.

And a question about beam wings and diffuser. I fail to find all the relevant articles about those. I wonder if it will still be allowed to incorporate the beam wing into the diffuser like some teams are doing it at the moment. (pic Williams Ferrari ). Anyone got an idea?

[Ogami musashi]

Thinking of the discussed articles i have another impression about Ferrari's hole in the nose cone. I believe 3.7.8 is actually ruling it out. The reason is, that when you do a virtual cut right through the nose cone in the defined area the front part of the nose cone would be fully enclosed by the intersecting plane. Therefor it doesn't comply with the rule.

but would it be considered "closed section"?

And another thing i was thinking about are the wings that are connecting the engine covers to the ramp wings (or T-wings or chimneys).
Honda, McLaren, Red Bull, Williams
All of those are going to be banned.

Yes there's a rule preventing bodywork above the sidepods height in their regions.

And a question about beam wings and diffuser. I fail to find all the relevant articles about those. I wonder if it will still be allowed to incorporate the beam wing into the diffuser like some teams are doing it at the moment. ?

To me 3.10.1 describes the beam wing and 3.10.2 the two rear wing elements.

[D'Leh]

Thinking of the discussed articles i have another impression about Ferrari's hole in the nose cone. I believe 3.7.8 is actually ruling it out. The reason is, that when you do a virtual cut right through the nose cone in the defined area the front part of the nose cone would be fully enclosed by the intersecting plane. Therefor it doesn't comply with the rule.

but would it be considered "closed section"?

Well it's how i understand it, yes. But i doubt the hole would still work anyways with the new standard part of the front wing.

And a question about beam wings and diffuser. I fail to find all the relevant articles about those. I wonder if it will still be allowed to incorporate the beam wing into the diffuser like some teams are doing it at the moment. ?

To me 3.10.1 describes the beam wing and 3.10.2 the two rear wing elements.

3.12 is basically saying, that the diffuser (as the surface being visible from beneath) may be as high as 175mm above the reference plane. But 3.10 is only talking about devices 200+ mm above the reference plane. So there is a margin of 25mm where there can be anything because it is not covered by both rules. Also 3.10 says there may be no more then 1 airfoil in the area from 200 to 400 mm above the reference plane. But it doesn't say there has to be one.
I believe this was not an accident when defining the rules. I probably missed something. I just wonder what it is.

[Ogami musashi]

Well it's how i understand it, yes. But i doubt the hole would still work anyways with the new standard part of the front wing.

Yes for sure especially if no flaps are authorized. However "one section" is ambiguous.

For example the outer part of the front wing plus the flaps are considered "one section" in many racing series tech regs.

3.12 is basically saying, that the diffuser (as the surface being visible from beneath) may be as high as 175mm above the reference plane. But 3.10 is only talking about devices 200+ mm above the reference plane. So there is a margin of 25mm where there can be anything because it is not covered by both rules. Also 3.10 says there may be no more then 1 airfoil in the area from 200 to 400 mm above the reference plane. But it doesn't say there has to be one.
I believe this was not an accident when defining the rules. I probably missed something. I just wonder what it is.

I do have very limited knowledge in descriptive geometry do "longitudinal, vertical cross section" and "longitudinal cross section" the same?

3.10.1 basically says that if something lies 200mm+ it has to extend 300mm+ also.

I wonder, if you're right about beam wing being between 175mm+ and 200mm+ then does that means a third element maybe placed here?

That would make a Three elements rear wing isn't it?

Indeed their definitions are not clear to me.