Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[timbo]

One of my favourite things after a GP is checking out various websites (such as this one) for the newest developments of that race. That will pretty much be gone, because what exactly will you add? Slightly vary the curvature of your sidepod?

Interesting thought, yeah there probably won't be as much visible changes on the cars... That's not the best thing=(

So yes, traction-control and engine-braking improve the spectacle, but how exactly is an active suspension less safe than a KERS system?

Active suspension actualy makes car safer as they are more stable. However it is computer controlled active system that are forbidden in F1 in general. It is also arguably a driver aid of some sort.

F1 reached another stage - one which I'm sure every fan welcomes - and that is that for 14 years, not a single driver died, despite some drivers hurling at 200km/h and upwards into walls and barriers. In this condition, when a 300km/h crash that included several flips (Kubica's) results in a minor problem with the leg, and a 200km/h backwards crash into the wall (Timo's) results in nothing, I'm sure F1 can afford a part slightly more prone to failing, like flexible aero - hell, I've hurt myself more than Timo did last weekend when I fell on my shoulder! I've got two split bones and one broken, and he has what exactly? I can't drive at all for a week or so as a result, and he was back in the seat a few days later.

That is dangerous pattern of thinking - people probably thought the same in the beginning of 1994. There should be ongoing researches on passive safety and as well active safety, with primary goal of having a stable car less prone to accidents.

[Ogami musashi]

The aerodynamics development is not frozen.

You'll see updates as long as the F1 is a competition between manufacturers.

[Metar]

About the danger-bit, I didn't mean it that way - what I mean was that technologies and phenomena previously considered dangerous probably aren't dangerous now - for example ground-effects and porpoising, which could probably be solved with modern dampers and electronics.


The problem of the FIA is that it can't "delete" the last 10-20 years of aerodynamic development - so instead, it forces more and more specific rules and regulations. It would be great if we all forgot about curved wings and high nosecones, allowing engineers another 20 years to design those - but we can't. Why doesn't the FIA mandate a series of simpler rules, stating a number of requirements that would cut downforce without "spec-ing" the parts?
Here's an example: "The tip of the nosecone should start at X cm above the floor, and all elements of the wing must be rigidly secured to it, and not be any lower." or something along those lines - that's some 20% of the front downforce right there, because you eliminate high nosecones (something which decreases overtaking) with one simple rule.

[mariof1]

Regarding 2009 wings, wouldn't it be so much easier for the teams and so much more aesthetically pleasant to enforce a "monza spec" rather than these wierd, ugly and disproportinal wings?

Man, is this ugly!

I may get used to the narrower rear wing. However the front wing makes my eyes bleed. It should never be as wide as the whole car.

[Ogami musashi]

Enforcing a monza spec, is enforcing a spec wing. I don't think we want a spec aerodynamics isn't it?


Metar: what you suggest is exactly how the rules are written..

By the way the spec central part is not really for downforce cut but to prevent teams to use vortex for the underfloor.

[Metar]

I know - that's why they're always so impossibly cryptic.

I meant my suggestion (written in regspeak) as a suggestion to reduce front downforce - to reverse the trend Tyrrell started with the 019. That wouldn't allow teams to use that vortex you mentioned, because it would attach the wing itself to the nose - all without a spec-part.

[timbo]

About the danger-bit, I didn't mean it that way - what I mean was that technologies and phenomena previously considered dangerous probably aren't dangerous now - for example ground-effects and porpoising, which could probably be solved with modern dampers and electronics.

I agree with you in that respect. However I can only think of ground effect (via the skirts) as an example of technology that was definetely banned because of it's danger. But seeing replays from that years I had impression that overtaking was easier and aero configuration allowed more freedom in the trajectory choice.
So I had this idea for the technical regulations:
1) standart profiled floor (supposed to be main source of downforce)
2) limited area wing elements
3) ban of any non-aero neutral profiles other than wings.

I think with standart floor it would be easier to control downforce, and because it is a floor it won't affect overall car look as much . Also I think that downforce created by underbody disturbs air less and therefore aloows for more overtaking.

[mariof1]

Enforcing a monza spec, is enforcing a spec wing. I don't think we want a spec aerodynamics isn't it?

Actually this is not what I meant. By monza spec I meant reducing the area where the upper elements of the rear wing can be positioned. Instead of 60-80cm from the reference plane, reducing it to 70-80cm or so would reduce downforce (hey, this is how they're simulating 2009 downforce levels).

The same applies to the front wing. It would be still 140cm wide, but closer to the ground and with a bigger frontal projected area by increasing its height from 20cm to 25cm or so.

I don't know how it would affect air stream for cars behind.

This is not a technical point. It is merely aesthetical and yes, I am mad in anger with these new wings

[Ogami musashi]

the problem is just the wake as you hinted.

A lower rear wing means a rear wing with more turbulent flow hence more turbulence behind it.

Same for front wing.

I think the 180cm wide was for allowing to monitor drag ahead of wheels without using vortex generators end plates.

[Metar]

Standard floors, I don't mind those quite as much as standard other bits - a floor is a floor, it's invisible to us. Sure, diffusors are a huge source of downforce, but they're invisible - bar555 is probably the only non-F1 member who actually manages to look at them and find differences.


The wings just look fugly - a very wide front and a very narrow rear looks like a perspective-related mishap.

[mariof1]

Ogami, this is how I'd be happy with it, in detail:

Conventional diffuser Indy/GP2-like.

Rear wing upper elements:
Between 80-95cm from the reference plane, 1m wide.

Front wing:
Between 5-25cm from the reference plane, 1.4m wide, with restrictions in number of elements, area usage and endplates detailing.

Standard looking.

I feel they came up with a way too complicated and ugly solution to it.

[Scotracer]

I like the 2009 car You guys do realise the front-wing will look much more elaborate than that come March?

[Metar]

They will be, but no amount of complication (short of an epic bridgewing and elephant-nose combination) can hide the fact that it's as wide as the tyres - wider than anything else on the car - and that the rear wing is ridiculously narrow.

But then again, that's the visual part - each has his preferences.

[Scotracer]

Just a musing, but will the front-wing being in front of the front-tyres reduce drag? Will we see more teams adapting their front wing for reduced drag rather than increased downforce?

[Ogami musashi]

Both.

The philosophy behind the 2009 regs is "same efficiency with less turbulence", that's why the front wing is larger and lower, the rear wing higher and the diffuser larger.

The restrictions on downforce almost come from only 3 facts:

-The rear wing is narrower
-The rear wing to diffuser length is greater
-The ban of barge boards integrated vortex generators will limit ground effects

Other than that everything is more efficient.

Now i bet the end of the front wing will benefit from the moving wheels for downforce and drag reduction (both on the wheel and the wing).

I expect the profiles to be fairly developed.

So do the sidepods.


In order to give an idea the nissan GTR body is designed to channel air towards the rear wing.

We may see something in the same philosophy.