Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[Scotracer]

[-o<

C'mon new F1 series with (more) open regulations!

[johnbeamer]

Ogami - perhaps you can clarify the rule for barge boards, axe heads and the fins and flicks that we currently see in this area.

I had a look at the rules and they seem fairly opaque. Where does it say about whether barge boards are allowed or not?

My reading is that basic boards will be allowed but the various flicks and vortex generators around that area will be curtailed. Is that right? And what part of the regulations should I look at?

Thanks

[Ogami musashi]

You are totally right, the barge boards will still allowed but only the first part of them (the part without the vortex genetors). In consequence it seems those barge boards will be integrated to the bodywork (running from the nose to the inlet).

[Ogami musashi]

About the new association, i just wonder if the GPMA was under the same conditions or not?

Is this more like the former FOCA?

We'll see, anyway in contrary to GPMA all teams have agreed and i think that is a significant sign about the gamble going on.

Let's hope it will provide with more open regulations.

[timbo]

Let's hope it will provide with more open regulations.

I don't think that 'open' would work well. i hope they'd come up with something 'clever'. What I mean by 'clever' - as an example new rule about minimum radius around sidepods. I think it is smart - simple and effective. They don't just bluntly forbid wings or airfoils - to me that rule is a consequense of guys like Byrne, Symmonds and Whitmarsh tacking part in the development of the rules. Adjustable aero is also nice - I just don't like that '2 times per lap' part.
I've read somewhere (maybe on this forum) about another smart idea for engine department - limit fuel for the race, say, to 150L and let teams choose any engine configuration.
So I want something like this - restrictions that are well defined and leave space for creativeness.

[Scotracer]

Let's hope it will provide with more open regulations.

I don't think that 'open' would work well. i hope they'd come up with something 'clever'. What I mean by 'clever' - as an example new rule about minimum radius around sidepods. I think it is smart - simple and effective. They don't just bluntly forbid wings or airfoils - to me that rule is a consequense of guys like Byrne, Symmonds and Whitmarsh tacking part in the development of the rules. Adjustable aero is also nice - I just don't like that '2 times per lap' part.
I've read somewhere (maybe on this forum) about another smart idea for engine department - limit fuel for the race, say, to 150L and let teams choose any engine configuration.
So I want something like this - restrictions that are well defined and leave space for creativeness.

I'm hoping they come to this arrangement for 2011 regs. Does anyone know how much fuel the cars use on average during a race? If the race is 300km and they roughly use 65l/100km it will be 195litres for a race. Mosley wants that cut by 20% -- 156 litres for a race. There's your limit

[johnbeamer]

Ogami - when you say the bargeboards will be integrated to the bodywork from the nose to the (sidepod) inlet do you mean they'll actually form part of the bodywork, i.e. no space between the board and the bodywork?

From 3.8.4 it seems as though these shapes would need to be fairly rounded, which means barge boards would change quite a lot from what we are seeing now

Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes defined below must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not contain any radius less than 75mm :
- the volume between 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 25mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane ;
- the volume between 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane ;
- the volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 350mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane.

The surfaces lying within these volumes, which are situated more than 55mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, must not contain any apertures (other than those permitted by Article 3.8.5) or contain any vertical surfaces which lie normal to the centre line of the car

[Ogami musashi]

Let's hope it will provide with more open regulations.

I don't think that 'open' would work well. i hope they'd come up with something 'clever'. What I mean by 'clever' - as an example new rule about minimum radius around sidepods. I think it is smart - simple and effective. They don't just bluntly forbid wings or airfoils - to me that rule is a consequense of guys like Byrne, Symmonds and Whitmarsh tacking part in the development of the rules. Adjustable aero is also nice - I just don't like that '2 times per lap' part.
I've read somewhere (maybe on this forum) about another smart idea for engine department - limit fuel for the race, say, to 150L and let teams choose any engine configuration.
So I want something like this - restrictions that are well defined and leave space for creativeness.

Well i hope not. I mean, the current 2009 regs are definitely clever. But they also are a lot more restrictive.

In a recent interview Max mosley re-affirmed he wants teams to work more on drivetrain and hybrid technologies and less on aerodynamics...

What that means? let's take aside the field concerned, that means he wants to orientate F1.

I think F1 used to be at least till 1993 a domain were ALL field improved, tyres, engines, aerodynamics, suspensions, chassis etc..

Now max mosley wants teams to build hybrid engines and let the aerodynamics as they are because he thinks "this is not relevant to road car".

I really to hope this new FOTA will not be a GPMA like just there to ensure teams are not "done" commercially and that they will really see a way to take a complete reshape of F1.

If you look at the 2009 regs and think at the 2011 as a continuity i can't imagine what it be like..the idea of having a standard undefloor just horrify me...the tyres are already standard, what is next?

MarioF1 posted a link to a site with the 1994 to 2009 regs..it unbelievable to look at the 1994, they just make 4 pages!
The 2009 regs are about 70 pages long!

IMHo we need to set up a "criteria fulfill" regulations, that is, regulations that let you chose what you do as soon as it fulfill a certain criteria.

Let's say for example, you can design the engine you want, but this engine has to meet the criterias of being, ecological, not too costly, appealling in sound to the public, not too powerfull for safety etc..

You would the same for some aerodynamics but adapt the criterias: Not producing too much downforce for safety, not producing too much turbulence/not being too sensitive for spectacle, not too costly etc..

A lot of engineers inside the teams are deeply against the actual state of F1.

I even encountered a former toyota F1 engineer that just quit his job because of the engine freeze; He just moved one to another job because the regulations are so tight that little innovation is possible.

[Metar]

Thing is, it's hard to define "not too turbulent", "not too much downforce" and "public appeal of sound (or appearance)". At the same time, opening up the regulations would counter the FIA's budget-cutting attempts.

As it is at the moment, teams spend whatever they can on aerodynamics. Before, they spent it on engines. Next year, they'll spend it on KERS (or slightly less effective aero gains). It's gonna keep going that way until the FIA realizes that you can't, ever, stop the teams from spending whatever they can get. Even with set budget-limits (100m$ a year?), we'll just see Marlboro sending a fat check to the Dallara tunnel, who just happen to have a scale F2010 in their tunnel. Or the Nissan engineers getting an F1-spec tunnel to work on Renault's next car (R27, R28, R29... R30?) instead of a GT-R. Teams will spend just as much, but outsource it without accounting for it..

[Ogami musashi]

Ogami - when you say the bargeboards will be integrated to the bodywork from the nose to the (sidepod) inlet do you mean they'll actually form part of the bodywork, i.e. no space between the board and the bodywork?

From 3.8.4 it seems as though these shapes would need to be fairly rounded, which means barge boards would change quite a lot from what we are seeing now

Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes defined below must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not contain any radius less than 75mm :
- the volume between 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 25mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane ;
- the volume between 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane ;
- the volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 350mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane.

The surfaces lying within these volumes, which are situated more than 55mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, must not contain any apertures (other than those permitted by Article 3.8.5) or contain any vertical surfaces which lie normal to the centre line of the car

That's what it seems.

if you look at the CAD model on the article, and the ferrari drawing just some pages before, you'll see an integrated barge board.

[Ogami musashi]

Thing is, it's hard to define "not too turbulent", "not too much downforce" and "public appeal of sound (or appearance)".

It is possible i think. You can carry turbulence wind tunnel tests.
You basically create a baseline chassis with baseline aero devices, then put in front of that the car you test.
Then you can do the same but inversed (the car tested behind a baseline chassis) to measure how much it lose.
It would not be dead on precise but fairly reliable.

Not too much downforce is really simple to test as you can measure the loads on a wing.

Appealing to the public would be subjective but i bet a turbine engine (except a very high flow rate one like a fighter jet/drasgter) would not appeal.

At the same time, opening up the regulations would counter the FIA's budget-cutting attempts.

No, not if one of the criteria is "not too costly".

Actually the tightening of regulations forces teams to spend a lot while it would have been possible to do otherwise.

If the diffusers and wings were allowed to be more efficient from the start, teams would not have spent so much on the flips up.

[timbo]

It is possible i think. You can carry turbulence wind tunnel tests.
Not too much downforce is really simple to test as you can measure the loads on a wing.
No, not if one of the criteria is "not too costly".

Actually the tightening of regulations forces teams to spend a lot while it would have been possible to do otherwise.

If the diffusers and wings were allowed to be more efficient from the start, teams would not have spent so much on the flips up.

I think regulations that reuire wind tunnel tests won't work or development of the car would be limited too - imagine that for any little aero tweak you have to run wind tunnel, not good!
Regulation must be written in such way that it is easy to verify complience.
I would like to see more generalized regulations - less paragraphs, clearer rules. That's what I like about minimum radius rule.

[Metar]

It is possible i think. You can carry turbulence wind tunnel tests.
You basically create a baseline chassis with baseline aero devices, then put in front of that the car you test.
Then you can do the same but inversed (the car tested behind a baseline chassis) to measure how much it lose.
It would not be dead on precise but fairly reliable.

It would also be a hassle to test every development again, not to mention that teams won't really be happy with someone else watching their wind-tunnel results.

Appealing to the public would be subjective but i bet a turbine engine (except a very high flow rate one like a fighter jet/drasgter) would not appeal.

I'd welcome a sound like the S2000-class rallycars (NA 2-liters producing 280HP). Others would find it terrible, and would want their singing V12s. Others would want thick, burbly V8s. Others will want diesels...

At the same time, opening up the regulations would counter the FIA's budget-cutting attempts.

No, not if one of the criteria is "not too costly".

Actually the tightening of regulations forces teams to spend a lot while it would have been possible to do otherwise.

If the diffusers and wings were allowed to be more efficient from the start, teams would not have spent so much on the flips up.

Define "not too costly" - Ferrari will argue that 50mil per race is reasonable, Aguri would've argued 20mil per season is enough. If you set a straight limit (100mil$, for example), you'll find top-teams spending money on outsourced contract-work for CFD, KERS or windtunnel work (Ferrari already tasked Dallara with their F2009, BMW Sauber uses the BMW Motorsport arm for KERS) without it appearing in the official balances. If you don't, then teams will argue on the definition of costly - or agree that cars should be built out of scrap-metal and recycled plastic.

And teams, I suspect, would've spent just as much - they simply would've gained more in return. Without restrictions on downforce, teams would easily surpass the line of deadly cornering-forces..

[WhiteBlue]

An interesting interview with Max Mosley regarding this issue appeared on Autosport today. some quotes:

He wants to free up drive train development - in exchange for manufacturers supplying independent teams free of charge.

"It does need a real reduction in cost," he said. "It needs the independent teams to be able to operate profitably and if they can't operate profitably they won't operate at all eventually because they have to run at a profit.

"At the moment, if you're an independent team like Toro Rosso or Force India, you can't run at a profit – you depend on a billionaire to subsidise you. And there just aren't enough billionaires around to subsidise. So that problem has got to be solved.

"One of the suggestions being made is the first thing you do is move the development area essentially into the drivetrain so that you're looking at the new technologies in the drivetrain, things like KERS, things like turbo generators, heat recovery, all those sort of things which are relevant to the road."

It has long been a request that the manufacturers supply the independant teams at low cost or free. There are a number of points that would make this interesting.

The small teams would receive a compensation for the huge resources the manufacturers can throw at development which didn't make it a fair competition before the engine freeze.

Engine technologies to save fuel can be developed and brought to F1.

The big differences in lap times we had in the past will not come back and more teams and drivers would show up on the podium. Just compare this year with BMW and Piquet taking podium places with 2006. The racing is more interesting if the playing field is leveled as it is now.

Details need to be sorted out like back specification of engines or how many teams a manufacturer can supply depending of the balance of manufacturers and independant teams.

[Ogami musashi]

It would also be a hassle to test every development again, not to mention that teams won't really be happy with someone else watching their wind-tunnel results.

It is already the case. FIA tests are done on several parts (including engines) and thus they have access to performance data.
The tests have NDA closes.

The tests can be done easily at each manufacturer's wind tunnel.


If all of this is too complicated you can measure at parts of a track turbulence levels.

Define "not too costly"

That would be it, defined by all teams...after all that's the concept of budget cap.
You can take it as % of expenditures.