Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[Metar]

Ogami, I still don't think the top teams will actually limit themselves to the set caps. Ferrari's F1 arm are a profitable organization despite 400m$ in spending - would they really prefer to spend just 100m and keep the rest, or spend that rest on making the car better by paying some FIAT engineers to run their simulations?

And turbulence is something too chaotic to have a set standard - one car will have lots of small vortexes, another will have a huge one off the rear wing. One could create lots of turbulence in a straight line, while the other will fudge it under jaw. How would you determine if one is legal and the other one isn't? It'll reek of politics.


WhiteBlue, This year's close laptimes have nothing to do with manufacturers helping independent teams, though. I suppose it's more of a thing that eventually, in the fourth year of stable regulations (aerodynamics-wise) and an engine-freeze halfway through that pretty much locked all engines to within 50HP of one another. You can see that teams started copying each other right down to the details - virtually everyone has a sharkfin, sidepod-connectors, a bridgewing (or suitable replacement), etc. Gains become smaller when all you do is perfect the existing parts..

It makes a lot of sense to task the manufacturers with KERS development. They're the only ones that gain from it anyway - unless Toro Rosso suddenly decides to built road-cars as Ligier did - and they could get it together with the engine-packages (or mix'n'match a Ferrari engine and BMW drivetrain?).

I just don't like the shift from aerodynamics towards drivetrains that much... Visible changes > Invisible changes, at least as far as today's top-secret F1 is concerned. It's not like we'll get an explanation by the teams on each new upgrade and development on their KERS systems. With aerodynamics, we can at least look, try to figure out how parts change the car or even run simulations.

[johnbeamer]

Sorry to keep harping on about this, I just want to clarify the bargebard rules again. I know the CAD drawing. For my money it is rule 3.11.1, not 3.8.4 that controls the placement of the barge boards:

3.11.1

With the exception of the air ducts described in Article 11.4, in plan view, there must be no bodywork in the area formed by the intersection of the following lines :
- a longitudinal line parallel to and 900mm from the car centre line ;
- a transverse line 450mm forward of the front wheel centre line ;
- a diagonal line from 450mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 400mm from the car centre line to 750mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 250mm from the car centre line ;
- a transverse line 750mm forward of the front wheel centre line ;
- a longitudinal line parallel to and 165mm from the car centre line ;
- a diagonal line running forwards and inwards, from a point 875mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 240mm from the car centre line, at an angle of 4.5 degrees to the car centre line ;
- a diagonal line from 875mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 240mm from the car centre line to 625mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 415mm from the car centre line ;
- a transverse line 625mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template.

This diagram by a reader earlier shows the restricted area well:


This places restrictions on the barge board positioning.

Now there is some thought about whether the barge board should be integrated. 3.8.4. says:

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 : - first bullet;
- second bullet ;
- 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.

In essence this says anything eclosed in the defined volume must be a continuous curve. This bans chimnyes, flip up, and possibly, axe heads but the area doesn't reach out in front of the sidepods.

Therefore I don't think this rule specifies integrated barge boards in 2009. In summary I think barge boards can stand alone as they currently do.

Perhaps the best drawing is the one at the end of the FIA'a regulations - page 63 if you have it. That shows barge boards are NOT integrated.

Any other thoughts most welcome.

[johnbeamer]

Also other than the restrictions outline in 3.11.1 there appears to be nothing to stop vortex generators e.g. sawtooth foot plate, on the bottom of the barge boards. My read is that from the edge of the monocoque to the area defined by 3.11.1 and shape in the vertical plane goes as does any in the horizontal plane provided it is either on the reference plane or step plane - does anyone disagree?

[mx_tifoso]

Also other than the restrictions outline in 3.11.1 there appears to be nothing to stop vortex generators e.g. sawtooth foot plate, on the bottom of the barge boards - does anyone disagree?

Not necessarily disagreeing, but isn't that what the new regs are going against?
With the removal of appendages that create turbulant flow (and the reduction of DF) the new chosen path.

From what has been said so far, I was led to believe that bargeboards were going to be simpler in design and with smoother edges, contrary to how they are at the moment. Eliminating any sort of protruding add ons in the process.

[johnbeamer]

Tifosi - my reading of the rules is that because the area are restricted to is much tighter then there is less scope for vortex generators eg, cockpit fins and various fences at the bottom of the car.

I don't think there is anything to stop the top profile being saw toothed for example. The barge board generates a couple of vortices and whethere it is one big one or 6 little ones doesn't really matter.

The vortex generators around the bottom of the board and the floor area are designed to shoot high energy air under the diffuser. So these can effectively be controlled through the height and length of the diffuser ...

it is more around the side of the car and the winglets, flip ups, chimneys that have been banned / curtailed

Btw - the various flicks and things adording the barge boards will be banned because they'll be in the restricted area. The sawtooth footplate may also be in the restricted zone so be banned but canny teams look as though they have scope to be different and innovative around here

[PNSD]

On this site somewhere, the webpage not the phorum there is a article from an F1 engineer from Honda and I remember he saying their car and I think probably most cars generate between 10-15 vortices at the bargeboards! Quite something, I suppose lots of little ones are easier to control than few larger ones.

edit - what i get from reading these new rules is that the cars will be back to laminar flow cars instead of the vortex cars we have now.

[WhiteBlue]

Motorsport total .com report that all teams have signed or are signing up for the 2009 season today. This means that the majority voting rights will continue as the 2009 sporting regs again feature the appendix 5.

[Ogami musashi]

The technical regulations don't follow the majority vote.

Only the sporting regs. This is writtent in the tech regs that any change is to be made according to the rules in the 1998 concord agreement then it is still unanimously that things are changed.

Until FOTA sign the new concord agreement it will stay the same.

That's why i see no surprise in that all team signed up for 2009. 2009 a 2010 are already written on the rock; 2011 is where everything is played.

[Ogami musashi]

Some informations taken from the net:

-during hungary press conference, fernando alonso said that the tests during jerez saw the renault and other teams posting faster lap times with 09DF+slicks than 08DF+grooves


-One of the first technical proposal of the FOTA will be against budget cap. They do not believe it is possible.
Their proposal to reduce costs are homologation of some parts and longer life time for their component.

It was confirmed that Luca di montezemolo will be the first president of the FOTA for 12 months while Ross Brawn will be the president for all technical regulations matter.

[Ogami musashi]

Power war aon approach.

FOTA have issued that they won't propose rules for 2011 in time for the October 3rd deadline but for January 15th!

Let's see what the FIA will do.


By the way important information, during the meeting ecclestone and CVC boss were sent away for the last 45minutes were teams talked on their own.
Ecclestone reportedly was furious about that and flew back to england directly.

F1 is such like a soap..

[WhiteBlue]

The technical regulations don't follow the majority vote.

Only the sporting regs. This is writtent in the tech regs that any change is to be made according to the rules in the 1998 concord agreement then it is still unanimously that things are changed.

Until FOTA sign the new concord agreement it will stay the same.

That's why i see no surprise in that all team signed up for 2009. 2009 a 2010 are already written on the rock; 2011 is where everything is played.

I'm awfully sorry Ogami but you seem to be in error with that opinion. Appendix 5 sets majority voting for the TWG the SWG and the F1 commission. I give you §§ 3-4 here.

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.
4. Proposals from the TWG and the SWG will go to the Formula One Commission consisting of six representatives from the teams, five representatives from the race promoters and one representative each from the Commercial Rights Holder and the FIA. At least two race promoters must be from Europe and at least two from outside Europe. Decisions of

the reference to the concord is only about certain time deadlines. After the deadline it is of course unanimity. That has allways been the case. But anything that is more than 18 months away goes by simple majority.

[Ogami musashi]

That's a bit more complicated.

You have three cases of regulations changes:

1/ The Technical Working Group (of the SWG for sporting regs) proposes rules changes.
In this case a 80% majority vote is enforced.
Once adopted, the proposals go to the F1 commission.

Here, another majority vote but this time of 67% takes place.

Once adopted the F1 commission submit the proposals to the World Motor Sport Council for approval, and there, they have also a majority vote.


2/ The FIA may make urgent safety rules proposals, the TWG (or SWG) has a deadline to make proposals and follow the same sequence as in 1/.
If the deadline is gone, the FIA will send the TWG three concret proposals of measures, and the TWG has to choose one.
If the TWG Fails then the World Motorsport council will decide by itself.

3/The FIA issues concrete rules; Those rules will come into force only if you an unanimity within teams.


So it all depends on the situation,For example 2009 regulations seem to have been issued by the FIA; thus teams did not agree (especially on the CDG) and the TWG was asked to provide new rules (the TWG mandated the OWG for most of the rules), which were sent to the F1 commission then approved by the WMSC.

It seems 2006 rules were done the same way.


So the situation is complex but you can see the FIA has right to alter what they want but only with proper notice time and with unanimity of the teams.
However on other occasion the TWG work, but the 80% vote is huge constrain.
Additionnaly when recommendations are done by the FIA, in case of failure from the tWG the WMSC applies.
Despite being a majority vote, the WMSC is composed of various clubs officers and the teams representatives have far less power.


If i understand it correctly, the new concord agreement would set a 67% vote into the TWG and remove the FIA ability to make regulations except for safety reasons.

You can see the logic in the 2009-2013 regulations.
The FIA had issued some rules but since there's never unanimity, regulations are forced to go through the TWG> F1 commission>WSMC knowing that the WMSC has the final word on it, and that the WMSC is essentially an FIA council.

[WhiteBlue]

I do not understand why you think that the regulation for majority voting does not apply. Perhaps you can explain why you think that the voting mechanism applies as you see it.

Let us assume that they want to make a technical change for 2011 or 2010. How do you think the rules for changes apply respectively

[Ogami musashi]

No no, we don't understand each other, you're talking about a change to regulations while i'm talking about the setting of the regulations.

In the case you mention you're totally right, but you take the sequence a bit late.

Let me use an example for 2010:

1/The FIA issues the rules for 2010. For this rules to be applied, Teams must unanimously agree to them. Let's say it is not the case.
2/The FIA tasks the TWG to draw regulations according the the goals they want to achieve (the FIA).
3/The TWG draw proposals and those proposals are adopted with a 80% majority system (which is quite restrictive)
4/It then transfers it to the F1 commission where it is again debatted to a 67% majority vote.
5/It then go to the WSMC which is as you know, mostly represented by the FIA. The WMSC is in line with the original proposals of the FIA so WMSC acts mainly as an executive chamber for the FIA.
If the WMSC adopt the proposals, the regulation are written.

The frame of the rules is always given by FIA and that as soon as one team is not okay with it, there's a need for tweaking it, but it will never be far from what the FIA wanted.

Inside the TWG the 80% majority vote make that if more than 2 teams didn't agree at the start wit the FIA rules, and still not agree with the proposals of the TWG, the TWG will have to tweak it again till the two teams are okay.

That's why only williams and force india blocked the customer cars issues.

So my first points is that, actually the FIA decide pretty much the rules, teams only tweak them (the V8's were an idea from the teams, the FIA wanted rev limited V10).

My second point is that the TWG do indeed work on a majority vote..but 80%!


Now let's take a theoretical solution. The FIA tasks the teams to make the rules.
The rules are done by the TWG so following the 80% majority vote., now let's say One team doesn't agree.
The rules comes to the FIA, and FIA publishes the rules, the one team that doesn't agree has the right to reject the rules so that the rules come back to the TWG for tweaking.

I'm not quite sure of that but i think that's why teams wants to draw the rules by themselves and that rules have to be decided according to the 57% majority role and then go to the WSMC but get rid of the unanimity so that rules are possible.

The last bit is a abit unsure but the first part is written on the concord agreement.

[WhiteBlue]

None of this is justified by the published regulations.

The appendix 5 rule change mechanism is valid and unchanged since 1.1.2008.
It was again confirmed with the 2009 sporting regs.
In addition article 2.2 of the 2008 and 2009 tech regs are valid.

2.2 Amendments to the regulations :
Amendments to these regulations for 2008 and 2009 will be made in accordance with Clause 8.10 of the 1998 Concorde agreement.
Thereafter changes to these or to the sporting regulations which, in the opinion of the FIA Technical Department, involve significant change to the design of a car, will be announced no later than 30 June to come into force for the next season but one. Changes needed for safety reasons may be introduced with shorter notice in consultation with the currently competing teams.

This paragraf by the way is unchanged from 2008 to 2009. I had expected that the moratorium would have rolled forward to 2009 and 2010. But it says that changes in 2008 and 2009 to the published regulations will be made by the mechanism that you reported.

So for 2010 if someone wants to increase the recovered energy or change the power of the KERS he had to do this no later than 30 June this year and it could be done with simple majority. I believe this is the reason why the inscription now starts on first of July.

Changes for 2011 can be made until next year 30 June again with simple majority.

So in effect the FIA offers a chance to the teams to shape the future regulations with simple majority and does this since 2006 when this mechanism was first established. The teams in my view are very much in charge of their own destiny as long as they can be assed to do something and get four other teams to support their plan. What we have seen in the last two years is that they never bother to do something in time. And then the fans complain that the FIA sets the rules. It isn't really true.

It has been a request by the teams for a very long time that regulations mustn't change at least 20 months before the season begins. This is pretty much guaranteed this way. An if a change is deemed necessary the hurdles are simply higher. It appears to me that the mechanism is ok. One could think about changing the short term changes to 50% majority as well. At leats Briatore and Bernie seem to think about it.