Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[scarbs]

Yes, but you are losing the taller\longer centre tunnel, this at 30cm wide x 80cm long x 40cm high, is a significant loss in all dimensions. The result will be a diffuser smaller in volume and exit area, but with a far steeper angle of attack (21-degrees)...

[pgj]

I have to say that trying to visualise these changes is very difficult for me. I find them too difficult to comprehend and rely on people with a much better grasp of the subject than I have to explain them to me.

I do remember reading a post somewhere in which it was said that increasing the size of the diffuser did not make any sense. It was countered with a reply that said it was intended to give a cleaner air flow behind the car.

I am sorry if this is complete tosh, I just offer it up for discussion.

[johnbeamer]

The other element in the diffuser equation is how efficiently and evenly the floor will be fed. In the old world, with the plethora of vortex generators and bargeboards, a big part of under body downforce was harnessing the the flow under the nose and around the splitter properly. Given the restrictions on the boards and vortex generators (3.11.1) there is less scope for flow management in this area.

Scarbs - that's a good spot on diffuser area - I've not contrasted the new vs old regs but if that is so then I think diffuser will become less efficient. Also the wake will be smaller (although the steeper angle may not help), which will be a good thing if the plan is to encourage over taking

[Ogami musashi]

Yes, but you are losing the taller\longer centre tunnel, this at 30cm wide x 80cm long x 40cm high, is a significant loss in all dimensions. The result will be a diffuser smaller in volume and exit area, but with a far steeper angle of attack (21-degrees)...

A Loss is what is desired i think since we want less coupling anyway, what is important is to see if the turbulence will be greater.

here is a couple of facts to consider:

1/The step floor extend from 330 behind FWCL to the RWCL opposed to now with 330 behind FWCL to 330 ahead of RWCL.

2/The full 50cm width, from RWCL to 330 behind it is authorized to go below the RP as opposed to 30cm now.

3/opposed to the actual lateral parts of the diffuser the steep angle will be greater.

Okay, 1/ would lead to a higher mass flow...but as john beamer told us, the use of vortex generators to prevent breakdown being limited next year we don't know..i presume they want the same mass flow.

2/makes assuming that the mass flux (mass flow per unit area) will be lower than in the lateral parts and/or the central part.

3/is interesting..there's more pressure recovery here (but will mass flow be higher???) but in the central area i think the actual pressure recovery gradient is about the same.

So all in one i think the efficiency will be about the same, just that you will probably have less mass flow so as johnbeamer said, i think the diffuser will have less wake and less turbulence.

[pgj]

Wasn't the lengthening of the diffuser put forward as an alternative proposal to the split rear wing that Max had promoted as part of his measures to improve overtaking?

[Ogami musashi]

Wasn't the lengthening of the diffuser put forward as an alternative proposal to the split rear wing that Max had promoted as part of his measures to improve overtaking?

I don't remind it, but maybe.

But here the diffuser is not lengthened at all, it stays the same size, but as scarbs says the central part that used to be very long will now have the same length as the lateral one (330mm).

Now, the standard part of the front wing will direct air flow underfloor, so we'll see how the OWG has shaped it.

[pgj]

Yes, I am sorry, I did say that, what you say is correct.

[Conceptual]

$5 says they will be faster next year than this year.

Any takers?

Chris

[Ogami musashi]

That's a bit vague..

I'll follow you that they'll be faster...but not necessarily in the first races.

[Scotracer]

They should be faster next year; less drag, more power, more mechanical grip, more-than the 50% downforce expected.

Even if they are the same speed, I don't care as the cars haven't really increased in lap times over the past 3 years anyway.

[Conceptual]

That's a bit vague..

I'll follow you that they'll be faster...but not necessarily in the first races.

Than you should take the bet!

I am simply saying that with all of the changes for next year, the teams that already have their 2009 cars well along the way already are going to have faster lap times than the 2008 cars.

Lets just hope that we don't see any 100,000RPM explosions next year!

Chris

[johnbeamer]

I'm trying to work out what regulation 3.8.6 means

3.8.6 The impact absorbing structures defined by Article 15.5.2 must be fully enclosed by bodywork, such that no part of the impact structure is in contact with the external air flow. When cut by a longitudinal vertical plane, the bodywork enclosing these impact structures must not form closed sections in the region between 450mm and 875mm forward of the rear edge of the cockpit template.

Any idea what this rule is referring to and what it limits?

g

[Conceptual]

I'm trying to work out what regulation 3.8.6 means

3.8.6 The impact absorbing structures defined by Article 15.5.2 must be fully enclosed by bodywork, such that no part of the impact structure is in contact with the external air flow. When cut by a longitudinal vertical plane, the bodywork enclosing these impact structures must not form closed sections in the region between 450mm and 875mm forward of the rear edge of the cockpit template.

Any idea what this rule is referring to and what it limits?

g

When I read that, I immediately thought it was talking about the rear crash structure. I read it as it is a structure that has to be enclosed within body work.

Now, with all of the measurements, I am not too sure of what it would look likem but there is another poster on this thread that has done some great drawings to show what the regs mean, maybe they would do it for this as well?

Chris

[dumrick]

I'm trying to work out what regulation 3.8.6 means

3.8.6 The impact absorbing structures defined by Article 15.5.2 must be fully enclosed by bodywork, such that no part of the impact structure is in contact with the external air flow. When cut by a longitudinal vertical plane, the bodywork enclosing these impact structures must not form closed sections in the region between 450mm and 875mm forward of the rear edge of the cockpit template.

Any idea what this rule is referring to and what it limits?

g

Article 15.5.2 refers to the cockpit side's crash structures and that article forces some sort of continuity in that structure, in that region that seems to be around the sidepod air intake. Probably prevents air for the sidepods to be channelled between crash structures.

[johnbeamer]

Article 15.5.2 refers to the cockpit side's crash structures and that article forces some sort of continuity in that structure, in that region that seems to be around the sidepod air intake. Probably prevents air for the sidepods to be channelled between crash structures.

I'm not quite sure what this means: When cut by a longitudinal vertical plane, the bodywork enclosing these impact structures must not form closed sections in the region between 450mm and 875mm forward

It implies that there are to be no closed structures in this region. Would barge boards be closed structures? In which case that means they are banned