Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[PNSD]

Autosport have made it look nicer than originally thought, but still looks like the a dogs breakfast!! That's just been shat out!

[bazanaius]

That is singularly the most revolting thing I have ever seen. I prefer the RA107.

[scarbs]

It's sad to say the Autosport issue was a disappointment.

The whole front wing is wrong, there is no "Drawing7" flat centre section and seperate flaps. The sidepods are wrong as they feature too sharply radiussed edges.

[pgj]

Ian Phillips said at the start of the season that the new regulations would change the nature of an F1 car without necessarily losing all of the intended 50% downforce. He said that early wind tunnel model testing carried out last winter had indicated a maximum 30% loss of downforce. He went on to say that cars will be faster and slower in different parts of the circuit, but most teams were working with a ball-park figure of 15% downforce loss by the time the '09 season starts. Some teams will lower the figure as the season progresses.

[Ogami musashi]

Yes, that's strange about the front wing, and also the sidepods are bizarre, but how on earth is it possible to publish such drawing labelling them as "what they will REALLY look like" and be wrong? Especially at this period of time where the regulations have been released already.

On the topic of the central section, please not than "one closed section" can mean a part with its flap.


But i don't know really...

[Scotracer]

I knew there was somethings wrong with it.

Just to give us a REAL idea of what they will look like, I got a shot of my dad's Digital SLR camera to take a high-detail picture of the CAD image in F1 racing:



It still has grooved tyres but other than that, it fits the regs.

[mariof1]

MarioF1 - that would be interesting to see. Here are my interpretations of the rules. All have been superimposed on a BMW F1.08 as the fundamental dimensions of the car do not change.



The think blue line is effective the start of the banned area for bodywork. My understanding is that you can have bodywork before this as per 3.11.1.

Rule 3.8.4 controls everything upto 450mm ahead of the cockpit entry template. There can be no apertures and fins here by that rule

Rule 3.8.6 is the one I referred to with regard to bodywork enclosing the impact absorbing structure. There can be no closed sections. Not quite sure exactly what this means but I am guessing it prevents bodywork from the sidepods extending and forming closed structure (pod fins etc.). This may also limit bargeboards as well - the bargeboards are attached to the bottom edge of the sidepod so you could argue that there is a closed structure there in a particular longitudonal plane.

Saying that you can attach the board differently I suspect.

The purple line is my view of how a bargebard may look.

It's very close to my understanding of the rules. However, the rear edge of the cockpit entry template is, in side view, a vertical line which is a continuation of the front edge of the airbox... or just remove the headrest and you'll get what I mean. If you check the drawings and rules, you'll see that the rear headrest is 90mm thick (maximum), so moving all the lines backward by 90mm will give you a more accurate sketch. Moreover, the 240mm line should be inclined towards the center line of the car by 4 degrees. Please check the regulations, I might be wrong.

Here's a sketch in plan view:



Green = maximum allowed dimensions

red = there must be bodywork in this area (minimum dimensions for the front part of the survival cell)

ps: wheelbase is 3050mm

[MattF1]

Many thanks again, mariof1 - these drawings really help visualise it.

[pgj]

Thanks mariof1.

Is there a maximum width that the nose section has to be? The green section before the red driver area in your diagram.

[Ogami musashi]

On the topic of 2011 rules, teams met yesterdays and discussed some possibilities.

As Flavio briatore said in the Friday press conference, he's in favour of standard parts for KERS and even would like a common KERS for all teams.

He supported again his view that nobody in F1 is interested in engineering and that we should concentrate on racing.

Where it comes a bit frightening it is that during the meetings several teams proposed 3 years homologated chassis as a measure and the only two were strongly not agreeing: williams and force india.

During the press conference briatore asked directly if his vision of F1 was not more than a glorified GP2 acknowledged that and answered "that's my vision of F1".


If the chassis are homologated, the engines too, the tyre idem...the gloomy fate of GP2+ F1 is upon us.

Time will tell.



sources:

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/spor ... _13987.hbs
http://www.f1technical.net/news/10199

[Scotracer]

What are Renault doing? First they wanted the engine freeze, now a standard KERS and now even more standard parts?

My dream 2011 regulations:

-Fuel limit
-no engine config/size limit
-Unlimited KERS/HERS
-2009 downforce regulations but slightly more free to advancement
-Reduction in minimum weight to 550kg

That'll do me

[Ogami musashi]

I'm afraid we'll see something like homologated chassis since it is on the table for 2 years now both by FIA and now by several Teams.

[mariof1]

Thanks mariof1.

Is there a maximum width that the nose section has to be? The green section before the red driver area in your diagram.

The green area is the maximum permitted for the nose. I considered the front overhang (1200mm ahead of the FWCL) and the line inclined towards the center line of the car (4 degrees), as mandated by the regulations.

I'm trying to draw all volumes in google sketchup. This is what I've got so far:


Side view (parallel)


3d

[pgj]

=D> Thank you.

[Scotracer]

Thanks for them, mario!

One thing I wish they had re-thought was the size of the rear-wing endplates as they are far too big