Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[pgj]

This idea that F1 should be allowed to develop technologies with no regard to cost is misguided. F1 should always be at the leading edge of technological development but it simply has to have SOME parameters that it has to work within.

I am passionate about F1 although, to all intents and purposes, it serves no purpose. It is an entertainment but seeing it out of context and insisting that there should be more and more money poured into F1 on the basis that "it is F1 and F1 has to progress", seems to be a very distorted view on things IMO. Underlying this distorted view is the premise that the present F1 model where the only route to success is if a team is owned by a manufacturer. There have been other models in the past and I expect that there will be different ones in the future. Just saying that F1 is at the leading edge of technology and things must remain the same is a view that will lock F1 onto a path that will lead to F1 becoming extinct.

In the past, F1 has never needed to look after its own. There has always been another team with ambition ready to step in and have a go at F1 success. That is no longer the case. F1 is already running with two teams/franchises short and can ill afford to lose any more. I was very sorry to see Jordan and Jaguar fail. I was even more sorry to see SA sacrificed to avoid FIF1's case go to the International Court of Arbitration for Sport and defuse the situation by having the "ten team" rule kick in. SA deserved a lot more support from us all.

If the present FIA initiative has a hidden agenda to push manufacturers away from team ownership, then I fully support it. Manufacturers have always dipped into F1 when it has suited them and they have also taken their leave when it is has suited them. Manufacturers' shareholders will have the final say and sooner or later they will force an exit from F1. It is far better for F1 to take control of the situation and shape its own future rather than wait for events to run their course.

I am not sure if a standard engine will be the way that the FIA directs F1 for the future or whether their will be the acceptance of a compromise solution from FOTA. Whatever is decided will be fine by me. F1 needs change and it needs it quickly. F1 needs the likes of Dave Richards and EJ. F1 needs a queue of teams waiting to get into F1.

I do not support a 'standardised' series, but saying that a standardised engine means that F1 will no longer be at the forefront of technological development is wrong. F1 will simply develop in other areas than engine technologies. Bring on the changes and quickly before F1 disappears up its own exhaust pipes. Max has got this one right.

[donskar]

pgj wrote:

I do not support a 'standardised' series, but saying that a standardised engine means that F1 will no longer be at the forefront of technological development is wrong. F1 will simply develop in other areas than engine technologies.

OK, fair enough. But what are those "other areas"? Not aero. Not engines or transmissions. Not suspensions. Please provide some details (or realistic guesses) on "other areas" where performance gains can be expected WITHOUT extensive spending.

Restrictions do NOT guarantee lower costs. When the scope for improvement is very narrow, it can cost MUCH more to improve performance. F1 teams will compete, no matter what the cost. Or they will withdraw.

[Scotracer]

F1 hasn't been at the forefront of technology for sometime now. We're less advanced than we were 15 years ago

[pgj]

I do not know what the other areas are. F1 has always turned its attention to find small advances wherever they are. I don't have a crystal ball where I can see what will happen in the future. F1 has always innovated and it will continue to innovate in the future.

One thing that we do know about F1 is that it will continue to have technical changes in the future. I see this raft of changes as being no more permanent that any other regulation that has ever been drafted. Once F1 has recovered, there is every likelihood that these regulations will be relaxed.

@Scotracer

[WhiteBlue]

It is obvious where F1 is going to develop. The issue is efficiency and emphasis on showcasing the drivers.

A budget cap for the rich manufactrer teams as reqired by the FiA will provide a more level playing field for the privateers and future aspirants. We can expect to see more teams and less rich manufacturers to come on board.

If performance increases come primarily from regen power F1 has no need to free power from the ICE. All the efforts on the engine will go into minimising the required fuel load which is exactly what should happen.

So I hope that either option 2 or 3 are agreed in the end. It means that maximum scope for efficiency developments apply. It would be foolish to disregard the potential in the powertrain. This is wh a total freeze isn't desirable.

The introduction of regen technologies most certainly means that there will be massive conceptual changes to the ICE in order to achieve synergies between the components of the power system.

I don't mind if they reduce the aero research to more appropriate levels that teams can achieve with a moderate use of one wind tunnel for 2 days per week. That can be achieved by limiting the downforce and diverting the aero research towards better aerodynamic efficiency. That way there are still aereas of competitive advantage but the generation of downforce at any cost in ever more distorted geometrically restricted zones on the car will come to an end.

Competing on aerodynamic efficiency will do two things for F1.
1. it will help with overtaking by reducing drag and turbulence
2. it will reduce fuel consumption
Both are important objectives.

In order to reinforce and amplify advances in fuel efficiency refuelling rates should be reduced so that fuel consumption constitutes a bigger penalty.

[Scotracer]

But the regulations are specifically designed around maintaining drag levels, to stop speeds from getting silly.

This is the idea behind all the 2000's regulation changes (raising front wing, moving rear-wing forward and next year's regs) to keep drag levels embellished compared to what they need to be so speeds don't get out of control.

The FIA just keep shooting themselves in the foot.

Note: Drag levels next year will be 10% lower than this year.

[WhiteBlue]

that is fine. the more they reduce drag the better. if lap times go out of control they can adjust the power or the downforce down. that is the appropriate way of regulating things, imho.

[Ogami musashi]

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=36381

Max mosley really irritates me with his "irrevelant F1 aerodynamics".

did he ever envisaged that those aerodynamics produce indirect road technologies via all the R&D done?

Where does he thinks all the new cars (like the nissan GT-R) aerodynamics are from?

It remembers me a podcast with pat symonds where he said that since 50 years, F1 has contributed to road development in many aspects and he gave examples, but that was through indirect transfert.

Note the term "performance differentiator" because under this term will be contained all the last engineering competition items.

[WhiteBlue]

Ogami Musashi, the question of resource allocation in development was studied in great detail when FiA and FOMAC initially got together. It was unanimously agreed that aerodynamic problems in road cars and single seater open wheel race cars have virtually nothing in common. so 95% of all research work done in that field would not benefit road car development. therefore aero was clearly earmarked as a field where future policies would apply considerable reductions. I don't think that any team principal disagrees with the view that aero has gone completely over the top with leading teams running two wind tunnels and thinking about a third and doing CFD on some of the biggest supercomputers with hundreds of employees. It is a dreadfull waste if we want F1 resources to do something usefull for the development of energy efficient transportation. After all it was just a useless game where boxes were drawn around the front and rear wings and annually they moved the boxes around to have a new go at regaining performance. what is the sense of that. It is sterile and useless.

[pgj]

I seem to remember hearing Pat say something similar on BBC radio. WhiteBlue is correct regarding a direct development transfer from F1 to road cars. Although from memory Pat was talking about technology transfer. Where technologies are developed refined and perfected for F1 and then transferred and adapted to road car use.

Although it has not been explicitly stated, my take on things is that the present talk about a standard engine is designed to reduce costs and to realign F1 with some road car R&D technologies, making F1 more relevant to road car R&D. I could be way off the mark, time will tell.

F1 engine development will not have any relevance to road car engine until F1 is forced to develop fuel efficient engines and that would probably mean no refuelling.

[Ogami musashi]

Ogami Musashi, the question of resource allocation in development was studied in great detail when FiA and FOMAC initially got together. It was unanimously agreed that aerodynamic problems in road cars and single seater open wheel race cars have virtually nothing in common. so 95% of all research work done in that field would not benefit road car development.

The ressources allocations have no link with the fundamental reasearch done.

Aerodynamics are aerodynamics, it is about drag and downforce.

I concede road cars have no interest in producing 3 tons of downforce, but having the max downforce for the least drag is, and that's what F1 aeros are all about.

The management of vortex is a current trend that F1 and LMS cars did develop since the late 90's.

It serves not only aero efficiency but drag reduction.

By the way the example PAt symonds quoted were about engines and, according to the FIA the engines have no relevance at all following the same narrow reasonement that since they work for high RPM (like high downforce for aerodynamics) they do not benefit road cars.

It is sad the podcast is not aviable anymore and that i have almost zero knowledge in engines because PS quoted very concrete examples of drivetrain technologies developped for F1 that later found their way in road cars.

[WhiteBlue]

... I concede road cars have no interest in producing 3 tons of downforce, but having the max downforce for the least drag is, and that's what F1 aeros are all about.....

downforce is no issue in 95% of road cars they are happy with the weight they have. only performance cars need downforce. the generation of downforce is by nature adverse to energy efficiency.

in the past the FiA has regularly executed rule changes to curb performance so that F1 could compete on regaining the performance. the curbing measures were mostly done with safety in mind.

after the strategic rethink with FOMAC the approach was changed. traditional performance sources (rpm,downforce)were supposed to be frozen and R&D for competitive advantage directed towards fuel efficiency.

the concept is very goood, except that some clever guys realised that they can gain power by increasing the efficiency of the engine. in my view that is a good thing to do. the FiA should encourage better engine efficiency and remove all restrictions that block such gains in efficiency.

[donskar]

I hope this is the appropriate thread for these comments.

Here and in the "new engine regs" thread, many comments have centered on the need to cut F1 costs. I have no argument there.

However, Bernie and Max have succeeded in drawing attention away from a secondary, but still important point -- F1 is a money machine that has made Max rich and has made Bernie one of the richest men in the world. The F1 money crunch would be eased a bit (not solved, just eased) if there was a more equitable sharing of revenues.

It's a shame the teams can not work together to pressure the two greed monsters to share the wealth. There are lots of tracks capable of staging an F1 race. There is no shortage of internationally connected management types to drive an organization. There is (so far) enough sponsorship dollars. The only part of the equation that is in very short supply - they key part - is the teams. But they are NOT getting a fair share of the proceeds.

[WhiteBlue]

Agree with the comment on Bernie, CVC and the banks taking away too much money. Max, as far as we know is on an unpaid job and if he takes anything out of the revenue its not in a legal way.

By far the biggest part of F1 income - 1.6 billion $ - goes strait to the teams in subsidies by the owners and from that by far the majority is automotiv money.

So I don't see how that is going to improve the budget of the privateers and new entrants considering that they stand no chance to get equitable share in the price money when they start from a lowly point.

So there is a very good point for lightening the load on the minions by restricting budgets and fixing the engine formula such that they can afford engines.

[Ogami musashi]

downforce is no issue in 95% of road cars they are happy with the weight they have. only performance cars need downforce. the generation of downforce is by nature adverse to energy efficiency.

I think you're oversimplying the physics.
Grip is in many occasions not enough as a road car is driven by relatively (and averaged)low skill drivers and cars are driven on various road surfaces.

See the number of cars that are now equiped with diffusers.

Flow management which is a big part of actual F1 research is critical for drag in road cars.

The fact that teams use 24/24h wind tunnel is not related to the relevance of aerodynamics. It is simply another product of the regulations and the simpliest way to gain performance.
Those windtunnels simply test, they do not research, they test. The problem is here.
If fundamental research was encouraged then innovative aerodynamics would be present.