2009 design concepts

[Scotracer]

From what i can gleen so far is that:

The RB4/STR3 shark fin is legal
The Ferarri Slotted Nose is legal
The McLaren/Toyota Anti Yaw device in the middle of the rear wing is legal (i think)
The Renault exaust sytem to heat the rear tyres is legal
The various styles of wheel fairings are legal

Thats all i can see so far, but i can see some teams looking into the grey and trying to incorperate some of the flip ups and what not into the "integral" design of the car, in result, they look like flip ups but they arnt.

But i think the cars will look sleek and streamlined next year, im shure we will see some things come 2 weeks time!!!

Even if the nose hole was allowed, it would be pretty useless as the centre section of the front-wing wont produce an upwash.

[vasia]

What difference you think KERS would have on the look of car? Bodywork regulation have no connection to KERS. There can be differences on engine cover, but all in all, some teams run KERS equipped cars and I haven't heard anyone saying that it had some profound effect on car appearance (well, BMW had boxy sidepods but that's all).

I can't claim to know exactly what difference is, but McLaren and Toyota surely do think there is a difference. The rumours about McLaren building 2 monocoques for the 2009 season must have some truth in them.

Let me give you the direct quote from Toyota's John Howett (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71896):

We will run a car in January with KERS in a monocoque not designed for it, which we could not race, but it will be a test platform - and our gut feeling is that the earliest (it will race) will be mid season. We don't know yet. We are still testing on rigs.

Fundamentally we will have a car that will run KERS, but it will be very difficult to race. That is all I am prepared to say, and we would have to modify it to be able to race."

So what exactly does Howett mean in this case? Reading this, it's logical to assume that Toyota specifically designed a monocoque without KERS, and possibly will modify that monocoque, or will have a 2nd design to be able to accomodate and race with the KERS system.

Ogami musashi, every inch of bodywork is not strictly regulated under 2009 rules. Yes, the cars will look similar from many angles, but not from all angles. The rules will force most of the innovation from the teams to be focused on the front and rear wings, as well as the engine cover. I also expect to see some sort of innovation with the suspension designs.

[timbo]

So what exactly does Howett mean in this case? Reading this, it's logical to assume that Toyota specifically designed a monocoque without KERS, and possibly will modify that monocoque, or will have a 2nd design to be able to accomodate and race with the KERS system.

That still does not mean it has to look different to the non-KERS version overall. Monocoque is not a bodywork! And sill it does not have any effect on similarity/dissimilarity between next year cars.

[AeroGT3]

Even if the nose hole was allowed, it would be pretty useless as the centre section of the front-wing wont produce an upwash.

Yes it will, it will just be smaller than that of previous wings. It still produces downforce.

[ISLAMATRON]

Even if the nose hole was allowed, it would be pretty useless as the centre section of the front-wing wont produce an upwash.

Yes it will, it will just be smaller than that of previous wings. It still produces downforce.

Actually it wont produce an upwash because there wont be a flap there, just a main plane... see the pics.

[Ogami musashi]

Even if the nose hole was allowed, it would be pretty useless as the centre section of the front-wing wont produce an upwash.

Yes it will, it will just be smaller than that of previous wings. It still produces downforce.

It lifts. No downforce here. So downwash.

[Scotracer]

Even if the nose hole was allowed, it would be pretty useless as the centre section of the front-wing wont produce an upwash.

Yes it will, it will just be smaller than that of previous wings. It still produces downforce.

According to Racecar Engineering Vol18 No11:

"In the centre 500mm of the wing, there must be a neutral aerofoil made to an FIA-mandated cross-section"

This suggests 0 angle of attack and a symmetrical aerofoil. No lift.

[Ogami musashi]

Even if the nose hole was allowed, it would be pretty useless as the centre section of the front-wing wont produce an upwash.

Yes it will, it will just be smaller than that of previous wings. It still produces downforce.

According to Racecar Engineering Vol18 No11:

"In the centre 500mm of the wing, there must be a neutral aerofoil made to an FIA-mandated cross-section"

This suggests 0 angle of attack and a symmetrical aerofoil. No lift.

It will lift under towing conditions and in many dynamic ones.
But overall you're right that the idea is to have something neutral which induces no upwash at all.

[AeroGT3]

According to Racecar Engineering Vol18 No11:

"In the centre 500mm of the wing, there must be a neutral aerofoil made to an FIA-mandated cross-section"

This suggests 0 angle of attack and a symmetrical aerofoil. No lift.

A symmetric airfoil that close to the ground will produce downforce.

[Scotracer]

According to Racecar Engineering Vol18 No11:

"In the centre 500mm of the wing, there must be a neutral aerofoil made to an FIA-mandated cross-section"

This suggests 0 angle of attack and a symmetrical aerofoil. No lift.

A symmetric airfoil that close to the ground will produce downforce.

If I had a CFD programme I'd run it, but would that produce an upwash? I'm thinking nothing significant.

[mx_tifoso]

Racecar Engineering Vol18 No11:

In the centre 500mm of the wing, there must be a neutral aerofoil made to an FIA-mandated cross-section"

Why didn't the FIA simply mandate a certain design range and a limited angle for the center portion of the front wing? Instead of mandating the standard specification section?

I would imagine that it's simply for more control over the final design and the actual spec of that section, as to not allow for any clever interpretations.

[Ogami musashi]

According to Racecar Engineering Vol18 No11:

"In the centre 500mm of the wing, there must be a neutral aerofoil made to an FIA-mandated cross-section"

This suggests 0 angle of attack and a symmetrical aerofoil. No lift.

A symmetric airfoil that close to the ground will produce downforce.

Again. The section is lifting. This is one of the fundamentals of the OWG works on the front wing and the very reason why the wing is so wide.

And If i don't have enough credit to you here it is:

"Rory Byrne"
Q: Some people are indicating that the lower height for the front wing means it is too low, that it will be vulnerable. What's your reaction to that?

Byrne: "Well, it's no lower than it used to be; in fact, it's higher than it used to be in the late 80s/early 90s, so I don't think it's much of an issue. Drivers knew what they could do and what they couldn't.

"The other thing is that it's a lot wider (1800mm) so it's as wide as the outside of the front tyres and it's another 100mm further forward, so it's definitely more vulnerable against damage from other cars in a scrum. I think, initially, you'll find there are more damaged front wings than there used to be, but then drivers will get used to them.

"It's a bit like going from a small car to a big car and parking it. Yes, there could be some damage initially, but you get used to it. I don't see that as an issue.

"The important thing, the fundamental for the wing was to have a lifting section inboard, because that's the area that's (aerodynamically) damaged in a tow. So you wanted a lifting section, not a downforcing section, inboard. In order to have the capability of getting the right aero balance you had to increase the span.

[smirkoff]

Talking about the front wing, the FIA pdf with the 2009 technical regulations as published in the FIA site mentions in the item 3.7.3 a reference "Drawing 7" about the incidence, profile and position of that central section of the wing. Well, the pdf have only six reference drawings. I would like to know if someone in this list have this drawing or it can only get by requesting FIA?

I ask because the CAD that appeared at the Craig Scarborough's article for Racecar Engineering is way too different of the wing on the car of the Autosport article about the 09 regs, but reading the FIA pdf both proposals could be inside the regulations, and the mentioned reference drawing could clarify the rule. I feel that Craig's article is more accurate, but really want to see the reference drawing.

[pipex]

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/n ... 2927.shtml

Alfonso Martinez, head of the Spanish arm of the technology consulting firm Altran, is working with a group of Madrid-based engineers on aspects of the Renault R29.

He is not sure the changes will have the desired effect in inspiring more overtaking.

"There continues to be a lot of dirty air in the (car's) wake, although less than before."

[Ogami musashi]

Talking about the front wing, the FIA pdf with the 2009 technical regulations as published in the FIA site mentions in the item 3.7.3 a reference "Drawing 7" about the incidence, profile and position of that central section of the wing. Well, the pdf have only six reference drawings. I would like to know if someone in this list have this drawing or it can only get by requesting FIA?

I ask because the CAD that appeared at the Craig Scarborough's article for Racecar Engineering is way too different of the wing on the car of the Autosport article about the 09 regs, but reading the FIA pdf both proposals could be inside the regulations, and the mentioned reference drawing could clarify the rule. I feel that Craig's article is more accurate, but really want to see the reference drawing.

Scarbs drawings are the most accurate to date and from a very good source.
If you look at CAD published by BMW, Williams and the recent F2009 mock up (see previous page) you'll see they all conform to Scarbs drawings.

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/n ... 2927.shtml

Alfonso Martinez, head of the Spanish arm of the technology consulting firm Altran, is working with a group of Madrid-based engineers on aspects of the Renault R29.

He is not sure the changes will have the desired effect in inspiring more overtaking.

"There continues to be a lot of dirty air in the (car's) wake, although less than before."

There's of course the possibility it won't work but i think we should take this remark with grain of salt as the OWG never intended to clear the wake but rather making it workable.
This is not the optimal solution either but as noted, this is better.
OWG is still working on new solutions.