2009 design concepts

[Sawtooth-spike]

from one of our colleages forums

could this be acurate?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_62uoM4_hVlY/S ... orblog.jpg

Cant be Kimi wont have a Number 1 on his car

I think the main plane on the front wing would be ilegal for a number of reasons. the second inlets would break the rule about body work not being able to curve back on its self (somebody had a great word for it) and the rear wing end plates are to small.

Does look cool though,

[timbo]

from one of our colleages forums

could this be acurate?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_62uoM4_hVlY/S ... orblog.jpg

Cant be Kimi wont have a Number 1 on his car

I think the main plane on the front wing would be ilegal for a number of reasons. the second inlets would break the rule about body work not being able to curve back on its self (somebody had a great word for it) and the rear wing end plates are to small.

Does look cool though,

Yeah, it looks cool (anime F1 ) but is wrong on sooo many levels... Indy fins, T-wings, second inlets, front wing center section.....

[Metar]

The continuous tangential curve rule isn't applied, there are flipups, second sidepods, probably-illegal rear wings, and some other problems..

[ben_watkins]

The Macca 2009 front wing pops up..

http://www.f1technical.net/news/11238

ITV-f1.com

Looks more aesthitcally pleasing that BMW's early offering

[wrigs]

I've just had a look at pictures from today. It seems the new front wing has caused quite a bit of graining for McLaren.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/photolarge.ph ... catID=3667 and http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/photolarge.ph ... catID=3667 clearly show some severe front graining. Is the wing leading too much air away from the tires, heating them up too much?

[wesley123]

it is plausible but i think not, mclarens front wing dont got the vertical edge on the end plate so there will be more air flowing to it compared to bmw ones. maybe they are testing how the car handles on weared tires.

I thing the front wing looks good, we will see even more complex ones soon. Im waiting to see a Indycar style one pop up with the high fins on the side of each element.

I dont see the nessecarity of the part under the nose, why dont they remove it? it cases only drag and doesnt create any downforce so wwhy keeping it?

[Metar]

I'm guessing they're not allowed anyway - but wouldn't they have some strength-issues without it, too?

[wesley123]

I'm guessing they're not allowed anyway - but wouldn't they have some strength-issues without it, too?

probably, but the 1991 turrell used the same idea, so it is possible.

The rules only state that the central section isnt allowed to generate downforce, the rules doesnt state that you must use a central section, i guess that when the next season goes on people start thinking more like this way to find loopholes.

[Metar]

I'd also guess that, as a flat, neutral surface, it doesn't produce much drag, but perhaps calms the airflow a bit? Without the turning-vanes and bargeboards, I reckon teams are after anything to control the airflow - and perhaps a flat plane is better than nothing.

They'd still have to beef up the mounts without the plane, anyway.

[wesley123]

you have a point, but there are easy ways to make bargeboards wich arent bargeboards, know what i mean?

You can use the hang up element to sned the air to the sidepods. You can make big front splitters to clean up the airflow. Maybe twin keel is a better option for next year as it can guide air to places where its needed. Also i think the teams will try to find ways to improve underbody flow as that is probably the only way to significantly increase the downforce.

[megz]

The central section is an FIA standardised part I do believe.

[wesley123]

it is possible, but do the rules say that you must have a central section? i thought not, maybe im wrong though

[Ogami musashi]

The central section is mandatory and is to reason why you have the flaps outboard. It is a fundamental of the new aero regs.


As for the tyres, everybody complained they were simply too soft for the jerez surface hence all the graining and blistering seen.

[megz]

Now I thought the regs on the front wing stated that it couldn't have more than 2 elements, or does this not count the flat plane that is FIA mandated? If it is 2 planes including the mandated plane, why are BMW, Honda and McLaren running 3 planes. Shits and giggles?

[scarbs]

Now I thought the regs on the front wing stated that it couldn't have more than 2 elements, or does this not count the flat plane that is FIA mandated? If it is 2 planes including the mandated plane, why are BMW, Honda and McLaren running 3 planes. Shits and giggles?

there is still no limit on front wing elements for the outer portion of the wing. They could have four\five or more elements, as well as a cascade element (renault 2006 style) above them!