Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Ogami musashi
Ogami musashi
32
Joined: 13 Jun 2007, 22:57

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

The fact that DDD has or does not have effect on the wake is a bit too complex to be discussed on a forum.

The idea was that indeed the coupling with the rear wing was a bit problematic but also that you have strakes into diffuser to help with pressure recovery and those strakes create vortex at the exit of the diffuser hence why i told you the drag has nothing to do here with the cleanness or not of the diffuser.

AFAIK, nothing has been proved, only two studies have been done and none was conclusive; The DDD was banned for pure safety reasons.

In general, diffusers turbulences are not a good thing because the proximity of the ground make them persist quite long time (=long distance) that's why the OWG advised to have more downforce from the rear wing.

The strong upwash from the rear wing cleans the turbulences from the diffuser.

I repeat my opinion here, but trying to get a weak wake is too hard for F1, cars are different meaning they react very differently to the wake signature, plus while nothing has been proved it is possible to imagine teams making the wake turbulent , or at least not trying to make their wake ok and finally all regulations tend to increase extreme optimum solution i.e solutions that use a certain design to the max meaning they get very sensitive. It would be far easier to clean the wake and so far, all indycar project, OWG F1 regs tend to go that way.

User avatar
machin
162
Joined: 25 Nov 2008, 14:45

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

Ogami musashi wrote:I repeat my opinion here, but trying to get a weak wake is too hard for F1, cars are different meaning they react very differently to the wake signature, plus while nothing has been proved it is possible to imagine teams making the wake turbulent , or at least not trying to make their wake ok and finally all regulations tend to increase extreme optimum solution i.e solutions that use a certain design to the max meaning they get very sensitive. It would be far easier to clean the wake and so far, all indycar project, OWG F1 regs tend to go that way.
And that's exactly why spec wings/underbody is the way forward if you want overtaking...

I think even AutoGyro would concur that it IS possible to have a high downforce set up that has a better wake pattern for a following car, but I agree with you -the team's will always settle for the "extreme optimum setting" (I like that phrase!) -and why wouldn't they if they get more performance from it??! so if you want high downforce and the ability for car's to overtake then spec aero is the way forward.... (Or maybe "virtual slipstreaming" aka "proximity wing", etc!)....
COMPETITION CAR ENGINEERING -Home of VIRTUAL STOPWATCH

Ogami musashi
Ogami musashi
32
Joined: 13 Jun 2007, 22:57

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

Yes, but AFAIC i'm all for non spec parts on a car; Especially a rear wing which is a large performance differenciator.

xxChrisxx
xxChrisxx
44
Joined: 18 Sep 2009, 19:22

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

machin wrote: And that's exactly why spec wings/underbody is the way forward if you want overtaking...
Want spec?

Watch GP3, GP2, F3, F2, Indycar, Superleague, FPA, Formula Renault, World Series, Formula Ford, Formula BMW etc, etc etc.

Looking at that list above, F3 and FFord are the only series with more than 1 chassis maker, but are all still built to a spec with no development afterwards. So everyone who can afford it buys the best car and it's essentially a spec series.

There are a shitload of single make series out there if you want to watch that kind of single seater racing.

F1 has always been a technical racing series

gibells
gibells
3
Joined: 08 Apr 2009, 16:23
Location: Andalucia, Spain

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

On that same note, what the heck is wrong with teams figuring out their own weight distributions rather than being forced to use this proposed 54/46 split. Very soon there won't be any room for ingenuity with an almost specced design template.

Surprise surprise it's Mr Brawn putting his thumbs up for something he's got completely wrong this year.

Smells like fish to me.

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

I think the 54/46 split is to help with the introduction of the new tyre supplier.

I apologise for my attitude against the aero guys.
I would like to see continued aero developments within regulations that restrict maximum downforce and more importantly reduce wake turbulence.

I do not want to see F1 as a spec formula.
I do believe that the reducing fuel allowed each year will force more efficiency across the board including aero but it is essential to open up development in all areas. Hopefuly this will re-establish F1 as the ultimate technology formula.

User avatar
machin
162
Joined: 25 Nov 2008, 14:45

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

xxChrisxx wrote:F1 has always been a technical racing series
In order for F1 to survive it has to be economocally viable.. If you want F1 to remain a technical series you need teams to spend lots of money (I wish that wasn't the case, but unfortuntely innovation generally costs...). If you want money you have to keep the manufacturer's happy AND the fans happy....

The fans want cars going fast around corners and lots of overtaking (by "fans" I mean the majority of fans, not us technical geeks).

The manufacturer's want a forum to show their new technologies.. mainly powertrain.

In order to achieve the above something has to be done about the aero side... the options are basically:-

1, Aero freedom , with a "band-aid" to fix the overtaking problem (for example virtual slip-streaming aka proximity wing).. or
2, a spec underbody/wing set-up (or at the least a very highly prescribed aero configuration) which gives good downforce and a relatively good wake for the following car (if left to their own devices the teams will always go for the "extreme optimised solution" which won't aid a following car).

I think they're the only choices you have if you are to keep the fans happy.... would be interested to see other suggestions to meet the fan's requirements?
COMPETITION CAR ENGINEERING -Home of VIRTUAL STOPWATCH

wesley123
wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

Well, i think the fans love to see differing cars too, and cars wich look incredibly different every race, it just gives it a 'fresh' look. I really enjoyed it when ferrari used to bring a new rear wing every race in 2007, it was just interresting to see, and not solely from technical view, but also from looks itself.

If your car would be used as template you will loose al of this wich i am sure fans enjoy, and not to forget, even F3 will have cars running with more downforce, that is the worse part.

Sinds end 60's the teams were searching for downforce and F1 became a high downfor ce formula really quickly, why the hell do you want the F1 to stop being this?

Also, i read an article of tony plurnell(or whatever that guy was called, and he was FIA advisor and Jauar teamboss for a few years), but anyway he stated something really nicely, how bad F1 was oerganized actually, but it doesnt matter because it is the only 'product' in the world, what you are doing with your car is simply drop to indycar level, search for something to compete with and simply lose alot of fans as indy car has alot more action and is much better organised.

Your idea will lose in any way, sorry to say that. You are making the f1 drop to indy level because you are making it an spec series, and such an battle is something f1 will lose with no doubt, so it is an bad idea.

Also as stated you will lose the different looking cars between teams, something fans love to see in F1
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

Scotracer
Scotracer
3
Joined: 22 Apr 2008, 17:09
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

Nothing lasts forever.

F1, as we've known it, has had its time.
Powertrain Cooling Engineer

wesley123
wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

Scotracer wrote:Nothing lasts forever.

F1, as we've known it, has had its time.
True, but that isnt an reason to drop down to indycar level.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

User avatar
machin
162
Joined: 25 Nov 2008, 14:45

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

wesley123 wrote:Well, i think the fans love to see differing cars too, and cars wich look incredibly different every race
Paint all the cars black and I bet the majority of people who watch F1 (and not us geeks), would be hard pushed to identify different cars...

In my concept the nose, tub, side pods and wing endplates and wings would distinguish the different cars... I've only made the underfloor a "spec" part... and as you can't really see the underfloor (except the diffuser section) then I think the majority of fans would be OK with that...

So, if you were running F1 and you knew you had to provide cars that can corner at high speeds and promote overtaking you'd be on the side of the "virtual slipstreaming" rather than spec parts? or do you have another idea to meet the majority of fans wishes?
COMPETITION CAR ENGINEERING -Home of VIRTUAL STOPWATCH

jhonsadins
jhonsadins
0
Joined: 07 Jul 2010, 06:41

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

Probably wont help reduce costs, but I think it is worth investigating as a way of regulating development without losing the 'engineering' side of F1, plus I can see the developments enhancing the amount of high technology that enters the comercial market as often it is the cost and lifetime of components that limits this.

readonly
readonly
0
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 15:20

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

machin wrote:
xxChrisxx wrote:F1 has always been a technical racing series
In order for F1 to survive it has to be economocally viable.. If you want F1 to remain a technical series you need teams to spend lots of money (I wish that wasn't the case, but unfortuntely innovation generally costs...). If you want money you have to keep the manufacturer's happy AND the fans happy....

The fans want cars going fast around corners and lots of overtaking (by "fans" I mean the majority of fans, not us technical geeks).

The manufacturer's want a forum to show their new technologies.. mainly powertrain.

In order to achieve the above something has to be done about the aero side... the options are basically:-

1, Aero freedom , with a "band-aid" to fix the overtaking problem (for example virtual slip-streaming aka proximity wing).. or
2, a spec underbody/wing set-up (or at the least a very highly prescribed aero configuration) which gives good downforce and a relatively good wake for the following car (if left to their own devices the teams will always go for the "extreme optimised solution" which won't aid a following car).

I think they're the only choices you have if you are to keep the fans happy.... would be interested to see other suggestions to meet the fan's requirements?
Have you ever thought on the reversed grid format?
1) Use the WDC current standings at each venue to form the starting grid but reversed.
2) Free technical regfulations to promote innovation in any area. Limit speeds by reducing engine size only. Safety rules should be limited to driver protection in case of accidents.
3) Saturdays' results would give points for drivers. Award drivers with a parallel saturdays' championship counting only those points but add them for the full WDC.
4) Extend the points system to all finishing positions.

Number 1) must keep fans very happy and attract many more. Number 2) must please us technical geeks and those who want to know wich car maker can create the best technology. Number 3) must please those who think qualy is very entertaining and want to have something to watch on saturdays. Number 4) provides a fare framework to sort drivers from the very beginning.

What do you think?

Oh, and about aero regs I can tell you that it is ok for me if aero downforce is reduced to nearly zero, but I really think that it might not be necessary at all because technical freedom would let teams solve the "follow closely" problem somehow. Anyway I would be happy.

wesley123
wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

machin wrote:
wesley123 wrote:Well, i think the fans love to see differing cars too, and cars wich look incredibly different every race
Paint all the cars black and I bet the majority of people who watch F1 (and not us geeks), would be hard pushed to identify different cars...

In my concept the nose, tub, side pods and wing endplates and wings would distinguish the different cars... I've only made the underfloor a "spec" part... and as you can't really see the underfloor (except the diffuser section) then I think the majority of fans would be OK with that...

So, if you were running F1 and you knew you had to provide cars that can corner at high speeds and promote overtaking you'd be on the side of the "virtual slipstreaming" rather than spec parts? or do you have another idea to meet the majority of fans wishes?
I dont see how thst helps when no team wants to run those cars, those teams are better of in indycars...

Seriously, Manufacturers are pulling out because thre is no reason to stay in f1, afterall nothing is allowed for them to show off. Now you are aiming at the other teams by giving them nearly nothing to develop on?

Seriously, it is an bad idea.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

User avatar
machin
162
Joined: 25 Nov 2008, 14:45

Re: Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

Post

readonly wrote: Have you ever thought on the reversed grid format?
Yep, I'm a big fan of reverse grids based on reverse championship order as I've posted elsewhere on this site... however I think you still need to make overtaking easier otherwise it'll just be a reverse championship order procession.... I agree something needs to be done to maintain the track action on saturday, so you're idea is pretty good... a sort of "sprint/time trial" championship running alongside the race championship... can't get "purer" motorsport competition in my mind... so big thumbs up to that...
Wesley123 wrote:Manufacturers are pulling out because thre is no reason to stay in f1, afterall nothing is allowed for them to show off.


They're leaving because the bit they care about (engines and power train) is currently fixed at old technology.. so nothing to promote, whilst the bit they don't care about (high downforce aero developement) has the biggest significance... My proposal frees up the propulsion system whilst limiting the aero developement... thereby putting the empthasis on propulsion systems; just what the manufacturers want.
Last edited by machin on 07 Jul 2010, 21:50, edited 1 time in total.
COMPETITION CAR ENGINEERING -Home of VIRTUAL STOPWATCH