Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[xpensive]

I read somewhere that one contributing reason why JM Balestre and the FIA decided to ban sliding skirts, beside the fact that Renault and Ferrari were not very good at it, was that the garagistes had begun working on four-skirt cars, with the two venturis individually sealed off.

Still the general reason was that the cars were too quick.

Of course so timbo, but with the prospect of four-skirt cars, they were bound to be quicker still.

[aral]

I read somewhere that one contributing reason why JM Balestre and the FIA decided to ban sliding skirts, beside the fact that Renault and Ferrari were not very good at it, was that the garagistes had begun working on four-skirt cars, with the two venturis individually sealed off.

Still the general reason was that the cars were too quick.

I seem to recollect that the main reason for banning ground effect was the absolute need to keep a seal to the track surface. Riding kerbs etc broke the seal and was the cause of a series of accidents as the cars, without the suction to the track, became uncontrollable. OK this was also part of the "too fast" situation. But going back to ground effect has no bearing on the future of the automobile, so I cannot see it happening.

[timbo]

I seem to recollect that the main reason for banning ground effect was the absolute need to keep a seal to the track surface. Riding kerbs etc broke the seal and was the cause of a series of accidents as the cars, without the suction to the track, became uncontrollable.

That's the part I'm having problem with.
I now watch 1982 season races on Justin.tv, and I don't see anything out of ordinary accident-wise.
Drivers might complain that cars were hard to drive, but I don't see that aero was causing them to be unstable as for example at the beginning of 1994.

[xpensive]

In 1982, sliding skirts were already long gone, why what you see is cars with rock-hard suspension in order to get as close to the ground as possible to still make use of the venturis, this was all done away with with the 1983 flat-bottom rule.

For a while, when said flat-bottom rule did not cover the area behind the rear wheel center-line.

[timbo]

In 1982, sliding skirts were already long gone, why what you see is cars with rock-hard suspension in order to get as close to the ground as possible to still make use of the venturis, this was all done away with with the 1983 flat-bottom rule.

Cars in 1982 had flexible vethane skirts.

[xpensive]

I knew they had contact skirts in 1982, but what in the world is "Vethane", I thought it was simple Polyurethane?

[timbo]

I knew they had contact skirts in 1982, but what in the world is "Vethane", I thought it was simple Polyurethane?

Well, that is a good question)))
Peter Wright doesn't tell exactly what it is.
But I doubt it is polyurethane, as it is not so thermostable.

[xpensive]

I remember that one of the conditions for Jim Hall's Chaparall 2J "sucker car", was GE's newly developed "Lexan" Polycarbonate ---, but I have had the understanding that Urethane proved far more durable for contact use, like with my kid's skateboard wheels, but I might be totally wrong there.

[timbo]

I remember that one of the conditions for Jim Hall's Chaparall 2J "sucker car", was GE's newly developed "Lexan" Polycarbonate ---, but I have had the understanding that Urethane proved far more durable for contact use, like with my kid's skateboard wheels, but I might be totally wrong there.

Wheels roll and this thing slides. It should generate loads of heat!

[xpensive]

This is interesting, when my understanding is that those sliding skirts of 30 years ago had sort of ceramics "rails" for the contact with the ground, but what was the skirts themselves made from, spring-loaded as they were anyway?

[timbo]

According to Peter Wright the skirts of Lotus 79 were made from carbon fibre. They were springed, and had ceramic rubbing strip.

[autogyro]

Aero development for downforce is completely played out now.
As the new regulations come into force the aero work will be forced into areas of reduced drag to ensure the cars will finish the race.
Any other direction from the regulations will put the sport on a slide into oblivion.

[Professor]

The engine will likely be a twin turbocharged 1.6L 4 cylinder with Kers. The turbo boost is expected to be around 3 bar in order to reach a BHP of 500 to 550. RPM's will be limited to approximately 10,000 to 11,000. The Kers output is expected to be 112kw (150 HP) and the battery storage is expected to increase to 2200 kJ. Quite frankly, I find those storage capacities to be a bit hard to believe. I doubt that the current batteries have that kind of capacity. If true, Kers would supply 150BHP for 24 seconds. If so, the car would have a maximum combined power of around 650 to 700 BHP.

Regarding the battery storage capacity, I think the more likely option would be to allow unlimited recharges and usages rather than the current limits based on total power available per lap. Storage capacity could be much lower if there were no per lap limitations on usage, and current battery design and capacity would probably suffice.

The one thing of note that I have seen regarding the chassis is the possible return to ground effects. Many people fear that this may signal a return to the type of cars that were banned in the '80s. Those cars had zero-travel suspensions, ground hugging skirts, and a very unpredictable and dangerous nature. That's not what I expect in the new generation of F1 car.

Instead, I expect to see a conventional looking car with a curved bottom. It will produce a venturi effect and provide about 60% of the total downforce. I would expect to see the wing size reduced and the shapes simplified. I suspect it will be a lot like the DP-01 that was used by Champ Car in 2007. The car will be safe and predictable.

http://www.formula1journal.com/2010/09/ ... lood1.html

[WhiteBlue]

The 2.2 MJ figure for KERS sounds familiar to me. As our earlier figuring shows they would have no chance to collect anywhere near those figures without AWKERS. They may not reach those figures in the first year unless some break throughs in battery technology are reached, but as a target they make sense.

I do not believe that variable compression will come to F1. It looks too heavy for racing, but throttle less variable valve timing and lift, direct injection, laser ignition turbo compounding and HERS should all be in the cards.

[Just_a_fan]

@Professor

If you're just going to quote complete chunks of someone elses words how about identifying them as a quote? Anyone who didn't have the time to follow the link in your post would think that your post was your words not just a copy of someone's blog. [-X