Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[WhiteBlue]

What are the odds that F1 adopts active aero and active suspension, in exchange for Monza levels of downforce?

Active aero would be a sensible move towards high performance at lower energy expenditure. The teams shot down the tunnel plan by Rory Byrne and Patrick Head so what can they do in order to make progress towards the goal of 75 kg of race fuel? Active suspension would probably be more of a safety risk, wouldn't it?

[Pandamasque]

What are the odds that F1 adopts active aero and active suspension, in exchange for Monza levels of downforce?

The odds aren't good. I'll re-quote

Changes made to bodywork design, originally aimed at reducing downforce and drag for increased efficiency, have reverted to 2012 specification.

I assume those changes didn't even imply intricate active aero, yet weren't regarded as worth the expense any change would require.

[elf341]

Forgive this question if it is naive.

Regarding the 2014 new engine rules - will the teams be allowed to continually develop their engines? (I've often heard '14 referred to as an 'engine spec formula') or there will again be an engine freeze? (hence, remaining an 'aero spec formula')

It occurred to me that likewise with any new thing, there can be fundamental flaws that only become apparent after some racing.
When the V8s arrived in 2006, an engine freeze began in 2007 with the '06 Suzuka spec being the engines that had to be used for 07 and 08 seasons. If FIA adopts a similar idea, might 2014 be a very crazy and expensive year as engine manufacturers strive to improve before the cut-off?

[godlameroso]

What are the odds that F1 adopts active aero and active suspension, in exchange for Monza levels of downforce?

Active aero would be a sensible move towards high performance at lower energy expenditure. The teams shot down the tunnel plan by Rory Byrne and Patrick Head so what can they do in order to make progress towards the goal of 75 kg of race fuel? Active suspension would probably be more of a safety risk, wouldn't it?

How would active suspension be a risk, didn't Williams use it to great effect?

[SilverArrow]

What are the odds that F1 adopts active aero and active suspension, in exchange for Monza levels of downforce?

Active aero would be a sensible move towards high performance at lower energy expenditure. The teams shot down the tunnel plan by Rory Byrne and Patrick Head so what can they do in order to make progress towards the goal of 75 kg of race fuel? Active suspension would probably be more of a safety risk, wouldn't it?

How would active suspension be a risk, didn't Williams use it to great effect?

If anything, active suspension would increase safety.

[Pandamasque]

It would also increase cornering speeds, which means tracks will be required to have another 3 miles of asphalt run-off.

[WhiteBlue]

It would also increase cornering speeds, which means tracks will be required to have another 3 miles of asphalt run-off.

Which is another way to say it increases risks.

[SilverArrow]

It would also increase cornering speeds, which means tracks will be required to have another 3 miles of asphalt run-off.

Which is another way to say it increases risks.

Indirectly sure, due to driver input. The cars themselves are still inherently safer with active suspension. Traction control also increases cornering speeds...

[Blanchimont]

Traction control also increases cornering speeds...

Really?
IMO the cornering (=apex) speeds depend on tyre grip, weight and downforce but not on traction control.
Traction control increases the ability to accelerate out of a corner, but not the apex speed.

[turbof1]

Traction control also increases cornering speeds...

Really?
IMO the cornering (=apex) speeds depend on tyre grip, weight and downforce but not on traction control.
Traction control increases the ability to accelerate out of a corner, but not the apex speed.

That's the point: TC will bring you closer to the apex speed. If you go too hot into a corner, you will have too much speed for the current level of grip. You'll start to slide and loose time.

[SilverArrow]

The point here is, what if there is a tire or suspension failure mid-corner? The driver has nothing to do with this, other than being at higher risk of injury when they plow in to the wall, at higher speed.

I think you're slightly overestimating the performance impact of active suspension.

A tire or suspension failure at the end of a long straight with DRS activated would probably be a much bigger safety concern.

[Pandamasque]

And with cars being already underpowered as they are, more grip would further diminish the differences between drivers, and make cars look as though they are on rails even more. I'll reiterate it: Karthikeyan is a good as Alonso through a corner that's easily flat out.

[Blanchimont]

That's the point: TC will bring you closer to the apex speed. If you go too hot into a corner, you will have too much speed for the current level of grip. You'll start to slide and loose time.

Can you please explain how the TC will help a driver when going/braking into a corner?

For my understanding TC only helps if the throttle is a activ, i.e. when accelerating from the apex onwards.
Does it also increase stability during braking?

[Pandamasque]

You seem to think that throttle isn't applied during cornering...

Does it also increase stability during braking?

No, but a driver is likely to stabilize the car with throttle even before getting to the apex, the more frivolous you can be with the throttle (regardless if it's due to engine characteristics/mapping etc, or any electronic aids), the more risks you'll be able to take under braking.

And when I said 'cornering speeds' I meant not only corner entry.

[Blanchimont]

I think we're a bit off-topic with the traction control in this thread.

I copied the posts regarding TC to this one:
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 3&start=15

Better discuss it there...