2014 Design

[Huntresa]

Also I didn't really understand the shallow rear wing concept can anyone explain what the different to current regulation because I can't really interpret 2014 rear wing from the technical regulation

Current regulations (3.9 and 3.10) say that the rear wing profiles have to be located in a box between 730 and 950mm above the reference plane and between the rear wheel center line (RWCL) and 350mm behind the RWCL. This results in an angle of arctan(220/350) = 32,15 degrees

In 2014 the limits for the box are 750 and 950mm above the reference plane, the horizontal limits are the same. The angle is 29,74 degrees, not exactly what we see in Monza!

Has anyone said they will be like Monza ? I think people just use Monza as an example of what a shallower rear wing means for people not familira with the wording of shallower of something that doesnt rly have a depth.

So using Monza as shallow and monaco as the deepest people will understand what shallow means.

[scarbs]

The original 2014 rules specified a much smaller rear wing, more like 200mm shallower rather than revised rules with it being 20mm smaller. Hence the Monza description.

[SiLo]

Why do they keep making the cars heavier?

[ESPImperium]

Why do they keep making the cars heavier?

ERS makes the cars heavier, and so to keep things even for the heavier and more sensible sized drivers as to keep things decent for them as teams would hire shirt guys who weigh almost nothing. Also the new safety improvements also weigh a fair bit more.

Id have made them 700Kg personally.

[WhiteBlue]

Why do they keep making the cars heavier?

ERS makes the cars heavier, and so to keep things even for the heavier and more sensible sized drivers as to keep things aded decent for them as teams would hire shirt guys who weigh almost nothing. Also the new safety improvements also weigh a fair bit more.
Id have made them 700Kg personally.

The policy is to use technology rather than fuel. If you compare P/W ratio for fully loaded cars with race fuel you find that the cars do not do so bad. In fact it is better. And they use a third less fuel which is a good achievement.
Adding 10 kg just for a round number makes no sense to me. 10 kg is another 0.4 s/lap performance loss. You cannot justify it by efficiency or safety.

[Blackout]

Why do they keep making the cars heavier?

ERS makes the cars heavier, and so to keep things even for the heavier and more sensible sized drivers as to keep things decent for them as teams would hire shirt guys who weigh almost nothing. Also the new safety improvements also weigh a fair bit more.

And it's stupid. I hope we'll get rid of that minimum weight rule one day or reduce the minimum weight a lot. We can help the heavy drivers by making all the drivers weight virtualy the same with 'bespoke' ballast for each one... F1 cars must be light. lightness brings many advantages to F1 and no/few disadvantages.

[WhiteBlue]

Blanchimont:where are you getting the angles from? or how did you work that out? won't they be different between cars/tracks

He actually told us. Arctan is the inverse mathematical function of tangence that returns the angle from the ratio of the two short sides of a rectangular triangle. So if you know the two sets of lengths you can figure how much smaller the angle of attack will be for the case that you use maximum wing angle (Monaco).
Naturally teams will not always use max AoA. This parameter will be optimized for every track and will depend of the power and the aerodynamic efficiency each team will be able to reach. But for max downforce tracks the cut will have full effect.

[wesley123]

With cars getting below the 600kg's already end '90's begin 00's I have no doubt cars weigh closer to 500kg's without ballast than 600kg. Sure, all those systems weight more, but imo not that much that a weight limit of 680kg is needed. I dont see the need for a weight limit at all, and safety is bogus in my book, a 500kg car is safer in a crash than one that has an additional crapload of ballast in it to hit the weight limit. Not only that, but cars will be quicker, and without a weight limit there will be a little more shift towards material development, which in turn can actually benefit road vehicles. Not to mention also less fuel would be burned, so they can either turn down the max amount of fuel, or run richer. The only reason i can think of where the weight limit would be useful is to give a more equal playing field. But then still, 680kg's is too much in my view.

[WhiteBlue]

I dont see the need for a weight limit at all, and safety is bogus in my book...

That is your opinion and it is obviously not shared by the teams, the FiA and the expert working groups. If the energy recovery requirements were dropped you can easily save 100 kg and if you reduce safety levels to 1970 and accept 3 dead drivers every year you can probably loose another 50 kg. If you accept unlimited spending and have only two or three teams you would go down to under 500 kg. But all those choices would not get the approval of the WMSC. So in a nutshell I'll call them unrealistic. The minimum weight has to be seen in the light of the framework that the FiA sets for their F1 series. They are the owners and they can decide such things. Like it or not, it is the reality.

[Sombrero]

I agree modern racing cars (F-1, LMP1, WRC) are too heavy and we can say the same for road cars (too much gimmicks).

In case of crash there's less energy involved without compromising the safety. A lighter racing car is better in all conditions (accelerating, braking, cornering) than a heavier one. The reason Chapman’s motto is “add lightness” and not “cut weight” is because making a lighter car adds so much more to the car.

[henra]

One thing I'm wondering though is this low nose influencing the diffuser thing. Given that diffusers will not be sealed as they are today with the exhaust flows, isn't there simply less need for high noses. I mean, suppose you'd leave the nose regs open as today, wouldn't we see lower noses in 2014 anyway?

I would assume there would be even more desire to get as much air to the diffuser as possible since the loss of sealing means a loss of DF at the rear end. Any means to reduce that loss will be welcome as long as the DF loss at the front due to changed FW regulations doesn't exceed the loss at the rear.
A blown diffuser doesn't need more air than a non blown one. It will just be about DF Balance.

[smirkoff]

Here's my interpretation of the 2014 rules in 3D, or how a very "standard" car should look. Obviously the designers will go a lot far than this... I hope!!

[RB7ate9]

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/23/i8kd.jpg/

Here's my interpretation of the 2014 rules in 3D, or how a very "standard" car should look. Obviously the designers will go a lot far than this... I hope!!

Very nice! Helps to see what is carried over vs. what's removed (though the bargeboards are still on for 2014, yes?)

Otherwise, it's interesting to see that central pillar support for the rear wing. if teams use the central area for columns, they might as well use a refined DRD. We'll just have to see.

[rjsa]

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/23/i8kd.jpg/

Here's my interpretation of the 2014 rules in 3D, or how a very "standard" car should look. Obviously the designers will go a lot far than this... I hope!!

Did you clip the 150mm from the front wing width?

[wesley123]

I dont see the need for a weight limit at all, and safety is bogus in my book...

That is your opinion and it is obviously not shared by the teams, the FiA and the expert working groups. If the energy recovery requirements were dropped you can easily save 100 kg and if you reduce safety levels to 1970 and accept 3 dead drivers every year you can probably loose another 50 kg. If you accept unlimited spending and have only two or three teams you would go down to under 500 kg. But all those choices would not get the approval of the WMSC. So in a nutshell I'll call them unrealistic. The minimum weight has to be seen in the light of the framework that the FiA sets for their F1 series. They are the owners and they can decide such things. Like it or not, it is the reality.

Woah that safety thing in the quote looks wrong. What I meant was that safety wouldnt be a problem in the change of a lighter car.

of course I do care about safety, but honestly it is used way too much in current stuff, it is applied to everywhere just to get some rules through. In my view a lighter car would be safer, it has to conform to the same rules, but in a crash less weight is involved, my knowledge tells me that less weight=less force in a collision.

I do believe there would be more reasons going on for the weight limit, and I dont have a problem with it, but I dont think a 680kg is a good weight limit when the cars already weight below 600kg(my guess) without ballast. 600kg would be a much better weight limit, but well, I'm not the one who decides.