Franework For Discussion - F1 2011 Aero Regs

[Ogami musashi]

I've just re-read the pdf (it is updated sometimes so i check it) and found somewhere that the estimated lap time for a F1 car in 2011 would be more than 3 seconds slower than today (i assume 2007 levels) but faster than 2009/2010...so that means in 2009 we'll see slower F1 cars.

That bugs me a little from 99 to 2004 the cars were faster and faster, it was controlled most of the time (1 sec gain per year average) except in 2003 were times felt by 4 sec (leading to the amazing 2004 cars that set almost all records both in straight line speed and lap times).
Then, in 2006 the lap times were increased again, because of V8 and some chassis and downforce related progress cornering speeds in some corner were higher which led to lap times average 1 second slower than in 2004.
This year, we had 1.5 to 2 second more lap times till the french gp were lap time in race are now even or faster than in 2006 (but in qualify, slower from 1 seconds)..

Overall this as led to slower lap times.

You say, "so what?"

First, i don't think a series that draws its differences from the shear speed (both in pilotage and competition) should slow each year, second the most important point...a champcar dp01 car is about 3-4 seconds slower than actual F1 so in 2009...we'll have same speed...erm...where's the point!??!



I know those are predictions and engineers will try to make up for that but ...here comes an interesting point:

Until recently, most of the regulations of the FIA have been quite not wise.
Someone on a french forum supposed one simple thing: the FIA is technologically overpowered by the teams, they don't clearly get the technical side of things (it evolves so fast).

If you look at current actuality, what we see? FIA has taken Ricardo as experts and now part of the regulators are Working groups made of members of teams.


As mentioned by pat symonds, the ECU topic is an illustration of that.Before FIA couldn't police the drivers aids easily but now with technology they can do it.

That's why i'm pretty confident the regulations will be more easily met.

So i think maybe they'll achieve to really make the lap times increase.

i really wonder the point.

The downforce lowering is not clear though, they say "50% of today" and next "50% of 2009 which themselves are 50% from today".

Erm..

[checkered]

Too bad i can't contact Pat Symonds i'd had tons of questions there.

Actually, with luck

you can. Renault has the most interactive web presence by far, there's just no comparison. At some point during the early season I think Pricipessa managed to ask Pat a few questions on a live webchat ... so keep your monitors open!

I'm also a bit worried when people start to put forward specific lap time goals. That seems too artificial, too orchestrated, too restrictive. It's an old adage but holds especially true in F1 - be careful what you wish for lest it come true. On the other hand I do sense an air of enthusiasm coming from various tech directors about the changes and that's encouraging. Not the company line, but genuine "boys getting together and seeing what can be done" spirit.

There's also been support for energy recovery and other changes (aero) coming from Illien, Barnard and such. In fact they're gently pushing the current designers forward, saying that they missed opportunities to do this a decade or so ago.

Me, I have my own ideas about where aero could go. Perhaps one day I can proceed to prove or disprove a few of those ideas on a very general level, that'd be fun. Meanwhile, I'm interested to see what's the next shape of the future, too.

[Ogami musashi]

That's funny what you say about renault, i just joined the club, and you can catch a lot of people of the team, including pat so i have asked my questions, i'll see if i get an answers.

Indeed they have a lot of contact with fans, that's great.


I do agree with you, there's a definite support for the changes among the teams.

Pat said in the podcast that with the new aero regs and maybe new sporting regs the teams would not aim for the fastest lap time but rather for being able to race (i.e overtake) so maybe the lap time is not the goal anymore?

If it materialize i still find it sad, look at eau rouge this year.
On the renault club, fisico said that with V10 they went through the corner at 317Km/h and that this year it would be about 300km/h so it would be easier, i'm just a little bit skeptic about that, somewhere as i said the F1 driving style involves speed, speed changes all, it affects the your relation with you opponent, the line you choose, the cost of errors etc etc..


On a side note, this year less speed cornering in eau rouge is not due to downforce, but to yaw drag and tire rolling resistance!

So to compare lap times one really needs to be aware of all the parameters..


So much questions...

[checkered]

Ogami, have you noticed

the 2009 Formula Nippon chassis? FN has traditionally been one of F1's "feeder" series, too, and to stay relevant they need to compete with the likes of GP2 somehow. I have a feeling that the FN 2009 has been designed with what's coming in F1 in mind. Very few winglets, smooth body, virtually no barge boards, a large and low box front wing that'll do an interesting job in smoothing the flow towards the radiators and over the car itself. Not to mention it might help drivers to draft ... I wouldn't be surprised if the overtaking working group had something very similarly shaped in their wind tunnel. Plenty of power too, with 3.4L Honda/Toyota engines with 600+ hp.

Pics routed from http://www.autoblog.com:





Interestingly, the design is by a Californian company, Swift Engineering (link). Didn't find too much info on their website, but will keep an eye on it.

[Ogami musashi]

Yeah i saw it!

i think that model is just a representation (that's what i read) but the philosophy behind is present, i love the design.

This is a cool thing, and talking about it..i just did not noticed, that if F1 cars are slower by 4-5 seconds in 2009 we will have something really ironic: the GP2 cars and the FN 2009 cars (aimed to be as fast if not better than GP2) will lap a the same speed!

You think i'm kidding? just look at the lap times of GP2 cars, on medium speed tracks they're off by 5 second in race (in qualify they're even closer) only.
In 2009 a new gp2 and the new FN will come, being faster than their previous chassis..

No no...that's not good.

But i'll wait for more details, anyway, here's a little brainstorm:

for 2009:
-max downforce will switch from 1500/1600kg today to 1250kg
-minimal weight will stay the same (605kg)
-return of slicks (better adherence coefficient)
-2000mm max width
-rear wing authorized to be full width of the car (then 2000mm)
-front wing larger
-steeper diffuser
-bigger brakes, bigger tires


For 2011:
-max downforce 800Kg
-minimal weight lowered (possibly around 500kg)
-max Drag reduction by 50%
-same width
-rear wing active either by pilot control or electronically
-adaptive ride height
-front wing adaptive
-adaptive cooling (less drag, better cooling=better consumption/power)


Yet the 2011 cars are to be faster than 2009.

Mystery mystery...

[Carlos]

It may not be a technical description - but what a beautiful car.

Box wing describes the front aero very well, I remember some early aircraft that used that type of wing. Perhaps its true; everything that's old is new again. What a lovely formula car.

[naknak_56]

That is absolutely gorgeous i quite enjoy watching the formula nipon when i have chance and these cars will make it all the more enjoyable. I do hope that something similar is adopted as the F1 cars are starting to look too cluttered.

[checkered]

It may not be a technical description - but what a beautiful car.

Box wing describes the front aero very well, I remember some early aircraft that used that type of wing. Perhaps its true; everything that's old is new again. What a lovely formula car.

Well, Carlos, I for

one think that “beautiful” has very much merit as a technical description. “Beautiful” is one way your intuition explains to you what your unconscious has achieved in mashing up all your experience against something you perceive while you perceive. Those processes that you couldn’t directly control or observe (for their immense complexity and speed) indicate there’s a high propability that further observation and deliberate analysis will yield positive results, for you or the thing you’re observing. Or both. In any case, experiencing something as “beautiful” has a positive effect in itself.

Here are some thoughts based solely on my intuition upon seeing the new FN racer ... First, it clearly is an entity first and foremost rather than a mishmash of parts. And yes, it is beautiful. The basic geometry is fairly simple and there are shapes that flow, i.e. there’s a multilayered continuity that reaches beyond the flowing tangents. E.g. the shape of the top plane of the front airfoil repeats in a variation of the theme in the sidepods’ air inlets. From the illustrations it seems that only the lower plane (very simple, continuous longitudinal section) of the front wing is adjustable for downforce which could render the range of setups manageable for a smaller team.

The radiator inlets seem HUGE (to put a “trumpish” spin on it) even if the engines must need a lot of cooling. But given the diamater, an aperture of that size can’t serve the purpose of slowing the flow for the heat exchangers very well. What’s more, there’s no obvious exit from the sidepods. Perhaps there’s a bypass, or secondary flow system of some sort with a different purpose. An internal aerodynamical innovation of some sort perhaps and given the drop-like shaping of the rear might it be that the “excess” air is driven in a very concentrated fashion below the rear wing at speed in order keep the overall flow meaningfully attached even at fairly low speeds?

I love the sidepods themselves morphing into a bargeboardesque shape and I can imagine the potential of that idea evolving into something very new in F1. From the side, the car has a lean look that owes something to the new ChampCar chassis – but that’s fine by me because I like that shape. The nose I would like wider and flatter rather than higher and narrower and I perceive a slight cultural difference in how European and American engineers do “nose jobs” ... perhaps the designer didn’t want to compromise the flow of the lines for the demands of suspension geometry or vice versa.

There are a few things about the basic geometry that instictively bother me nonetheless. The general interaction between the bodywork and the wheels doesn’t seem very well articulated, but one hardly sees any other approach in the larger formulae these days. The wings extend half way in front of the tyres – not completely, nor not at all. To me this “half way” approach seems like an almost completely meaningless compromise and complication. It may be merely a stylistic preference on my part, but I want that the interaction between the chassis, wings and wheels is either very direct or very minimal.

The driver’s head, i.e. the part of his anatomy where he/she gets most of the information regarding balance and direction, seems to be very symmetrically placed between the front and the rear wheels. I wonder, admittedly also as an aesthetic consideration, whether the driver’s position should be a little to the front or the rear to get better feedback on the handling i.e. gain enough bias to experiencing the physical forces to better get a more accurate “physiological perspective” on the temperament of the vehicle. Oh well, I could go on and on ...

... not an appropriate time to apologise for going so much OT, I’m sure, with what must for the most part be blatant misuse of perfectly applicable words and/or inconsequential just plain drivel. What’s more, uncourteously enough I’ll have to leave it to the next posters to force this conversation back to the 2011 framework.

[Carlos]

Checkered - Your consideration of design's relation to beauty and intuition reminds me of the entrainment of Buddist thought...perception, cognition blossoming to intuition. Intuition is said to be the basis of creation, whether producing the material or abstract thought. To return to the FN... creation derived from the Greek -creatos- is defined as change... and formula car design certainly continues to evolve. I think the FN certainly looks smoother than current F1 design...but the Jeraz thread already shows a trend in aero to a smoother body with less add-ons which seems a sudden trend. I agree the front chassis looks very narrow and out of proportion to the wheels. I think it is the difference in F1/FN rules regarding track width regulations...and I have already vented my complaints concerning track, and chassis keels on the Jeraz thread today.
Concerning the side pod design, the opening is very large, we had an aero thread that addressed high and low pressure zones contributing to downforce; so you may be correct...also the photos are computer graphic illustrations and may not be the same size on the actual car. Ogami Musahi has commented that future F1 aero rules may allow panels to seal the sidepods, sort of like the closing fairing on a P51 Mustangs intake scoop.

At least I thought that was what his comments suggested
Edited - with apologies to Ogami Musahi

[Belatti]

Wow guys...
For a moment or two I didn´t know if was in a TOOL or in F1T forum.

http://www.toolband.com/

Now a stoooopid but mind exercising question: how fast and top speed would a F1 car lap at circuits like Barcelona or Monza with the following tecnical rules:

NA V8 2.4L engine, 2m track width.

That´s all.

No limitations for variable valve timing, active suspension, abs, the amount of wings you want to put, ground effect, etc.

[Belatti]

OK, I´m a child with tons of imagination I think

Regarding Aero Regs + overtaking issues that supposedly worries FIA and after Italian and Belgum GPs I´m starting to think that the problems are not 100% in the cars.
In fact, there where overtaking in both GPs and some conclusion my be that:

a) cars are very very matched to each other, what obviously makes overtaking complicated. If you go 12 years back, there were a 7 secs gap of pace between front runners and back runners. Now the gap is in 2,5 secs. (Obviously excluding Yamamoto)

b) The circuits dont allow overtaking. Thank god Imola is out, Barcelona chicane didnt work out, Hungary should be out too, Magny Cours is barely saved cause the hairpin, in nurburgring we saw overtaking cause it rained, hockenheim should be back, suzuka wich allowed very tight overtakings is out (what a pity), montreal its ok cause the hairpin-straight-chicane combo, silverstone and melbourne are difficult, interlagos has some opportunity, monaco is sacred, turkey and indy(out) +or-, rest of tilkes crap (bahrein, malaysia, china) does nothing to improve, so at last we have got Monza and Spa.

c) drivers are way too conservative, and points distribution doesnt help. They would better arrive 5th and save revs than trying to overtake. In the past, a 5th position meant nothing.

I think these 3 things should be considered together with a technical rule book that allows better overtaking. Only hope that I´m not wasting my fingers in writing something usless.

[Ogami musashi]

I´m starting to think that the problems are not 100% in the cars.

kudos to you! There's actually far more than a technical problem in it yes!

a) cars are very very matched to each other, what obviously makes overtaking complicated. If you go 12 years back, there were a 7 secs gap of pace between front runners and back runners. Now the gap is in 2,5 secs. (Obviously excluding Yamamoto)

That's true but not relevant to the problem. actually being 1 second faster should be okay for a faster driver (this is what we want isn't it? faster driver be able to overtake) to overtake but as the situation is now 2 seconds (at the moment of overtaking) is required.
The aim of 2009 aero reg is to bring that value to 1 sec , 0,5 seconds.

b) The circuits dont allow overtaking. Thank god Imola is out, Barcelona chicane didnt work out, Hungary should be out too, Magny Cours is barely saved cause the hairpin, in nurburgring we saw overtaking cause it rained, hockenheim should be back, suzuka wich allowed very tight overtakings is out (what a pity), montreal its ok cause the hairpin-straight-chicane combo, silverstone and melbourne are difficult, interlagos has some opportunity, monaco is sacred, turkey and indy(out) +or-, rest of tilkes crap (bahrein, malaysia, china) does nothing to improve, so at last we have got Monza and Spa.

One thing you suggest is true. you suggest fast corners make overtaking harder, yes that's true.
Fast corner=less time in it so less time to overtake.

But however that does not means the are impossible. what matters here is the speed difference. We then go back to the actual problem of 2 seconds required which in a corner, is really hard to do especially at high speed.

c) drivers are way too conservative, and points distribution doesnt help. They would better arrive 5th and save revs than trying to overtake. In the past, a 5th position meant nothing.

I think these 3 things should be considered together with a technical rule book that allows better overtaking. Only hope that I´m not wasting my fingers in writing something usless.

so true again! what's the point of trying to finish 1st when you only have 2 point lost being 2nd?

[checkered]

Regarding Aero Regs + overtaking issues that supposedly worries FIA and after Italian and Belgum GPs I´m starting to think that the problems are not 100% in the cars.

I'm a big

advocate of looking at track design to solve overtaking. I think I'm not taking liberties either if I suggest Ciro Pabón is also quite enthusiastic about this. I also think that overtaking in F1 should not be easy. I think this is one of the few forums where that particular viewpoint at this point of time isn't received with a fanfare of ridicule.

One of the most self evident qualities Spa has going for it is so obvious it's hard to notice. At 7,004 km the circuit is so long that as far as pitstop tactics go, even the top teams' hands are tied tactically i.e. if you want to overtake there's propably a need to do that on track. Furthermore backmarkers don't mess up the game nearly as badly as in venues where you have to merry-go-round 70 laps or so. Ergo, build big.

As Ogami said, fast corners are not a problem. At least I don't perceive them as such. One needs circuits where everyone needs to make compromises, that's the way to get meaningful differences, differences that aren't always visible by laptimes alone. That's where the stop-and-go designs go terribly wrong.

This being said, I don't think it's a wasted effort to rethink the cars either.

[Carlos]

Ogami also said -" to overtake but as the situation is now 2 seconds ( at the moment of overtaking) is required " - very difficult when lap times from the fastest to slowest car is about 7 seconds a lap; almost impossible with 2 cars that are nearly equally matched; entering a corner, no matter what the design of the turn.

Well... I agree with that...and other things.

[Belatti]

I also think that overtaking in F1 should not be easy. I think this is one of the few forums where that particular viewpoint at this point of time isn't received with a fanfare of ridicule.

I agree in some way, a relative overtaking difficulty makes cars fight, if overtaking was too easy, we would see it like lapping.

But what I dont like is that cars just cant get any grip behind each other. Havent you seen Hamilton almost loosing it, behind Massa in Belgian GP Q3?