Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[Scotracer]

"There is a small overtaking benefit attached to that," Lowe admitted, "but it was mainly done in response to demands from the team principals for cleaner advertising areas." - concerning the removal of bargeboards/winglets/flip-ups

PRICELESS

What a joke.

[pgj]

"There is a small overtaking benefit attached to that," Lowe admitted, "but it was mainly done in response to demands from the team principals for cleaner advertising areas." - concerning the removal of bargeboards/winglets/flip-ups

PRICELESS

What a joke.

I know. That is just what you want a technical group to do. It is nice to know that technical groups and marketing are on the same wavelength

[Ogami musashi]

The OWG did sensible things. The central part section (which is lifting)is great while the inwash (inwash means wash toward the center of the wing) thing do really shows they have a good knowledge of aeros.

The last part (about appendices) does not surprise me too much.

[djos]

Not only is it better to have the cars sans flipups, chimneys and other clutter for advertising purposes but the cars look sooo much cleaner and pure without them. It's sooo nice for commercial reality to align with aesthetics for a change!

[Metar]

I just think that some of those appendices were actually quite beautiful.. Sidepod shields and chimneys look actually rather well on the cars. Purely-round sidepods will look quite dull.. At least some minimal amount of curves and sculpting should've been allowed.

[djos]

I just think that some of those appendices were actually quite beautiful.. Sidepod shields and chimneys look actually rather well on the cars. Purely-round sidepods will look quite dull.. At least some minimal amount of curves and sculpting should've been allowed.

Cmon, these classics hardly look dull, quite the contrary they look sleek and fast even today imo.

[Metar]

But next year's cars won't look anything like them.. The only similarity will be that "no appendices" rule, but that won't really mean any resemblance.

[djos]

But next year's cars won't look anything like them.. The only similarity will be that "no appendices" rule, but that won't really mean any resemblance.

True but next year should produce some good looking cars imo - my only concern is that the skinny rear wing doesn't look too silly but slicks are back as are proper low to the ground front wings and that is awesome imo (hate the raised up wings!).

Btw, did I read correctly somewhere that the cars will be wider track again?

[Ogami musashi]

No the cars will be the same width as now.

Do not except low sidepods like in 90's too.

The 09 are actually quite restricted cars and if you'll see variations in the first races, after a while there's high probability all look the same.

[djos]

No the cars will be the same width as now.

Do not except low sidepods like in 90's too.

The 09 are actually quite restricted cars and if you'll see variations in the first races, after a while there's high probability all look the same.

I have no doubt the high sidepods will remain as they dramatically improve the efficiency of the rear diffuser increasing downforce.

btw, im really looking forward to seeing what the Geniuses like Adrian Newey create for next year - I think we'll be in for a treat and hopefully the rear wing will grow on us quickly.

[Ogami musashi]

Formula1.com interview's with paddy Lower answers some of the recurrent questions about next year and definitely shows they know (the OWG) what they're talking about.

http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... /8471.html

[donskar]

Thank you, Ogami musashi, for that link. Very good information.

A question for those of you who have digested the new regs more thoroughly than I have:

Since the new front wing will be as wide as the outside edge of the front tires, is there scope for the wing to be shaped such that it will significantly reduce the drag produced by those tires?

[Ogami musashi]

Thank you, Ogami musashi, for that link. Very good information.

A question for those of you who have digested the new regs more thoroughly than I have:

Since the new front wing will be as wide as the outside edge of the front tires, is there scope for the wing to be shaped such that it will significantly reduce the drag produced by those tires?

Yes and No. Yes because the endplates are still allowed and will be placed just in front of the tyres but No because the design of the end plates is restricted.

I think however some teams may shape their wings (the main sections) for that.

[timbo]

I think however some teams may shape their wings (the main sections) for that.

I think all of them will do to some degree. Tyres have enormous influence on the air flow, so any improovement in that area would enhance aero dramatically.
Also, apart from management of airflow on the front tyres there's also effect of tyres sucking air from underneath of front wing that may increase downforce there.
So all in all I think interection with tyres would be a huge factor in front wing design.

[Scotracer]

I got my copy of Race Car Engineering (November issue) through the post this morning. In it is a very in-depth look at the 2009 regulations with CAD images and some wind-tunnel footage.

Things to note:

-The new diffuser will contribute just 15% of total downforce (it will mainly be used as an advantage when following another car). This contrasts with over 30% currently

-An F2004 was used as a datum and it was found that at 0.5m distance, it lost almost 50% of its downforce compared with just 25% on the OWG 2009 car.

-The new rear wing will produce much more drag than previous years to keep top-speeds stable

-The endplates on the front wing will be 100mm above the reference plane, compared to 75mm for the main span suggesting the wing will have a slight upward rise near the end of the span. (a diagram in the mag shows this)

-The current front wing is actually the least affected part of the bodywork when it comes to wake instability. The downforce loss is less than the diffuser/underbody and the rear-wing. This has been taken into consideration and that explains why underbody aerodynamics weren't increased.

-The nose may be no less than 75mm above the central span of the front wing

-They suggest that because there are very few WOT, in-gear running areas that come anywhere near 6.5 seconds, that KERS will be used as a general lap-timing improving tool rather than for overtaking (this will only be useful whilst the other teams try to improve their systems).

If I see anything else interesting I'll post it later. Time to read!