50% Less Downforce in 2009

[johny]

Sorry, i missed it

[johny]

After reading Ogami´s link, i have a question, How will front wing AoA changes controlled?

[WhiteBlue]

You have all explained here

http://forums.autosport.com/showthread. ... did=100094


See you.

I see that the explanation is confusing downforce for aerodynamic efficiency.

a good explanation is here!
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/7610/aerodyn.htm

so you will see that aero efficiency actually improves with less downforce and so will fuel consumption.

I think the incentives to design cars and race stratgies for less consumption should be increased.

The 2009 technical strategy was designed by Rory Byrne, Paddy Lowe and Pat Symmonds to improve overtaking. If the strategy achieves that a slightly less performant car will be negligable compared to the improved racing.

[bizadfar]

It looks like they will be testing the slicks in April and July.

Will Bridgestone still be the main supplier for the slicks or will they eventually go back to Goodyear. Goodyear has the best slicks when it comes to grip and they dominated Formula 1 in the past. It should be very interesting to see.

I remember reports from the media circulating that there was going to be a control tyre and NO war, that is why they pulled out(they wanted competition). If it was due to costs, they would've stuck up one on Bridgestone and won the tender for control tyre...

Slicks are good, less degradation, less marble build up.

[Conceptual]

It looks like they will be testing the slicks in April and July.

Will Bridgestone still be the main supplier for the slicks or will they eventually go back to Goodyear. Goodyear has the best slicks when it comes to grip and they dominated Formula 1 in the past. It should be very interesting to see.

I remember reports from the media circulating that there was going to be a control tyre and NO war, that is why they pulled out(they wanted competition). If it was due to costs, they would've stuck up one on Bridgestone and won the tender for control tyre...

Slicks are good, less degradation, less marble build up.

I agree with slicks causing less marbles. From what I have read, the lateral forces on the tyres "catch" the edges of the grooves and start to peel.

I disagree with the NO tyre war however. At the rate that Brigestone and Michelin were going, we could have had tyres that could molecularly "velcro" to ice in a few years. The benefit to mankind and the automotive safety of the world would have been directly attributed to Formula 1, and thus INCREASING it's image to the spectators.

Chris

[bizadfar]

It looks like they will be testing the slicks in April and July.

Will Bridgestone still be the main supplier for the slicks or will they eventually go back to Goodyear. Goodyear has the best slicks when it comes to grip and they dominated Formula 1 in the past. It should be very interesting to see.

I remember reports from the media circulating that there was going to be a control tyre and NO war, that is why they pulled out(they wanted competition). If it was due to costs, they would've stuck up one on Bridgestone and won the tender for control tyre...

Slicks are good, less degradation, less marble build up.

I agree with slicks causing less marbles. From what I have read, the lateral forces on the tyres "catch" the edges of the grooves and start to peel.

I disagree with the NO tyre war however. At the rate that Brigestone and Michelin were going, we could have had tyres that could molecularly "velcro" to ice in a few years. The benefit to mankind and the automotive safety of the world would have been directly attributed to Formula 1, and thus INCREASING it's image to the spectators.

Chris

I expressed fact on why Michelin pulled out, not my opinion.

Yes grooved tyres tread blocks move around more under load, heat faster, degrade quicker.

[Conceptual]

Just pop the lid, and let the teams ABILITY sort it out....

tempting as it is to let this go without comment....

...If bad rules got us into this mess, better ones - which go with rather than against the grain of humanity, community and the physical realities of the planet - can get us out again. Capitalism is too important to leave to the capitalists. So bring it on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008 ... s.economy1

OK, so this is a quote regarding the current 'credit crunch' affecting the USA and UK. Bear with me because it highlights two different views of the world. One is a kind of free market fundamentalism where the market is left to its own devices to sort the wheat from the chaff. This is fine as long as you don't concern yourself with the fallout for the populace that are at the mercy of such fickle economic winds. The otherside of the argument is to try and formulate a structure in which the market can innovate but have its energy directed in a way that goes with the grain of the communities it is porported to serve.

Riveting I know but does it have any relevance to F1. Well I suppose it depends whether you agree that F1 is here to serve the spectators or purely to serve itself. If it is purely a self serving enterprise with no regard to spectacle then there is no need for any restrictions - just let them innovate and we can admire the technical prowess. But, just may be we can have this innovation channelled in a way that provides an entertaining spectacle on the track. We won't all agree on what this is, some will argue for pure speed, I and may be one or two others would like to see some 'good racing'.

Whatever the aim, this alternative vision is to provide a structure in which the teams compete to produce the best cars but those cars can then be exploited best by the best drivers and that the cars can run close together without a massive performance penalty.

Free innovation in F1 aerodynamics has produced some exotic looking machines. I have grown to appreciate the subtleties of all the flip ups and winglets. But at what cost? These cars are fantastic in clean air but are more sensitive to turbulance than their cleaner shaped forebears. This problem is compounded because these flip ups tend to increase the amount of turbulent air trailing behind a car.

We won't agree on how it is to be acheived but do we at least agree that regulation can be good for the sport?

Oh and I too am also interested in ground effect and its impact on close racing and overtaking - any takers on this one?

If I may quote from a book here... A bit OT, but if you think of the FIA control of the F1 regs while reading, you will see my point.


"Govt control always means the control of individuals by force. Communism, fascism, socialism and democracy are political systems that survive by force. Democracy, however, is generally less destructive of less malevolent than the other three systems of oppression. All 4 political systems operate on the same neocheating concepts of external "authority" and unearned power backed by "legalized" force. Moreover, all 4 systems require Platonistic, existentialistic plilosophies for the value destroyers to usurp bogus livings from the value producers.

Contrary to popular myth, democracy is rooted neither in justice nor the protection of individual rights, but is rooted in the uncompetitive principle of "authorities" with power to force the deemed "will" of the majority onto specific individuals. A business-like, free choice, competitive system is the only political system based on logic, justice, growth and earned values rather than on feelings, force, stagnation and usurpation of values. Of all political systems, only the non-force, free-choice competitive system rejects the concept of uncompetitive "authority" system of force, threat of force, and fraud. And only competitive, free markets fully recognize the sovereignty of the individual and the right to his own body, life, and earned property. All professional mystics and value-destroying neocheaters hate and fear free-choice competition.

Why?

Because free-choice competition would drive them from their dishonest careers and bogus livelihoods." -Neo-Tech Power (footnote, p44)

If you think about it, I'm sure that you will make your own connections to the subjective, threat of force, regulations that F1 operates under, and why it is destroying the true values that are produced when the teams are free to compete with the laws of objective reality being their only TRUE authority. By imposing their false authority over the teams, the FIA has stolen the value that F1 brings to mankind, and traded it away for the marketing money that it makes for them personally.

That, to me, is a truly disgusting thing indeed!

Chris

[Conceptual]

I expressed fact on why Michelin pulled out, not my opinion.

Yes grooved tyres tread blocks move around more under load, heat faster, degrade quicker.

I wasn't accusing YOU of changing the situation, just pointing out that we, as a race, lose out in uncompetitive situations as there is no burning NEED to develop new values in products.

And grooved tyres were a subjective measure done to put Goodyear OUT of F1 I think. Governing bodies will ALWAYS fall back on safety, environment and energy misconceptions to get what they want in the end. And that is total, unearned control of those involved.

Chris

[Ciro Pabón]

IMHO, FIA has no false authority, it is the association of racing clubs of the world. They surely can regulate the sport, that's the reason of their existence. If you call for a totally unregulated sport, well... I would like to know what have been the innovations big teams have brought to the sport in the last few years, exception made of the "innovation" we've seen in cheating and spying à la Enron. The fact is that big teams seems to be "protecting their investment" and calcifying the sport, as all big firms have done since they were invented.

Secondly, even if downforce is reduced, I've always understood that wind tunnels and CFD, boring as they might be , are there to minimize the huge drag losses that downforce brings in. Now the teams will have to invest a lot of money on new designs that develop less downforce with, hopefully, 50% less drag.

[WhiteBlue]

Very true Ciro. The FIA (including their predecessors)has been representing motorists since 1907 and motorsport has always been at the heart of many clubs and associations represented in the FIA.

I believe it is beneficial that the leading teams have to agree to majority decisions now. The unanimous voting of the past has lead to some very undesirable rules of which the grooved tyres are one. They only saw the light of day because aerodynamic regulations to limit cornering performance had failed. With the proposal of the overtaking working group for 2009 we have the chance to hop in a time machine back to 1996 and have a formula with a better balance of downforce and mechanical grip. This time there is a mechanism in place to keep the downforce in check. I recommend to read Sebstien Bourdais comments if people do not understand the fundamental problem of a wrong mix of aerodynamic and mechanical grip.

With regard to the tyre war it should be noted that in the end all teams were against it because it was too expansive and the focus was only on tyres instead of on the cars and drivers. I do not buy the theory that the tyre war was beneficial for motorists. track tyres need very different technology compared to road tyres and racing performance isn't something that benefits the average motorist. For road cars energy consumption, safety, noise reduction, longevity and comfort are the objectives. Control tyres are much safer and still have plenty of performance.

[Conceptual]

IMHO, FIA has no false authority, it is the association of racing clubs of the world. They surely can regulate the sport, that's the reason of their existence. If you call for a totally unregulated sport, well... I would like to know what have been the innovations big teams have brought to the sport in the last few years, exception made of the "innovation" we've seen in cheating and spying à la Enron. The fact is that big teams seems to be "protecting their investment" and calcifying the sport, as all big firms have done since they were invented.
Secondly, even if downforce is reduced, I've always understood that wind tunnels and CFD, boring as they might be , are there to minimize the huge drag losses that downforce brings in. Now the teams will have to invest a lot of money on new designs that develop less downforce with, hopefully, 50% less drag.

Ciro,

Thank you for clarifying the pure deffinition of the word Neocheater as described in my earlier post.

The "false" authority of the FIA is that instead of upholding the integrity of the sport along with operational expertise, they regulate the series to increase viewership and thus sell more ad space.

The Federation as pointed out was founded in 1907 and I seriously doubt that their intention was marketing controlled competition. If anything it was competition controlled marketing. That is the mysticism that they uphold. And they have you caught in it.

Chris

[Conceptual]

Very true Ciro. The FIA (including their predecessors)has been representing motorists since 1907 and motorsport has always been at the heart of many clubs and associations represented in the FIA.

I believe it is beneficial that the leading teams have to agree to majority decisions now. The unanimous voting of the past has lead to some very undesirable rules of which the grooved tyres are one. They only saw the light of day because aerodynamic regulations to limit cornering performance had failed. With the proposal of the overtaking working group for 2009 we have the chance to hop in a time machine back to 1996 and have a formula with a better balance of downforce and mechanical grip. This time there is a mechanism in place to keep the downforce in check. I recommend to read Sebstien Bourdais comments if people do not understand the fundamental problem of a wrong mix of aerodynamic and mechanical grip.

With regard to the tyre war it should be noted that in the end all teams were against it because it was too expansive and the focus was only on tyres instead of on the cars and drivers. I do not buy the theory that the tyre war was beneficial for motorists. track tyres need very different technology compared to road tyres and racing performance isn't something that benefits the average motorist. For road cars energy consumption, safety, noise reduction, longevity and comfort are the objectives. Control tyres are much safer and still have plenty of performance.

Ever drive a 2006 Nissan 350Z shod with Michelin Pilots? You may change your mind.

Chris

[WhiteBlue]

.... The "false" authority of the FIA is that instead of upholding the integrity of the sport along with operational expertise, they regulate the series to increase viewership and thus sell more ad space.

The Federation as pointed out was founded in 1907 and I seriously doubt that their intention was marketing controlled competition. If anything it was competition controlled marketing. That is the mysticism that they uphold. And they have you caught in it.

Chris

GP racing has always seen manufacturer involvement even 100 years ago. A federation of Motorists and Motorsport clubs that owns a series as F1 is well advised to provide a marketing platform for those manufacturers and sponsors that agree with the basic philosophy of the series owner. In principle the FIA does not make money from the business side of racing. they listen to various stake holders that have commercial interest such as the teams and the commercial rights owner.

The TV viewers and the race going fans do not seem to mind that motor racing is also a business as long as the entertainement is ok. where F1 has disappointed in the last 14 years was in the lack of a rational course of rule making along a strategic set of objectives that are approved by the general public of the motorists. instead the tactical considerations of the teams have often shaped decisions because they aquired veto powers in the concord agreement that ended the FOCA/FISA war.

with the new voting rules layed down in the 2008 regulations that veto powers have been eliminated and not surprising for the first time in many years the teams agreed to the far reaching plan of the overtaking working group. so I say that the FIA actually has got something right now. they still need to watch out for a sensible successor of the concord agreement that ran out last year. It appears that they have little influence on this agreement which will be mainly negotiated between the teams and the commercial rights holder. the teams agreed on keeping the constructor requirements against the view of the Federation. it shows that the commercial powers have a mind of their own and aren't puppets of the FIA.

which brings us back to the downforce issue. the OWG has said that they need to review the decisions and tighten up aero restrictions if the downforec (and drag) isn't reduced as intended. that has to be taken very serious. if the new rules fail to achieve the objective then the research by Ferrari, Renault and McLaren must have been faulty. it would be very bad for F1 if that is actually the case.

[dave kumar]

...If you think about it, I'm sure that you will make your own connections to the subjective, threat of force, regulations that F1 operates under, and why it is destroying the true values that are produced when the teams are free to compete with the laws of objective reality being their only TRUE authority. By imposing their false authority over the teams, the FIA has stolen the value that F1 brings to mankind, and traded it away for the marketing money that it makes for them personally...

...If you call for a totally unregulated sport, well... I would like to know what have been the innovations big teams have brought to the sport in the last few years, exception made of the "innovation" we've seen in cheating and spying à la Enron. The fact is that big teams seems to be "protecting their investment" and calcifying the sport, as all big firms have done since they were invented...

I have some sympathy with Conceptual's views on this point. But only in so far as it proves that bad rules give bad results. When I say bad, I mean that if F1 is run as a marketing exercise then we shouldn't be suprised that it has stagnated as a sport. But to say this means you should have no rules is missing my point in an earlier post.

...If bad rules got us into this mess, better ones - which go with rather than against the grain of humanity, community and the physical realities of the planet - can get us out again.

This is where I have to agree with Ciro. I think we need the FIA to be the guardians of the sport and not see it as a cash cow. Surely a benovalent dictatorship is possible (Cuba? oh may be I shouldn't go there). A pure unrestricted formula would quickly find that the driver is the weak link and then replace them as there are no rules to say you need a driver. What then? Apologies if I am being a bit obtuse. I just find the idea very far removed from what I understand as sport.

-------------------
On the matter of tyre wars, I agree with WhiteBlue.

...With regard to the tyre war it should be noted that in the end all teams were against it because it was too expansive and the focus was only on tyres instead of on the cars and drivers...

I think the problem was that the difference in performance between the tyres produced by the different manufacturers had become MORE significant than the difference in performance of the cars. In some conditions Bridgestone were dominant and in some Michelin but the difference in performance was often big enough to determine the first few rows of the grid. Competition does of course create innovation but also extremes.

(do we need to mention the extreme case of the US gp where only Bridgestone shod cars lined up on the grid and Michael got his first (only?) win of the season).

[WhiteBlue]

(do we need to mention the extreme case of the US gp where only Bridgestone shod cars lined up on the grid and Michael got his first (only?) win of the season).

and that wasn't the only case where driver safety was compromised to achieve performance that wasn't essential to the show of the sport.

at the height of the tyre war we used to have several scary tyre failures per year. I am not aware that anything comparable has happened last year.