Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[Metar]

Two changes per lap.

One setting will always be higher than the other, obviously, and it doesn't matter which configuration is used for a longer time..

[myurr]

Two changes per lap.

One setting will always be higher than the other, obviously, and it doesn't matter which configuration is used for a longer time..

So it is possible that somewhere like Fuji they'd take off downforce for the straight and then keep it at the higher setting for the rest of the lap. Coupled to a boost from KERS that should be quite an advantage over other cars that didn't do this.

[Metar]

So it is possible that somewhere like Fuji they'd take off downforce for the straight and then keep it at the higher setting for the rest of the lap. Coupled to a boost from KERS that should be quite an advantage over other cars that didn't do this.

That's pretty much the idea of the new rules regarding wings - either reduce downforce and drag on the straight or increase it in the corners to stay behind.

[pgj]

So it is possible that somewhere like Fuji they'd take off downforce for the straight and then keep it at the higher setting for the rest of the lap. Coupled to a boost from KERS that should be quite an advantage over other cars that didn't do this.

That's pretty much the idea of the new rules regarding wings - either reduce downforce and drag on the straight or increase it in the corners to stay behind.

That was my initial understanding, but the findings of the OWG were that in following a car the effect of the front wing is reversed, it actually provides lift. Hence the introduction of the standard lifting section into the front wing. I think that this means that by having a movable section that reduces downforce, it can be used when closely following another car in slower sections as well as on fast sections of the circuit.

[Scotracer]

Thing is, it's the rear-wing that contributes most of the drag of the cars. The front-wing obviously has an effect but with the front tyres just behind the wing (even more relevant now) the loss of drag by turning down the front wing is not as substational as the rear. This can be seen on a Monza aero package - the rear wing has a much lower profile than the front wing (compared to a normal medium-downforce setup).

Next year the front wing will produce less drag than today, with it's central section (the drag of an aerofoil that shape is very low) but of course, the front wing is wider. But then again, it surely can't hurt to reduce the angle of attack on the front wing to help top speeds.

[CMSMJ1]

Anyways -ref the regs> Can we expect to see the old fox ears vapour trails off the rear wings now they seem to have been simplified? Are the slits in the rear endplates now banned too?

[myurr]

Conversational tangent time - now that the FIA are mandating standard aerodynamic parts is there any merit in them specifying parts that deliberately produce turbulence? Ie. centre section of the new front wing being deliberately designed to provide relatively poor quality airflow under the car, thus limiting the effectiveness of the diffuser.

Possible? Desirable?

[D'Leh]

Thing is, it's the rear-wing that contributes most of the drag of the cars. The front-wing obviously has an effect but with the front tyres just behind the wing (even more relevant now) the loss of drag by turning down the front wing is not as substational as the rear. This can be seen on a Monza aero package - the rear wing has a much lower profile than the front wing (compared to a normal medium-downforce setup).

Next year the front wing will produce less drag than today, with it's central section (the drag of an aerofoil that shape is very low) but of course, the front wing is wider. But then again, it surely can't hurt to reduce the angle of attack on the front wing to help top speeds.

Other thing is you don't need to take use of the entire width. I could well imagine a Monza spec being narrower and using the AoA changing thingy to play with the drag/balance.

But surely on most tracks the function will primarily be used to restore the balance in the slipstream of another car. Probably even in Monza, because there basically every straight is subsequent to a medium speed corner except for the straight after Prima Variante. So if you can stay really close to your opponent in Lesmo, Ascari and Parabolica you'd have much better chances to actually make use of the slipstream.

[xpensive]

Interesting issue this.
To the best of my experience, the trademark of an internet poser is usually a lack of original thought, unfitting and changing choice of expressions, a flexing opinion and staying away from pure technical issues not fully understood by said poser.
I leave it at that for now, thanks for bringing this up Chaparral.

[Scotracer]

Thanks to AFCA on Atlas F1 for this translation of what has happened today at the FOTA meeting:

Today the most important Formula 1 meeting of the year is taking place in London. The team principles, chaired by Di Montezemolo, meet up to give their blessing to their austerity package.

The many meetings that have taken place so far only served to discuss proposals. Today the package is to be made ready and finalised in order for Di Montezemolo to be able to present it to Mosley. The FIA president reserves the right to push on with his own range of cost cutting measures in case he's not satisfied with those from the teams.

The crucial point of the crisis summit is once again the engine. The expansion of the engine life span from two to three Grand Prix weekend in 2009 is only the first step. The 'leasing fee' for the customer teams have been limited to € 10 million. For 2010 Mosley envisages a price of € 5 million. That is only possible with engines that have an extremely long life span, in other words: powerplants that keep up for five or six Grand Prix weekends. The FIA is willing to have a standard engine in case Mosley's demands are not met by the teams. Internally the FIA would have already decided that the tender will go to Ilmor.

All the changes that regard the year 2009 (short term) must be agreed upon unanimously by the board of the FOTA (so 10 votes out of 10 - AFCA). For measures that relate to a more distant future 7 votes out of 10 are sufficient. (In terms of there being unison) a lot will depend on whether Renault and Honda will be allowed to improve their engines in order to close the gap to Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW Sauber and Toyota. This issue is also on the agenda today. The teams from Enstone and Brackley claim to have a power deficit of 40 and 50 bhp respectively, justifying their request to make up for this by saying they've been the only ones that have acted in the spirit of the rules during the engine freeze.

Both teams have already hinted that they will only be cooperating with the others in case their request is approved of. Otherwise they'll be in favour of a standard engine. Apart from the engine matter, other cost cutting measures are to be agreed upon also: a standard gearbox, standard wheel mounts, standard brakes, a standard diffusor, limits to the use of (certain) materials, further testrestrictions and a limit to the number of employees per team. The proposal of having 250 employees per team is on the table. In that case the manufacturer teams would have to fire two third of their personnel.

Eventhough the topteams Ferrari, McLaren and BMW Sauber realise it's better to save money, some team principles doubt whether today's meeting is going to be a success. One predicted: ''When things get detailed then everyone starts thinking about his own team again. And I don't even exclude myself from that. And in doing so we give Mosley a 'through ball' to do what he likes.'' Apperantly the urgency of the crisis still isn't as such that the teams have become a lot more rational. Next week Toyota will be testing in Bahrain instead of Europe. Ferrari has just hired a 1:1 windtunnel in the USA because their own is no longer adequate for the work at hand. Brawn wonders: ''If the're such an 'end of the world alike atmosphere', then why not limit the revs to 15,000 rpm straight away, whilst controlling the torque curve with the use of the ECU. In that case, next year we would already be able to use the current engines for four to five races, and the exasperating conflict of obtaining equalisation in the area of the engine would automatically be solved.''

So if Honda and Renault are 50BHP and 40BHP down, respectively, as they claim to be that would mean Ferrari, Mclaren, Toyota and BMW are around the 770BHP level and the other two 720BHP and 730BHP.

[Metar]

Unless the top teams are ahead of 770hp. If I recall correctly, the early-2007 Toyota engine was weaker than the rest of the field (that was one of Rosberg's favourite complaints last season in the RTL interviews - he once said "740HP is not enough"). If the others didn't stay in place, they surely would've reached 780HP, 785HP?

[WhiteBlue]

With todays bombshell there will be no real alternative to limiting revs and close loop controlling the torque profile with reference to the Cosworth engine from 2010.

For next year they would be well advised to go with Ross Brawn's proposal. It would mean a drastic cost cut to race the engines five races and might even get down to 7 mil € instead of 10. I can understand how a team for sale will suddenly look at cost with other eyes than a team with 500 mil $ budget.

Merc, Ferrari, BMW, Toyota and Renault would do well to present some significant cost cuts to their share holders and boards before they come under the knife themselves.

[meon]

If all the cars are the same then its called A1, and that's just a race of different colored cars, how very unoriginal and boring.
There is only one real way to reduce costs and make the show entertaining. Reduce regulations. The total opposite of what Max and crowd are trying to do, and here's why.
In any endeavor where the rules are restrictive the difference between winning and losing is measured in 1/100th of a percent. Consider the total budget for a team minus the peripherals, 10% of the budget will get you 90% there. You can have 2 cars on the grid and be a fully functioning team at the rear of the grid. Then you need to spend the other 90% to get that extra speed. As the restrictions increase this ratio tends towards 2 and 98%.
As the cars become similar tending towards identical the speed differences diminish and passing becomes impossible, hence the reason for power boost in A1.

But you can not have a racing series with no regulations, or can you? Well yes, all you really need to do is place a restriction of the amount of fuel per race, and maybe maximum width (so others can get by). Allow total freedom in powertrains, KERS, aero including shirts, fans whatever. If the speeds become to excessive then lower the fuel allowance. Much like the planet is telling us, here's what's left now use it wisely.

Think of this in terms of the 10/90 rule. A team with a very clever design could easily win a race using only 10% of there current budget.
OK I can hear someone saying but full ground effects and fan cars would be too dangerous, the cornering G-forces would be way too high. Yeah right, I was watching a Red bull air race the other week and they get penalized for pulling over 12 G's, that's 12 not 3 or 4 but 12 G's.
And what about engines, wouldn't the costs go way up? Well yes and no, there are many different options to making power at the lowest possible weight. A small gas turbine driving an electrical generator would last many seasons not just many races. Drop the allowable fuel and you would then see some very efficient power generation systems like 100% KERS in months not years.


Formula 1 is a distant cousin now to the family car and that car is about to go through a major change once the oil runs dry. We are about to witness the passing of the big 3 American auto companies who failed to listen to the consumer and persisted making 3 ton behemoths. There is a revolution coming and that future is electric in what ever form it takes, cars will be many times lighter and streamlined to the nth degree.

Formula 1 can either be at the front of technological leadership or follow the path down the empty oil wells to total annihilation, weighted down by a mountain of rules and restrictions.

Formula Fossil Fuels is finished, now its time for a new era, e-one electric ecological environmental enduring everlasting entertainment.

[Ogami musashi]

The idea of penalty for too much G's is just brillant.

I would too hope that technical freedom is introduced. But we would have to check costs because as you know since we have safety limits, with freedom those limits would be attained easily, teams would then be forced to fight on the inner part of those limits (for example max G's would be attained easily, so teams would develop downforce for slow and medium speed corners).

But there must be solution as technical freedom proved to allow great racing in many series (F1 of the 80's, Group C/GTP etc..)

[Metar]

Technical freedom also opens it up for huge dominance..


Also, maximum G's? Is it just me, or are we going to have problems with teams complaining that their penalty was due to a kerb, or the angle of the road?