Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[piast9]

Just measure vertical force at each wheel and add up.

The idea is fantastic but how do you want to measure vertical force at the wheel during the race?

Do you want to measure tyre compression? Do you want to force teams to mount tensometers at the suspension arms? I can't see any simple and realiable method for measuring force at the wheel.

[xpensive]

I agree WB and I think we've been in agreement on this before, piezoelectric devices at each wheel would be the obvious technical solution. However, there must of course be margins for spikes at bumps and things like that, but that can surely be resolved.

Fully adjustable wings is another of my pet-ideas and by that I mean adjustable at the drivers leisure. today's ban on movable aerodynamic devices has it's heritage from the sixties, in 2011 it would be so much safer and efficient. Also very green as using 500 hp insted of 750 to propel the car to 300 km/h is a world of difference energy-wise.

[Just_a_fan]

My rules mean you can bring back all those little flip ups and wings that were infront of the rear wheels and the shark gills for cooling. Also underfloor aero is allowed, but as long as it dosnt go lower than where the plank goes to. And is also isnt in the red centre box i have put in the pics.

All of those flips up etc. were removed by the current regs as a way to improve overtaking because they ruin the flow to the following car.

Freeing up underfloor downforce would help to counter that hopefully, however.

Limiting the rear wing might help because it would require a reduction in front wing too in order to maintain aero balance.

I think your box infront of the sidepod might need to be moved forward to allow the floor to move forward in order to get the underbody CoP in the right place...

[strad]

Really easy. Just measure vertical force at each wheel and add up. Substract weight of the car which is known to almost one kN. Take reading of accelerometer in vertical direction and make correction and voila, you arrive at aerodynamic downforce. It is child's play for the modern ECU.

Regulation is just as easy. Integrate any excess downforce and set thresholds at which drivers must make pit stop to adjust wings for lower downforce. Alternatively make wings driver adjustable.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You're in your fantasy mode again.

[marcush.]

to me a large portion of the fascination of F1 technology has been the aero appendages and aero development as such ....so hopefully the soltion will be more freedom but a maximum df figure that must not be exceeded for a predefined accumulated time.

the measuring of df levels on the fly cannot be trivial or reliable as of course it is the holy grail of laptime.but again and again we hear from teams up and down the pitlane of a sudden loss of griplevel due to changes in conditions (not accounted for correctly by the team with correct fixes).

[WhiteBlue]

I agree WB and I think we've been in agreement on this before, piezoelectric devices at each wheel would be the obvious technical solution. However, there must of course be margins for spikes at bumps and things like that, but that can surely be resolved.

Fully adjustable wings is another of my pet-ideas and by that I mean adjustable at the drivers leisure. today's ban on movable aerodynamic devices has it's heritage from the sixties, in 2011 it would be so much safer and efficient. Also very green as using 500 hp insted of 750 to propel the car to 300 km/h is a world of difference energy-wise.

The bumps would be taken care of by the inertial force compensation as measured by the accelerometer. It is doing pretty much the same as an inertial navigation system in vertical direction. The technology is known for ages. I'm aware that wings could be computer controlled but I believe that this would not be in line with the sporting philosophy of F1. So driver adjustable sounds good.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You're in your fantasy mode again.

I'm not! Instead of making funny remarks please show me which force component I have forgotten in my model. There is nothing more than weight, inertial forces and aerodynamic downforce in the vertical axis of the car.

The idea is fantastic but how do you want to measure vertical force at the wheel during the race?

That isn't such a difficult task. You could use strain gages, piezo elements or hall effect transducers depending of the particular implementation. I would guess that the wheel carriers would be a good placement point to look for.

Btw, we had this kind of discussion several times before and mostly the engineers agreed pretty soon that it was feasible. The problem is that aerodynamicists have too much power in the teams to implement such a rule. I have never come across a good point against it in the F1technical discussions. Aerodynamic development would still continue but it would be restricted to minimizing drag for useful aero configurations. Today the aerodynamicists create ever new useless configurations that they can optimize to artificially generate new work.

[Scotracer]

Whiteblue, your regulations won't work as all the teams will do when given a downforce limit is make their surfaces as aerodynamically efficient (i.e. the least amount of drag for that given downforce) as possible, thus making any following car just as susceptible to the wake problem as currently.

[WhiteBlue]

.. all the teams will do when given a downforce limit is make their surfaces as aerodynamically efficient (i.e. the least amount of drag for that given downforce) as possible, thus making any following car just as susceptible to the wake problem as currently.

I believe that you are contradicting yourself here. I have already anticipated that the drag will be minimized. But contrary to your opinion I belive that this will be beneficial to the ability of cars to follow each other.

What is causing wake turbulence? Real world experience tells us that size of the object and the magnitude of forces involved will play a big role. An example from aircraft engineering will illustrate this. The A380 was a huge step in aircraft weight from the previously largest passenger plane the Boing 747. The take off weight and consequently the aerodynamical lift of the wings were significantly increased. As a result of this all possible efforts were made to minimize the wake effect. Nevertheless practical test shows that the heavier aircaft causes significantly more wake turbulence than any other wide body craft.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... n/2437407/

I believe that the claim of aerodynamicists to be in control of wake turbulences and that such wake structures do not increase with lift or downforce are unrealistic. If you push the air harder or you punch a bigger hole you are likely to get more severe wake turbulence. Hence it makes common sense to limit downforce to the absolute necessary amount.

[Just_a_fan]

Hence it makes common sense to limit downforce to the absolute necessary amount.

Defined as how much and by whom?

Downforce can be produced in a way that allows the excitement of high cornering speeds (which is what makes F1 more exciting than touring cars for me) and which allows car to follow each other. History proves this - c.f. the "ground effect" cars.

There is no evidence that reducing downforce will improve racing.

Personally, lots of overtaking would be just as boring as none. What is interesting, what gets one on the edge of ones seat is the whole "will he, won't he" of attempted overtakes. If every overtake was simple, if every attempt resulted in a change of running order then we'd have a very boring race; one might just as well watch the last 5 minutes to see who gets ahead for the last time round the last corner. If I want to watch several dozen overtakes in an hour I can just go and stand on a motorway bridge and watch cars in the faster lanes overtaking cars in the slower lanes. That's about how exciting F1 would be.

F1 is a high downforce series and long may it continue to be so. No, it has no relevance to real life motoring - so what? Why should it? One of the reasons it is so popular around the world is because it is not relevant to real life.

If I was going to make rule changes for the next round of rules it would be this:

• -Two races in a weekend. One on Saturday, one on Sunday.
  -Each 1 hour duration.
  -The starting order for the first race is chosen by lottery. So a random grid ensues. The starting order for the second race is the finishing order of the first race.
  -If you fail to finish the first race you start from the back on the second race.
  -Points for both races.
  -One type of tyre (excluding wets)required per race but you use both types during the both races.
  -No refueling in the race.

That way you get interesting racing on both days as people move through the field just as we saw in Sepang. Sometimes the fast guys will be at the front sometimes at the back but no one will know until 1 hour before Saturday's race.

Also, let's have a decent TV director who knows how to follow interesting events on track. Too often we switch from a nicely developing chase to a back marker pitting. If you must show every pit stop, show it in a window. The technology is hardly new!

[Ogami musashi]

I believe that the claim of aerodynamicists to be in control of wake turbulences and that such wake structures do not increase with lift or downforce are unrealistic. If you push the air harder or you punch a bigger hole you are likely to get more severe wake turbulence. Hence it makes common sense to limit downforce to the absolute necessary amount.

Sums up the problem.. You, a non aerodynamicist, believe what aerodynamicists say is unrealistic.

No need to go further..

Just one thing you make think about, do you know what is the purpose of physics? Measuring then modeling..

Guess from where m*(s/f) comes from? Yes precisely from all those big liners, maneuvering planes tests.




Don't try to make your assertions a fact when you are unable to bring solid scientific points.

The subjects have been debated to death, i tired of this; Hopefully all of this is rumbling in the mud and will have no impact on real decisions but that's frustrating to see you try to bring real scientific points to discuss and all you have in face of you is people ignoring it all and bringing over and over their dreams.

[ESPImperium]

My rules mean you can bring back all those little flip ups and wings that were infront of the rear wheels and the shark gills for cooling. Also underfloor aero is allowed, but as long as it dosnt go lower than where the plank goes to. And is also isnt in the red centre box i have put in the pics.

All of those flips up etc. were removed by the current regs as a way to improve overtaking because they ruin the flow to the following car.

Freeing up underfloor downforce would help to counter that hopefully, however.

Limiting the rear wing might help because it would require a reduction in front wing too in order to maintain aero balance.

I think your box infront of the sidepod might need to be moved forward to allow the floor to move forward in order to get the underbody CoP in the right place...

So in-other words, its a good attempt, but could do with improvements.

On the Diffuser and under floor aero, id not want it to be much futher forward than where the box is, simply to make the designers try and claw as much back as they could, but to compromise their rear packaging, thus a performance differenciator, either you design a car thats slippery when on high speed tracks, but poor at Monaco and simmilar, of have a car thats good at Monaco and simmilar and be poor at more lower downforce profiled tracks.

The one thing id do as well is mandate that the exausts have to exit after the rear wing centre line finish point, or basically after the suspension to make sure that lower wing thats connected to the crash structure is deemed one area to be made illegal, meaning ALMS style supports are needed, thus making air flow cleaner as well. The only offset is that the rear wing would go back to the 2008 width, but only for 2 reasons, for aero ballance and commercial reasons.

Personally im not sure wether enforceable downforce limits are a good thing, easy to enforce.

The only thing id like to see is that faster cars have to be able to pass slower ones, and the blue flag only shown at the start/finish straight, thus making the race more interesting and more pace orientated, meaning drivers have to drive to a pace and try and pass backmarkerswhen they are on a specific straight or start/finish straight. Id also mak it mandatory that each car start on the soft compound and not be able to switch till lap 20 of each race. Meaning tyre management is even more of a priority.

[WhiteBlue]

Hence it makes common sense to limit downforce to the absolute necessary amount.

Defined as how much and by whom?

Experts have recommended a level of 1,25 metric tons.

[strad]

WhiteBlue, You're carzy.....Your idea won't work.

[Just_a_fan]

Hence it makes common sense to limit downforce to the absolute necessary amount.

Defined as how much and by whom?

Experts have recommended a level of 1,25 metric tons.

Which experts? Was this figure from the OWG?

[strad]

Personally im not sure wether enforceable downforce limits are a good thing, easy to enforce.

Setting a number and enforcing it would be a nightmare and pretty much UNenforceable..The center of pressure and other vital numbers vary far too much from car to car often it's not the total downforce but where the downforce is and isn't.