Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[autogyro]

Aerodynamics

[djos]

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

The only realistic way to achieve this is to have spec wing elements* with a limitation on Angle's of attack, mounting height, location etc.

A simple example of this working is Aussie V8 Supercars which have very little Aero, good mechanical grip and an excess of power (aprox 630-650hp).


*and a spec diffuser (which we are already supposed to have).

[Scotracer]

.. 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.

There is no contradiction. When a car is designed to work as efficiently as possible on its own (i.e. a single car in CFD or wind tunnel) it will be assumed to have a laminar air-flow regime ahead of the car and designed to work on that principle. This is especially critical when you're working to the nth degree as they would be under the scenario you are proposing.

What we need is for the OWG to get back in the wind tunnel and try out some different programmes (i.e. more underfloor aero; less total aero; removal of wings etc etc). Enough bloody speculation.

[xpensive]

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.

I beg to differ, with modern on-line technology, it would be very easy to enforce, while the challenge for the teams would be like; "This is how much total DF you have to play with, then you've got movable wings, now go make the most of it".
Most engineerish indeed.

[WhiteBlue]

Which experts? Was this figure from the OWG?

No this number was recommended by experts to the FiA. Actually the British government had a study commissioned for future motorsport with green objectives. They recommended low downforce to improve fuel efficiency and overtaking.

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.

This just shows a lamentable misunderstanding of basic physics. It makes no difference where the downforce is induced to a car to measure the total accurately. It is the responsibility of the team to stay below the the limit.

What we need is for the OWG to get back in the wind tunnel and try out some different programmes (i.e. more underfloor aero; less total aero; removal of wings etc etc). Enough bloody speculation.

And this is the basic misconception. If downforce is limited there is no need to make any restrictions to aero configurations. Teams will automatically find the one which is best for the performance. The rules do noit have to be changed in the future to adjust to performance increases. The development will automatically reduce drag and turbulence for any config that is more efficient.

[Just_a_fan]

No this number was recommended by experts to the FiA. Actually the British government had a study commissioned for future motorsport with green objectives. They recommended low downforce to improve fuel efficiency and overtaking.

I wouldn't trust that bunch of half wits! I'm not aware of any programme that the British Government have implemented that has worked to spec, been on time or on budget. You should also remember that the political part of the British Goverment likes to see itself as being a leader in being 'green'. They have an agenda there - they use it to inflict some rather expensive fuel taxes on us for example.

And as for fuel economy - why? Motor racing is a waste of fuel, full stop. If you want to save fuel you drive slowly - power (and hence fuel) absorbed by drag increases with the cube of the speed after all.

Motor racing should not be about fuel economy; it's about speed, excitement, adrenaline, enjoyment. It doesn't have to be 'relevant' or 'P.C.'. Indeed, the less 'relevant' or 'P.C.' the better in my view. I get enough of both of those in my day to day life thanks.

[Just_a_fan]

If downforce is limited there is no need to make any restrictions to aero configurations. Teams will automatically find the one which is best for the performance. The rules do noit have to be changed in the future to adjust to performance increases. The development will automatically reduce drag and turbulence for any config that is more efficient.

The Law of Unforeseen Consequences suggests that it will not be as simple as you would like to believe. As a simple example, look at the whole double diffuser saga. The rules were supposedly written in a way that simply limited the teams to a given diffuser...

[xpensive]

And as for fuel economy - why? Motor racing is a waste of fuel, full stop. If you want to save fuel you drive slowly - power (and hence fuel) absorbed by drag increases with the cube of the speed after all.

Motor racing should not be about fuel economy; it's about speed, excitement, adrenaline, enjoyment. It doesn't have to be 'relevant' or 'P.C.'. Indeed, the less 'relevant' or 'P.C.' the better in my view. I get enough of both of those in my day to day life thanks.

I don't subscribe to this and neither do the manufacturers I can imagine, Formula one should, at least to my mind, have a purpose in leading the technical automotive development. This was of course the argument for the failed KERS attempt,
but I can see other solutions after time ending up in road cars, disc-brakes, turbo-charging, paddle-shift and engine technology in general. Fuel economy will soon be on an urgent agenda when the oil-barrel hits 200 USD, why F1 has a function to fill there with limited fuel-flow and downforce and adjustable wings.

If nothing else, it should have a symbolic value.

[WhiteBlue]

Motor racing should not be about fuel economy; it's about speed, excitement, adrenaline, enjoyment. It doesn't have to be 'relevant' or 'P.C.'. Indeed, the less 'relevant' or 'P.C.' the better in my view. I get enough of both of those in my day to day life thanks.

This is a very one sided and shallow argument. Immediately with the begin of motor racing restrictions to power and performance had to be introduced and had to be adapted with the advances of technology over the last hundred years. There are natural limits to power and performance in the human body and further limits are required to keep top motor sport safe and affordable. Greenness is just another objective that can be met by restrictions that have to exist due to other reasons.

Just an example. Energy recovery was prohibited in the 90ties in order to suppress cost. With the change in values we now realize that we want to incur those costs that help us to save energy.

Or look at adjustable wings. In the 60ties adjustable wings were deemed unsafe and were banned. We can be pretty sure that with modern technology the safety aspect is resolved. We can skip that restriction in order to become more energy efficient at the same performance level.

The examples show that we do not need to ruin the show by implementing an objective to be green.

[Richard]

And as for fuel economy - why? Motor racing is a waste of fuel, full stop. If you want to save fuel you drive slowly - power (and hence fuel) absorbed by drag increases with the cube of the speed after all.

Motor racing should not be about fuel economy; it's about speed, excitement, adrenaline, enjoyment. It doesn't have to be 'relevant' or 'P.C.'. Indeed, the less 'relevant' or 'P.C.' the better in my view. I get enough of both of those in my day to day life thanks.

It's not about being PC, its about setting new engineering challenges. F1 is progressive by nature, unlike certain other motorsports with their push rod engines.

I think it a great challenge to say to teams "here is xxx kJ of energy, see how fast you can go". The amount of energy would be say 5% less that required to finish a race this year.

Generating downforce will have a high price. The danger is that teams will be even more cautious and desperate for clean air, hence less overtaking. However, teams with tactical ingenuity will be able to pass timid teams scared of running out of fuel.

We'll see games of 'chicken' as drivers switch to a high burn mix to gain on a car running a lean mix, especially around the pit stop window. Would you burn fuel to gain track position? If so, how much?

The opening few laps will be interesting, because that's when a lot of people (ie Button in 2009) gain position, but that wil burn a lot of fuel (heavy cars in traffic)

....

There is a contrary argument though. The danger is that teams use all their trump cards (tyres, fuel etc) to gain track position early on, then switch to conservation tactics to hold that position to the end of the race.

What we need are tighter restrictions that force cars to work closer to breaking point. Tyres that need changing more often, only just enough fuel, grip levels that require drivers to lift off on the fast corners.... and a clutch pedal!

[Just_a_fan]

I don't subscribe to this and neither do the manufacturers I can imagine, Formula one should, at least to my mind, have a purpose in leading the technical automotive development.

Fine, I have no problem with setting a challenge

If nothing else, it should have a symbolic value.

This I do have a problem with. Symbolic values are for governments and others who want to appear to be something they're not.

The simple truth is that motor racing is a total waste of resources; it has no use other than to entertain those who do it and, vicariously, those who watch.

Let's not try to dress up F1 as some sort of 'green sport'. It isn't. It never will be.

[Just_a_fan]

It's not about being PC, its about setting new engineering challenges. F1 is progressive by nature, unlike certain other motorsports with their push rod engines.

I think it a great challenge to say to teams "here is xxx kJ of energy, see how fast you can go". The amount of energy would be say 5% less that required to finish a race this year.

Fine. Set an engineering challenge. But please don't dress it up as a way of being 'green'. There is no need. F1's audience isn't in it for 'green'; they're in it for excitement. Set it as a challenge which brings excitement to the track. That should be the overarching requirement.

Generating downforce will have a high price. The danger is that teams will be even more cautious and desperate for clean air, hence less overtaking. However, teams with tactical ingenuity will be able to pass timid teams scared of running out of fuel.

We'll see games of 'chicken' as drivers switch to a high burn mix to gain on a car running a lean mix, especially around the pit stop window. Would you burn fuel to gain track position? If so, how much?

The opening few laps will be interesting, because that's when a lot of people (ie Button in 2009) gain position, but that wil burn a lot of fuel (heavy cars in traffic)

Ok, again, fine as it's about racing and not trying to dress up a total waste of resources (which F1 is and always will be) as some form of 'green' sport.

There is a contrary argument though. The danger is that teams use all their trump cards (tyres, fuel etc) to gain track position early on, then switch to conservation tactics to hold that position to the end of the race.

Indeed so. The Law of Unforeseen Consequences again...

What we need are tighter restrictions that force cars to work closer to breaking point. Tyres that need changing more often, only just enough fuel, grip levels that require drivers to lift off on the fast corners.... and a clutch pedal!

This might work. Manual gearboxes won't be allowed because breaking gearboxes is expensive and not at all in line with the 'cost cutting' agenda.

[Just_a_fan]

This is a very one sided and shallow argument.

It's no more one-sided or shallow than saying that F1 must be green. Or that we must reduce downforce to improve racing...

Immediately with the begin of motor racing restrictions to power and performance had to be introduced and had to be adapted with the advances of technology over the last hundred years. There are natural limits to power and performance in the human body and further limits are required to keep top motor sport safe and affordable. Greenness is just another objective that can be met by restrictions that have to exist due to other reasons.

'Greenness' is a political issue. The limitation of total performance is a safety issue. Big difference. I'd like to see politics kept out of F1 thanks.

Just an example. Energy recovery was prohibited in the 90ties in order to suppress cost. With the change in values we now realize that we want to incur those costs that help us to save energy.

We want to do it because it might improve racing. Don't care about energy saving in F1 thanks. I do my energy saving in real life. F1 is fantasy; I want my fantasy to be 'full fat' thanks, not 'lite'.

Or look at adjustable wings. In the 60ties adjustable wings were deemed unsafe and were banned. We can be pretty sure that with modern technology the safety aspect is resolved. We can skip that restriction in order to become more energy efficient at the same performance level.

Again, originally for safety and that was a good call. Now, with technology, I'd suggest that F1 cars should perhaps be allowed adaptive aero - let the car adjust its aero map to suit the conditions. If it's following another car it neesds to have a different configuration to running in clear air. If you want to make that 'relevant', look at road cars that are now being planned with active aero.

The examples show that we do not need to ruin the show by implementing an objective to be green.

But they also don't show that we need to implement green at all.

As I've said elsewhere, set an engineering challenge based on use of energy but please stop trying to make it out that F1 is being 'green'. Using a few tens of litres of fuel less in a 1.5 hour race is nothing compared to the embofied energy in all of that carbon fibre and in all of the transport requirements to get the circus around the world.

Hell, you could make F1 much greener by just requiring all of the races to be in Europe so that air freighting hundreds of tonnes around the globe wasn't necessary. So, how far do you want the 'green' message to go?

[WhiteBlue]

As I've said elsewhere, set an engineering challenge based on use of energy but please stop trying to make it out that F1 is being 'green'. Using a few tens of litres of fuel less in a 1.5 hour race is nothing compared to the embofied energy in all of that carbon fibre and in all of the transport requirements to get the circus around the world.

Hell, you could make F1 much greener by just requiring all of the races to be in Europe so that air freighting hundreds of tonnes around the globe wasn't necessary. So, how far do you want the 'green' message to go?

That is comparing apples with bananas. F1 is a show that is selling advertising. In order to produce the show world wide and attract advertising sponsors it must expend a transport energy budget which can be discussed in comparison with other forms of entertainment with similar global advertising function (Olympics, Soccer World Cup). I don't think that F1 will look any worse considering that hundreds of millions of people watch it on TV who do not spend significant energy to do so.

All your points cannot excuse the fact that F1 cars as a showpiece and pinnacle of engineering do not make an effort to save carbon emissions as pretty much every other means of transportation does. Aircraft are even more high tech and they continue to provide better and safer service at lower fuel consumption with every generation. Global warming is every bodies problem and if you are in the spot light and give a rats ass it looks bad. F1 should make the effort at fuel saving that the FiA has set out to achieve in 2008. At that time a target was set to reduce F1 car's fuel consumption by 50% in eight years. Two years are gone and nothing has changed. It is now time to do something.

[machin]

Don't care about energy saving in F1 thanks.

Fortunately (or unfortunately if you're that way inclined!), the current "climate" (no pun intended!) means that no big international manufacturer/suplier wants to be associated with something that isn't trying to clean up its act energy-efficiency wise... and F1 realies on these manufacturers.. the result is that if we still want high levels of funding F1 needs to clean up its image in this repect.... yes we all know that in reality driving cars around a race trakc for 70+ laps is never going to be "good" for the environment, but if F1 is to continue it has to clean up its act.

Personally I think it would be great if all those millions of pounds could go on improving propulsion technology in areas that are more relevant to every day life. I see it as win-win for all involved. And I think I speak for everyone here in that we don't want to see F1 performance levels drop... we want to see performance levels stay where they are, but use less energy to stay there, what's wrong with that?