2009 design concepts

[ernos5]

when they race all teams will have to use the narrower rear wing. The teams managed to dupe the FIA and keep much more downforce than they were supposed to have. some reports say that they will loose as little as 15%. If that happens we can expect a reaction on the tyre side by the FIA. It will depend on how the lap times will look and what the cornering speeds are going to be.

dam!!, bloody FIA, can't they hack that the engineers can still out smart them even though they apply like 500 billion rules? What's their problem? why can't they just let F1 be F1. Fast, Dangerous, Exciting...

So they are suppose to be 50% of 2006?
Most teams probably have like 10-15% more downforce now then back then..

[Belatti]

I cant understand why do they have to make rules to make the car look that ugly. If they want less downforce and less turbulence for the car behind, just make a rule that states that rear wings must have the dimentions like the ones used at monza, for all circuits.
I would say: only 1 wing, wide as it is, a bit higher, with a big gap between the coke bottle shaped rear and the wing, to let air pass cleanly.

All this being said using intuition and partially null aero/CDF understanding. Ohh... and hoping for a nicer car than that crap. [-o<

I dont know if Im going to watch next year F1, have my doubts. Seriously!
Wont become a NASCAR fan either. Indy maybe? We will see...

[ernos5]

I cant understand why do they have to make rules to make the car look that ugly. If they want less downforce and less turbulence for the car behind, just make a rule that states that rear wings must have the dimentions like the ones used at monza, for all circuits.
I would say: only 1 wing, wide as it is, a bit higher, with a big gap between the coke bottle shaped rear and the wing, to let air pass cleanly.

All this being said using intuition and partially null aero/CDF understanding. Ohh... and hoping for a nicer car than that crap. [-o<

I dont know if Im going to watch next year F1, have my doubts. Seriously!
Wont become a NASCAR fan either. Indy maybe? We will see...

yer or why don't the FIA use their brains and say "hey!, if we won't the same grip but smaller wings that create less turbulent air, why don't we widen the cars, put BIG rear slick tyres and make the wing smaller and allow ground effects to have a large ammount of downforce?" yer good idea llo;l

[Scotracer]

it looks alright from behind, kinda reminds me of F3... but from the front it's very ugly, next years cars won't look very goood..

I have a question,
About the aerodynamics next year, i heard that it's 50% of this, well i kinda have 2 questions actually..

1.) Will it be 50% of each teams downforce? because each car produces slightly different downforce, and if so how do they measure it?

2.) Next year they must have 50% less downforce, so some teams leave the big wing at the back, but compesate by having a less downforce somewhere else? like what i'm trying to say is are they able to keep whatever they want where they want on next years car, but as long as they have 50% less downforce?

cheers..

As Whiteblue said, the loss is in the region of 15%. Add to that the extra grip from the slicks and the cars will be 0.5-1 second faster per lap. It's not a dangerous level so the FIA shouldn't intervene.

And there are strict aero regulations so everyone must have that size rear-wing and at that height.

To be honest, I think it looks stupid but I thought the 2005-2008 rear wing looked stupid too (it was moved forward 150mm) but it has grown on me and I now prefer it to the older one.

cant understand why do they have to make rules to make the car look that ugly. If they want less downforce and less turbulence for the car behind, just make a rule that states that rear wings must have the dimentions like the ones used at monza, for all circuits.
I would say: only 1 wing, wide as it is, a bit higher, with a big gap between the coke bottle shaped rear and the wing, to let air pass cleanly.

All this being said using intuition and partially null aero/CDF understanding. Ohh... and hoping for a nicer car than that crap.

I dont know if Im going to watch next year F1, have my doubts. Seriously!
Wont become a NASCAR fan either. Indy maybe? We will see...
I cant understand why do they have to make rules to make the car look that ugly. If they want less downforce and less turbulence for the car behind, just make a rule that states that rear wings must have the dimentions like the ones used at monza, for all circuits.
I would say: only 1 wing, wide as it is, a bit higher, with a big gap between the coke bottle shaped rear and the wing, to let air pass cleanly.

All this being said using intuition and partially null aero/CDF understanding. Ohh... and hoping for a nicer car than that crap. [-o<

I dont know if Im going to watch next year F1, have my doubts. Seriously!
Wont become a NASCAR fan either. Indy maybe? We will see...

Thing is, to have a Monza-style rear wing for next year they would have to seriously restrict in terms of aero dimensions for the rear wing, making the part pretty much a standard spec for all the cars. No one wants that.

Oh and the reason it was raised was to decrease the coupling between the diffuser and the wing itself, which was a big contributor to the turbulant downstream air.

It's the best solution the OWG could come up with and as long as it works, I don't care. I just hope that it doesn't turn out to produce more problems like the 2005 raising of the front-wing did.

[WhiteBlue]

nobody should blame the FIA for the look of the car or the complication of the rules. the original proposal by the FIA simply limited the downforce to 1.2 metric tons. that would have been simple and straitforward. it would have been the responsibility of the team not to exceed the level of downforce however the car looks. they asked the FIA to try once again for another complicated solution which was proposed by the OWG. now they should own up to any mess they created and the fans should stop blaming the wrong party. perhaps they will eventually see the light and go to a fixed downforce limit. that solution has the advantage that you can focus on reducing the drag to make the car faster and that would help overtaking and energy saving.

[wesley123]

it looks alright from behind, kinda reminds me of F3... but from the front it's very ugly, next years cars won't look very goood..

I have a question,
About the aerodynamics next year, i heard that it's 50% of this, well i kinda have 2 questions actually..

1.) Will it be 50% of each teams downforce? because each car produces slightly different downforce, and if so how do they measure it?

2.) Next year they must have 50% less downforce, so some teams leave the big wing at the back, but compesate by having a less downforce somewhere else? like what i'm trying to say is are they able to keep whatever they want where they want on next years car, but as long as they have 50% less downforce?

cheers..

As Whiteblue said, the loss is in the region of 15%. Add to that the extra grip from the slicks and the cars will be 0.5-1 second faster per lap. It's not a dangerous level so the FIA shouldn't intervene.

And there are strict aero regulations so everyone must have that size rear-wing and at that height.

To be honest, I think it looks stupid but I thought the 2005-2008 rear wing looked stupid too (it was moved forward 150mm) but it has grown on me and I now prefer it to the older one.

cant understand why do they have to make rules to make the car look that ugly. If they want less downforce and less turbulence for the car behind, just make a rule that states that rear wings must have the dimentions like the ones used at monza, for all circuits.
I would say: only 1 wing, wide as it is, a bit higher, with a big gap between the coke bottle shaped rear and the wing, to let air pass cleanly.

All this being said using intuition and partially null aero/CDF understanding. Ohh... and hoping for a nicer car than that crap.

I dont know if Im going to watch next year F1, have my doubts. Seriously!
Wont become a NASCAR fan either. Indy maybe? We will see...
I cant understand why do they have to make rules to make the car look that ugly. If they want less downforce and less turbulence for the car behind, just make a rule that states that rear wings must have the dimentions like the ones used at monza, for all circuits.
I would say: only 1 wing, wide as it is, a bit higher, with a big gap between the coke bottle shaped rear and the wing, to let air pass cleanly.

All this being said using intuition and partially null aero/CDF understanding. Ohh... and hoping for a nicer car than that crap. [-o<

I dont know if Im going to watch next year F1, have my doubts. Seriously!
Wont become a NASCAR fan either. Indy maybe? We will see...

Thing is, to have a Monza-style rear wing for next year they would have to seriously restrict in terms of aero dimensions for the rear wing, making the part pretty much a standard spec for all the cars. No one wants that.

Oh and the reason it was raised was to decrease the coupling between the diffuser and the wing itself, which was a big contributor to the turbulant downstream air.

It's the best solution the OWG could come up with and as long as it works, I don't care. I just hope that it doesn't turn out to produce more problems like the 2005 raising of the front-wing did.

From what i know, the rear wing is a CDG-wing, and there are no wings etc allowed on the sidepods, the frontwing can be dropped by 75mm. So after all i think it will be a 10% downforce loss.

[WhiteBlue]

From what i know, the rear wing is a CDG-wing, and there are no wings etc allowed on the sidepods, the frontwing can be dropped by 75mm. So after all i think it will be a 10% downforce loss.

this is a CDG (Central Downwash Generation) wing. you can see that it is a different design.

[mx_tifoso]

If aesthetics is a main reason for one to follow Formula One, then maybe one is here for all the wrong reasons. The design of this wing is simply providing a medium to achieve less dependancy on aero, and if that improves the spectacle (as everyone seems to want) it will be successful, whether it looks 'good' or not.

[wesley123]

From what i know, the rear wing is a CDG-wing, and there are no wings etc allowed on the sidepods, the frontwing can be dropped by 75mm. So after all i think it will be a 10% downforce loss.

this is a CDG (Central Downwash Generation) wing. you can see that it is a different design.

Yep, they gonna use that next year, also i dont like the diffuser, i had a lot of ideas of melting the diffuser into the rear wing and ideas like that. I've had a lot of ideas that can make the downforce loss like 2%, but only if those things are allowed.

[bazanaius]

I don't think the CDG wing would be allowed (although I think it looks cool) or the diffuser integration into the wing. The boxes that aerofoils are allowed within are fairly prescriptive.

[modbaraban]

If aesthetics is a main reason for one to follow Formula One, then maybe one is here for all the wrong reasons. The design of this wing is simply providing a medium to achieve less dependancy on aero, and if that improves the spectacle (as everyone seems to want) it will be successful, whether it looks 'good' or not.

I would agree if a team would design an incredibly ugly car to beat others. But when ugliness is specced by the governing body - that's really against the essence of formula one!

[Scotracer]

From what i know, the rear wing is a CDG-wing, and there are no wings etc allowed on the sidepods, the frontwing can be dropped by 75mm. So after all i think it will be a 10% downforce loss.

this is a CDG (Central Downwash Generation) wing. you can see that it is a different design.

Yep, they gonna use that next year, also i dont like the diffuser, i had a lot of ideas of melting the diffuser into the rear wing and ideas like that. I've had a lot of ideas that can make the downforce loss like 2%, but only if those things are allowed.

No. CDG has been dropped.

[wesley123]

No. CDG has been dropped.

Why did they done that? It was announced for 2008.

[mx_tifoso]

They haven't even talked about the CDG for a very long time, a few years maybe, the wings will remain as they have except for being higher and narrower. Look into the many threads concerning future regulations and you will see that for yourself. Point of post: no CDG rear wing.

[wesley123]

They haven't even talked about the CDG for a very long time, a few years maybe, the wings will remain as they have except for being higher and narrower. Look into the many threads concerning future regulations and you will see that for yourself. Point of post: no CDG rear wing.

It was mid 2006 when it was anounced, the FIA wanted to introduce it in 2007 but the teams wanted 2008. Now it is 2008 and there is no CFD wing, All those engineers have took alot of time and money in the idea which everyone said it will work but as i see this i guess they dont want better overtaking. Those narrower wing doesnt decrease drag behind the wing, now you will have the wing, the space between will have turbulence too and behind the rear wheels too so it wont make difference. With the CFD wing only the section behind the rear wheels will have turbulence so the slipstream will be better.
I guess they dont want that and now they spilled a lot of man hours and millions of dollars to come up with the idea, but now i guess the FIA dont want it. I dont see the spirit of the FIA, they want cost cutting but after all they change the rules every 3 years so the teams have to change their cars radicaly which will take anther 20 milion to do the research and development for it. If they kept the rules like it was in 2003 then minardi probably still exist as then they didnt need to change their wings due to new rules.