Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[autogyro]

Newer generation Kers systems should be part of an ongoing development of over all power production and delivery and not just a gimick for boosting overtaking.
The regulations should be structured to encourage a new competition in this technical area and to reduce development in aero.
If the regulations on powertrains for 2013 are rigidly defined, it will stagnate F1 at a level of public interest lower than it receives today.
The aero and DF issues are barely appreciated by ordinary viewers and have no relevence to road vehicles or current reality, Kers by comparison effects EVERYONE.
Patrick Head and others keep making reference to the 'shock and awe' effect of watching and listening to F1 cars at F1 races. Apart from the crass reference to this criminal American statement, this comment only makes sense to those of us directly involved in F1 or those few fortunate enough to actualy go to F1 races. The VAST majority of F1 supporters NEVER experience this effect, anymore than they ever flew in Concorde. It is totaly irelevent in the crucial task of keeping F1 alive.

[WhiteBlue]

I think that we have great unanimity here at F1technical about the the way KERS should be implemented in order to make sense.

• energy from all wheels should ultimately be harvested
• harvested energy should not be limited but maximised
• stored energy should not be limited
• release of energy should not be limited to push to pass
• dual torque drive should be allowed
• dual torque mode in braking and acceleration should be controlled by SECU
• the driver pedals should fully control braking and acceleration in dual torque mode
• No ABS or stability control should be introduced via KERS.

[Ogami musashi]

Newer generation Kers systems should be part of an ongoing development of over all power production and delivery and not just a gimick for boosting overtaking.
The regulations should be structured to encourage a new competition in this technical area and to reduce development in aero.
If the regulations on powertrains for 2013 are rigidly defined, it will stagnate F1 at a level of public interest lower than it receives today.
The aero and DF issues are barely appreciated by ordinary viewers and have no relevence to road vehicles or current reality, Kers by comparison effects EVERYONE.
Patrick Head and others keep making reference to the 'shock and awe' effect of watching and listening to F1 cars at F1 races. Apart from the crass reference to this criminal American statement, this comment only makes sense to those of us directly involved in F1 or those few fortunate enough to actualy go to F1 races. The VAST majority of F1 supporters NEVER experience this effect, anymore than they ever flew in Concorde. It is totaly irelevent in the crucial task of keeping F1 alive.

You car moves through the air; Fuel consumption is directly related to drag.

As for downforce, is not currently in use in saloon cars yet it could provide major safety improvements over rain and icy conditions.

Next year rules are intersting; We'll see how this develops.

[autogyro]

Newer generation Kers systems should be part of an ongoing development of over all power production and delivery and not just a gimick for boosting overtaking.
The regulations should be structured to encourage a new competition in this technical area and to reduce development in aero.
If the regulations on powertrains for 2013 are rigidly defined, it will stagnate F1 at a level of public interest lower than it receives today.
The aero and DF issues are barely appreciated by ordinary viewers and have no relevence to road vehicles or current reality, Kers by comparison effects EVERYONE.
Patrick Head and others keep making reference to the 'shock and awe' effect of watching and listening to F1 cars at F1 races. Apart from the crass reference to this criminal American statement, this comment only makes sense to those of us directly involved in F1 or those few fortunate enough to actualy go to F1 races. The VAST majority of F1 supporters NEVER experience this effect, anymore than they ever flew in Concorde. It is totaly irelevent in the crucial task of keeping F1 alive.

You car moves through the air; Fuel consumption is directly related to drag.

As for downforce, is not currently in use in saloon cars yet it could provide major safety improvements over rain and icy conditions.

Next year rules are intersting; We'll see how this develops.

So it is streamlining now is it, gone back a bit then?
How can high DF improve road car safety in rainy and icy conditions?
Will it prevent cars slidding on ice at under 30 mph?
Perleeease that is aero BS.

[WhiteBlue]

As for downforce, is not currently in use in saloon cars yet it could provide major safety improvements over rain and icy conditions.

How can high DF improve road car safety in rainy and icy conditions?
Will it prevent cars slidding on ice at under 30 mph?
Perleeease that is aero BS.

+1

The price in cw and fuel consumption to pay would be prohibitive.

[PNSD]

F1 cars are soley about downforce, and even they struggle to keep up with a jumped up Merc in the wet !

[Ogami musashi]

Newer generation Kers systems should be part of an ongoing development of over all power production and delivery and not just a gimick for boosting overtaking.
The regulations should be structured to encourage a new competition in this technical area and to reduce development in aero.
If the regulations on powertrains for 2013 are rigidly defined, it will stagnate F1 at a level of public interest lower than it receives today.
The aero and DF issues are barely appreciated by ordinary viewers and have no relevence to road vehicles or current reality, Kers by comparison effects EVERYONE.
Patrick Head and others keep making reference to the 'shock and awe' effect of watching and listening to F1 cars at F1 races. Apart from the crass reference to this criminal American statement, this comment only makes sense to those of us directly involved in F1 or those few fortunate enough to actualy go to F1 races. The VAST majority of F1 supporters NEVER experience this effect, anymore than they ever flew in Concorde. It is totaly irelevent in the crucial task of keeping F1 alive.

You car moves through the air; Fuel consumption is directly related to drag.

As for downforce, is not currently in use in saloon cars yet it could provide major safety improvements over rain and icy conditions.

Next year rules are intersting; We'll see how this develops.

So it is streamlining now is it, gone back a bit then?
How can high DF improve road car safety in rainy and icy conditions?
Will it prevent cars slidding on ice at under 30 mph?
Perleeease that is aero BS.

Because DF helps with crushing the water film for wet roads (why do you think maximum DF trim are used in wet races?) and for icy condition it helps the tyres bite into the ice.

It could also (and is used for) be used to prevent sudden loss of grip at high speed.

And no the drag wouldn't be necessarily high since you can have moderate DF levels via tunnels and active flow management;
Before jumping on the aero sect paranioa, this is exactly what ferrari is doing with its 599XX and BWM with smart fluids dynamics systems.

[autogyro]

So go drive Ferrai 599XX on sheet ice and see how well it stops.
I gaurantee I can stop a Mini in a lot shorter distance.
You are giving a similar silly argument as those who buy big 4x4s and huge ... pick up trucks and think they will go around corners or stop better with four wheeled drive.
There is an over all discipline that needs to be learnt before even the biggest University students can apply their degrees and huge learning to vehicle design of any kind.
It is called common sense.
It is not DF that grips the road it is the tyres, think on that for a while.

[Ogami musashi]

Your common sense needs a bit a university degree then.

tyre grip is function of tyre friction coefficient and normal load; guess what DF does with normal load.

Google a bit with the term "virtual weight", "Wet tyre technology" and or "icy conditions".

Michelin used to have a pretty good pdf on that; but maybe michelin are just lacking common sense.

[WhiteBlue]

Ogami musashi, for once you should remove your rose tinted glasses and admit that downforce always comes with a drag penalty. There is no exception to that rule. In the case of road cars with fierce competition for minimum fuel use in class downforce with even 90% aerodynamic efficiency would not be acceptable. Now tell us honestly that any road car downforce measures would be 90% efficient, particularly considering that the breaking gets predominantly done on the front wheels. You obviously always avoid efficiency and absolute downforce/drag figures because your fancy theories would collaps like a house of cards.

If you know so much about aero as you make believe you should be able to quantify downforce, drag, efficiency, power utilization and the fuel use penalty. If you did that your credibility would dramatically rise compared to now.

[autogyro]

I see you have yet to take my advise and to think for a while.

[Ogami musashi]

Ogami musashi, for once you should remove your rose tinted glasses and admit that downforce always comes with a drag penalty. There is no exception to that rule. In the case of road cars with fierce competition for minimum fuel use in class downforce with even 90% aerodynamic efficiency would not be acceptable. Now tell us honestly that any road car downforce measures would be 90% efficient, particularly considering that the breaking gets predominantly done on the front wheels. You obviously always avoid efficiency and absolute downforce/drag figures because your fancy theories would collaps like a house of cards.

If you know so much about aero as you make believe you should be able to quantify downforce, drag, efficiency, power utilization and the fuel use penalty. If you did that your credibility would dramatically rise compared to now.

Lol, I don't need to be credible. Not more than you are now (that is..not so much).

Drag comes from anything that moves through the air and all is a compromise.
When you house a KERS into your car, you add weight..so now you would need to discard it because of weight? (weight=more fuel consumption).

No of course; you need to save in some other areas;
Same goes with aeros, the drag associated with downforce can be compensated by less drag due to lift.

Your last remark on my credibility is really stupid; Putting numbers require to run CFD/Windtunnel series to be accurate and i don't own neither of the two.
This is especially stupid since you assess your own remark without those same numbers.

So now, stop the personal attacks and do like me: if you can't get along with someone, ignore his posts. I do that everytime i read yours or else i would spend my time repeating the same thing over and over.

Oh and yes, let's talk about number and ponder that:

For an F1 (with DF levels far higher than necessary for a road car) the basic df/drag ratio for a wing is 3,5; The basic ratio for a full venturi channel is 11.
Both combined gave under test done by by RDV on autosport forum (track engineers...is it credible enough to you?) gave a total configuration L/D of 7,7 that is more than 200% the actual L/D ratio for an F1 car and that considering the level of downforce needed to simply allow a car to have better handling caracteristics on mixed surfaces would be about 3 to 4 times less than an F1 car.

The F599XX uses active blowed venturis and no the drag didn't went up higher because:
-It has active systeme I.E the downforce is CUT at high speed.
-The venturis are sealed.

Now bear with that, your continuous pseudo expertise into "what is good, what is bad" is based on dreams not sound science; And i'll post whenever i want to say why i think this is wrong.

[PNSD]

I agree Ogami... to an extent.

Let's not lose sight of what we are discussing, icy and wet conditions.

On a road car, given the speeds, for downforce to have real effect on handling characteristics or to give the driver more confidence or feel safer, the downforce would have to be pretty huge, and these levels are simply not practical for other conditions.

I agree with that downforce 'could' provide more saftey when driving these conditions, however is it necessary for the design (and maybe drag) penalty?

[Ogami musashi]

Not necessarily PSND; Because the goal is not to give the driver a supa dupa grip that would enable him to take corners full throttle (which would be dangerous), but simply give more consistence of the grip.

The main drops in tyre's friction coefficient are due to the water film and pressure ahead of the tyre.

On the whole, the tyre's grip coefficient is preserved at low speeds until the tyre can't get though the water film, hence even moderate downforce would help.

At high speeds with observe friction coefficient drops by 2 (1 to 0.5 from 30km/h to 130km/h) since the tyre's grip is coefficient*normal load, even 200kg of downforce (at 130km/h) can prove benefical with low drag penalty.

http://www.michelin.co.uk/michelinuk/en ... 6_100.html

Current figures for F599XX range at 700KG of downforce at very high speed;

[piast9]

Ogami, my rough calculations show that current F1 cars, which have drag coefficient of opened umbrella, would generate about 350kg of downforce at 130kph...