2009 design concepts

[Scotracer]

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.

It didn't cost too much to make that CDG wing concept. The teams never started developing a car around it so that point is moot. The OWG did a lot of testing before coming to the now official 2009 regulations so it must be of some benefit.

To be honest, the 1997 cars (F310B ) were the best looking to me but the narrow cars grew on me and I'm sure this will too.

[Ogami musashi]

Those narrower wing doesnt decrease drag behind the wing

While i see what you mean, pay attention that "decrease drag" in flowfield means nothing. Drag is not decreased in the air, it is drag on an object.
For instance in the same wake, one object can experience increased drag, on another decreased drag.

, now you will have the wing, the space between will have turbulence too and behind the rear wheels too so it wont make difference.

Turbulence is mandatory. You can't expect to have no turbulence. A wing by essence produces a little turbulence (kutta condition) now this is how this turbulence (the wake) is shaped (its structure) that defines the severity of the problem.
In our case narrowing the rear wing allows for less detrimental effect of the counter rotative vortex coming from the wheels on the end plates and rear wing assembly.

With the CFD wing only the section behind the rear wheels will have turbulence so the slipstream will be better.

No. The central section would have had turbulence anyway. Not only because of profile but also because of vicinity of the wings and wheels.
Everything is interlinked.

You have to understand that slipstreaming is only possible when you accept a loss of pressure which means a loss of downforce.

The trick of the CDG assembly was that the central part produced a downwash (so the name..). This downwash was of decreased pressure too thus allowing slipstream but the downwash itself increased the effective angle of attack of the following's car front wing, giving back the downforce loss.

The idea is neat, but needs to be carefully shaped. That's why it was postponed.

[ss_collins]

Williams have a go...

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... -aero.html

[jddh1]

As a gas dynamics student myself, I'll have to say that Ogami is in right with his comments.

[Carbon]

Narrower track, grooved tyres and now, a tall and narrow rear wing. Is the FIA really doing every thing it can to make the cars as ugly as possible? That Williams is horrendous!

[donskar]

Narrower track, grooved tyres and now, a tall and narrow rear wing. Is the FIA really doing every thing it can to make the cars as ugly as possible? That Williams is horrendous!

Esthetics are very subjective, but it does look a little unbalanced. . . .

I think many serious F1 fans will also find a degree of ugliness in the standardization being pushed on the sport: F1 IMHO is moving toward being a very expensive F-Ford. Standard ECU, equal engines, standardized components, etc. None of that is F1.

[Scotracer]

Narrower track, grooved tyres and now, a tall and narrow rear wing. Is the FIA really doing every thing it can to make the cars as ugly as possible? That Williams is horrendous!

Esthetics are very subjective, but it does look a little unbalanced. . . .

I think many serious F1 fans will also find a degree of ugliness in the standardization being pushed on the sport: F1 IMHO is moving toward being a very expensive F-Ford. Standard ECU, equal engines, standardized components, etc. None of that is F1.

Oh I am much more concerned with the technical prowess of the cars, not whether they will win any beauty pageants.

I'm just so glad they didn't end up 5 seconds a lap slower than 2006 for 2009 -- the tail-enders would be getting nudged along by the fastest GP2 drivers.

[johnbeamer]

Good to see early glimpses of how a 2009 car may look. Interestingly Williams dispenses with the central section. The new regs do restrict the central section (width goes from 300mm to 150mm) somewhat but (as far as I can tell) don't prohibit it.

Will be interesting to see if any teams try to build an extended central section or not. The CFD may be showing it is quite awkward because come what may the central section upto 350mm behind the rear axle can only be 175mm above the ref plane. For 2008 this restriction didn't exist.

[SLC]

Good to see early glimpses of how a 2009 car may look. Interestingly Williams dispenses with the central section. The new regs do restrict the central section (width goes from 300mm to 150mm) somewhat but (as far as I can tell) don't prohibit it.

Will be interesting to see if any teams try to build an extended central section or not. The CFD may be showing it is quite awkward because come what may the central section upto 350mm behind the rear axle can only be 175mm above the ref plane. For 2008 this restriction didn't exist.

What?

What is this "central section?"

[Scotracer]

Good to see early glimpses of how a 2009 car may look. Interestingly Williams dispenses with the central section. The new regs do restrict the central section (width goes from 300mm to 150mm) somewhat but (as far as I can tell) don't prohibit it.

Will be interesting to see if any teams try to build an extended central section or not. The CFD may be showing it is quite awkward because come what may the central section upto 350mm behind the rear axle can only be 175mm above the ref plane. For 2008 this restriction didn't exist.

What?

What is this "central section?"

Current diffuser:


FW30B diffuser:

[sunny1304]

hi guys,

can anyone explain that exact rule is ensuring overtaking in f1 from 2009 ?????

if we assume that in 2009 ferrari will produce 100 unit downforce and force india will produce 85 unit, bmw may be 90....

then despite of the new rules will not ferrari have the advantage ??? and so far we have seen in f1 a better car cant be overtook by the slower cars unless some extreme sitiation ...

so what is the rule ensures overtaking from 2009 ????

plz explain.

[WhiteBlue]

the initial ideas were:

• set downforced limit for all cars at 1.2 tons (~ 50%)
• have CDG rear wing reduce turbulence behind the car
• allow movable front wings for following car to retain some front downforce in turbulence
• have a KERS push button instead of an automatic energy feed back from the KERS
• have wider wheel tracks and slicks as in the nineties

The teams have eliminated the downforce limit and think they will kill perhaps 15-20% downforce by restrictions on wing and endplace geometries.

The CDG wing is replaced by a slim central rear wing with higher blade and lower diffusor and the front wing is wider.

The wide tracks are eliminated.


fazit: the cars will look less appealing, the turbulence will still be relatively high and passing will still be difficult but a bit better. and the top teams can still find more performance from downforce which they would have lost as an option. I do not expect dramatic changes in the order of the teams. perhaps BMW will continue closing the gap because they are advanced with KERS. but in all honesty KERS isn't going to make such an impact next year with the castrated spec they did.

[Ogami musashi]

fazit: the cars will look less appealing, the turbulence will still be relatively high and passing will still be difficult but a bit better.

That's pure speculation.

The wake structure will be similar, the strength of turbulence not.

After that, the question is to know if the teams will really make cars that follow the OWG lines. But you can't say anything before you see it.

On the plans, the turbulence will be drastically reduced.

But turbulence was never the only problem.

[Scotracer]

fazit: the cars will look less appealing, the turbulence will still be relatively high and passing will still be difficult but a bit better.

That's pure speculation.

The wake structure will be similar, the strength of turbulence not.

After that, the question is to know if the teams will really make cars that follow the OWG lines. But you can't say anything before you see it.

On the plans, the turbulence will be drastically reduced.

But turbulence was never the only problem.

My Fluid dynamics knowledge is rather rusty, but isn't turbulence (downstream wake) the major contributor to drag? If turbulence is much reduced therefore drag will be too?

On another note: the diffuser for 2009 is much larger than I initially thought; no wonder the cars will only be 15% down on downforce.

[WhiteBlue]

fazit: the cars will look less appealing, the turbulence will still be relatively high and passing will still be difficult but a bit better.

That's pure speculation.

The wake structure will be similar, the strength of turbulence not.

After that, the question is to know if the teams will really make cars that follow the OWG lines. But you can't say anything before you see it.

On the plans, the turbulence will be drastically reduced.

But turbulence was never the only problem.

that is by no means speculation. the problem of dirty air is directly related to downforce. it is proportional. you can argue about the benign effects of certain types of downforce elements but in the end more downforce means more dirty air. perhaps some cars have less drag and turbulence and have different turbulence patterns but that isn't going to overrule the efect of 1 ton more or less downforce. so with pretty good accuracy you can predict that a 15% reduction in downforce and some changes in the devices that produce the downforce you are not going to make the improvement in passing that a 50% planned reduction had brought. if you can defeat that logic tell me how.