Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[andrew]

That's a risk they would have to take. Part of the problem is the cars are just too fast and the brakes are too efficent.

[machin]

Auto that's just what the guys above want; cars that are harder to drive!!!!

[aral]

You wont think that when some driver tries to pass another on the inside of a fast curve and the reduced DF on the rear upsets the aero balance and slides the rear end into the car being passed.

Ther passing car does not have to use the wing flattener. It is up to the driver to know how to handle his car, in ALL circumstances!

[autogyro]

Realy and you have thought this one through fully?

[ISLAMATRON]

Rule changes for next year:

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/160891/1/f ... uncil.html

I'm not sold on KERS but lets see what happens and they have not reviewed the ridiculous (and dangerous) testing ban.

The testing ban is a FOTA initiative, when they want to change it FOTA will say so and it will be rubberstamped.

[aral]

Realy and you have thought this one through fully?

YES! Have you?????

[autogyro]

I have and I have also driven race cars under test with moveable aero.
It can be extremely dangerous.

[strad]

This is just plain stupid and likely dangerous.

[aral]

I have and I have also driven race cars under test with moveable aero.
It can be extremely dangerous.

Unfortunately you make a lot of claims! I would point out that this year, and last year, F1 cars have used movable aero parts. Further, in years gone, there were adjustible rear and front wings, and few, if any accidents attributable to these. Other high power formulae, use movable devices, without problems. I don't like the idea, but some of the comments are ridiculous. Your original comment seemed to imply that during an overtaking move, on a corner, the wing would move without warning to the driver. I pointed out that it was the driver who would control its use, and therefore would be aware of the change in handling. And so what if the car hangs its tail out?? Watch some videos of races between 1920 and 1990!
You are not the only person on this forum who can claim to have driven cars with movable aero. Yet you seem to claim that it is dangerous! What car did you test, and when. I would be interested to know

[myurr]

I have and I have also driven race cars under test with moveable aero.
It can be extremely dangerous.

Unfortunately you make a lot of claims! I would point out that this year, and last year, F1 cars have used movable aero parts. Further, in years gone, there were adjustible rear and front wings, and few, if any accidents attributable to these. Other high power formulae, use movable devices, without problems. I don't like the idea, but some of the comments are ridiculous. Your original comment seemed to imply that during an overtaking move, on a corner, the wing would move without warning to the driver. I pointed out that it was the driver who would control its use, and therefore would be aware of the change in handling. And so what if the car hangs its tail out?? Watch some videos of races between 1920 and 1990!
You are not the only person on this forum who can claim to have driven cars with movable aero. Yet you seem to claim that it is dangerous! What car did you test, and when. I would be interested to know

Forget the arguments over whether it's dangerous or not - if used as designed then it's not dangerous, if it breaks (Red Bull I'm looking at you) then it could be very dangerous. The slipstreams of old did not have the possibility of breaking!

The real issue is what it will mean for the racing. Take the race at Turkey this year with 4 drivers all within a second of the car in front if you include the race leader - with moveable aero this would mean that all but Webber would have had a 15 kmph speed boost down the straights, leading to one of three outcomes:

1. No overall difference to the racing, in which case it's just a big waste of time and money.
2. The faster car gets past more easily and disappears into the distance, depriving us of the tense race that we had.
3. The faster car gets past, but then the car behind repasses, ad infinitum. In my view this outcome would be equally as pointless as outcome 1 and all that's happened is that we have some stupid artificial change of places happening.

So where's the win for the fans? Where's the excitement and drama? How does this add anything worthwhile to the sport?

Frankly I believe that this measure is aimed at solving a problem that isn't really there. As has been demonstrated time and again ever since it was first raised by the Toyota aero guy and on the James Allen blog, the real problem with F1 isn't the aero it's the mechanical side of things.

Make the tyres marginal and reduce mechanical grip in the dry and you instantly improve the spectacle without the need to artificially adjust the pace of individual drivers like some arcade game (this would also work in wet races, as you could then give the drivers optimum tyres to compensate for the track conditions). If you want to go that route why not do something equally artificial like limit the race leader to 600hp via the ECU and then give each driver 1 additional hp for each second they are behind? That'd help keep the field nicely bunched up, etc. Or each lap give each driver a random power up - unlock 7th gear, allow them to 'zap' the car in front to slow them down, give them 10hp more for 30 seconds.

Ridiculous? Yes sure it is, but to me changing the characteristics of someones car just because they're behind another driver and giving them an artificial boost in performance belongs in that same category of silly ideas. It sounds like something Bernie would dream up, which to me says it all.

[Ogami musashi]

As it was said before, prior to downforce cars, being in the slipstream of somebody resulted in less drag AND more grip...

If you wait till next year to see what it gives as result before jumping onto conclusions....

[WhiteBlue]

As has been demonstrated time and again ever since it was first raised by the Toyota aero guy and on the James Allen blog, the real problem with F1 isn't the aero it's the mechanical side of things...

Make the tyres marginal and reduce mechanical grip in the dry and you instantly improve the spectacle...

You talk as if mechanical grip would constitute a problem to good side by side racing. The opposite is true. Mechanical grip rules in slow corners and those have not been a problem for close racing at all.

The problem occurs when cars have to negotiate fast to medium corners in close proximity. The leading car produces twice as much aero grip as the following car and any advantage the follower may have gained in the slipstream is taken away by the downforce disadvantage of running in dirty air.

If it were possible to make the tyres hard enough to avoid marbles off the racing line that would help a little bit actually. As long as tyres are safe and the same for all I personally do not care much for the performance level they provide. Tyres should be a neutral issue like fuel and not something that influences the race outcome. I would much prefer an extremely durable prime tyre which can run the whole race and offer limited advantage to the option tyre in terms of lap time. I would not mind at all if they go back to wide tracks and fatter tyres as the turbos of old had.

For me the F1 WCC should be an engineering battle for the most fuel efficient chassis and power train. Any development that improves the efficiency should be allowed unless it constitutes a driver aid such as launch control, ABS and ESP. Adaptive and adjustable aero, mass dampers, active suspension and other fuel saving technologies should be allowed as long as the fuel budget is small enough to limit the use of aerodynamic forces to a minimum.

[myurr]

As has been demonstrated time and again ever since it was first raised by the Toyota aero guy and on the James Allen blog, the real problem with F1 isn't the aero it's the mechanical side of things...

Make the tyres marginal and reduce mechanical grip in the dry and you instantly improve the spectacle...

You talk as if mechanical grip would constitute a problem to good side by side racing. The opposite is true. Mechanical grip rules in slow corners and those have not been a problem for close racing at all.

The problem occurs when cars have to negotiate fast to medium corners in close proximity. The leading car produces twice as much aero grip as the following car and any advantage the follower may have gained in the slipstream is taken away by the downforce disadvantage of running in dirty air.

If it were possible to make the tyres hard enough to avoid marbles off the racing line that would help a little bit actually. As long as tyres are safe and the same for all I personally do not care much for the performance level they provide. Tyres should be a neutral issue like fuel and not something that influences the race outcome. I would much prefer an extremely durable prime tyre which can run the whole race and offer limited advantage to the option tyre in terms of lap time. I would not mind at all if they go back to wide tracks and fatter tyres as the turbos of old had.

Mechanical grip on it's own is obviously not an issue, however huge levels of mechanical grip in combination with the aero of a current F1 car does constitute an issue. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to look at a damp race - take away the mechanical grip and the cars have no problems racing each other in close formation.

The rain also helps in reducing or even eliminating the advantage of maintaining the racing line, so I do agree with you that a harder tyre would help through the reduction in marbles forming off-line. I would also happily change the brakes as again a fair portion of the problems racing in the dry relate to the current high performance brakes and ridiculously short braking zones.

The FIA has tried to control the downforce levels on the cars for years and has rarely been able to have a beneficial effect on the racing. One definition of stupid is the repetition of the same thing over and over, each time expecting a different result. Controlling aero has been attempted repeatedly with little effect, wet races show that with reduced mechanical grip the current aero no longer poses a problem, surely it's time to try something else?

For me the F1 WCC should be an engineering battle for the most fuel efficient chassis and power train. Any development that improves the efficiency should be allowed unless it constitutes a driver aid such as launch control, ABS and ESP. Adaptive and adjustable aero, mass dampers, active suspension and other fuel saving technologies should be allowed as long as the fuel budget is small enough to limit the use of aerodynamic forces to a minimum.

I agree with some of the sentiment but for me the WDC is more important than the WCC, and I suspect the same is true for the majority of fans even amongst those on this board. Unfortunately a battle between drivers on an equal platform to see who is best is mutually exclusive with a battle between constructors to see whose car is best. What we currently strive for is a situation where by the gaps between the top teams are small enough and fluctuate enough from race to race that the driver has a real impact on deciding the WDC - those drivers that make the most of their bad days as well as pressing home their advantage on the good days will be the ones that rise to the top of the championship.

I have always liked the idea of using fuel levels to control the pace of the cars though. It would allow the FIA to open up the regs a fair bit whilst still controlling the pace of the cars. Agree a race by race fuel budget according to each tracks needs, and then let each team get their car to the end of the race as fast as they can within that budget. This would lead to road relevant technologies.

However we shouldn't forget that F1 cars are already extremely efficient for the pace and power they produce - an F1 engine is more fuel efficient than any road car per horsepower produced.

[WhiteBlue]

You cannot compare wet and dry races. Aerodynamics basically do not work in wet races as designed. You still get the downforce but the lateral acceleration cannot build up to the level as seen in the dry due to much reduced tyre grip and aquaplaning. The tyre grip seen in wet race cannot be achieved under dry conditions.

To say that the FiA has tried to cut aero forces without success is misleading. The FiA has made a very sensible proposal to cut downforce to 1.25 metric tons which has been rejected by the teams for their own selfish reasons. The passing/aero problem could be history since 2007 if the teams had accepted the FiA proposal.

F1 engines may have been efficient for the power level they produced some years ago but in the last five years the efficiency of racing engines has moved in leaps and bounds (as witnessed at LeMans some weeks ago). The Audis and Peugeots were using 48L/100km for a heavier car with 900 kg. F1 uses 75L/100km with 560 kg, is seriously behind the game and needs to catch up.

[myurr]

You cannot compare wet and dry races. Aerodynamics basically do not work in wet races as designed. You still get the downforce but the lateral acceleration cannot build up to the level as seen in the dry due to much reduced tyre grip and aquaplaning. The tyre grip seen in wet race cannot be achieved under dry conditions.

Your first three sentences contradict each other and ultimately end up agreeing with me. The aero is the same, the lateral acceleration cannot build up due to reduced tyre grip and aquaplaning. Whilst I'm sure the tyre companies cannot reproduce this effect exactly, there is no question that they could produce a tyre that in the dry behaved more like current wet tyres in terms of the level of grip and propensity to slide. This should help with the races, and I am backed by a public interview with a Toyota aerodynamicist. Whilst he would no doubt have certain biases, I would hope you agree that he would be vastly better informed than either of us.

To say that the FiA has tried to cut aero forces without success is misleading. The FiA has made a very sensible proposal to cut downforce to 1.25 metric tons which has been rejected by the teams for their own selfish reasons. The passing/aero problem could be history since 2007 if the teams had accepted the FiA proposal.

Yes yes, FIA good FOTA and the teams bad. This is one proposal, but there have been many other attempts by the FIA often in collaboration with the team to control the levels of downforce in the name of helping the racing. 2009's aero rules were a prime example of this. At least at the beginning of the year the downforce levels were much reduced from the previous year yet there was no real increase in the ability of cars to follow each other closely.

The aero rules were ruined somewhat by the FIA ruling DDD's to be legal, but still the attempt was made with little effect.

F1 engines may have been efficient for the power level they produced some years ago but in the last five years the efficiency of racing engines has moved in leaps and bounds (as witnessed at LeMans some weeks ago). The Audis and Peugeots were using 48L/100km for a heavier car with 900 kg. F1 uses 75L/100km with 560 kg, is seriously behind the game and needs to catch up.

It's not really a fair comparison as the downforce and drag of the cars at speed are going to be dramatically different. However there is one reason alone that the efficiency of F1 engines has stagnated, and that is the engine homologation rules brought in by your beloved FIA. You're also comparing diesel engines to petrol, which is not a direct like for like comparison. I'm sure you know the energy density of diesel is greater than petrol in addition to any efficiencies of the power plants themselves.

But ultimately I agree with you that the rules should be changed to give each team a certain quantity of fuel with which they have to get to the end of the race as quickly as they can. This can be adjusted race by race and year by year to control the pace of the cars allowing for much more open rules without fear of the cars getting too fast. It will also lead to more road relevant technology filtering out of F1, increasing attractiveness of the series for manufacturers and therefore justifying the likely higher costs. The RRA would need serious adjustment were we to go down this route though.