Maybe it's a silly question/poll, but hey! It's silly season, one of the silliest in the last years ;)
We all seen the "double diffuser" coming out on the begin of 2009 season, and what advantage did it give to the Brawn GP, and what disadvantage it give to McLaren, Ferrari, BMW the top3 teams of 2008.
Do you guys think, that the smart guys of the teams, can find another field in the 2010 regulations, that other teams don't fiend, to gain so much advantage on the start of the 2010 season like BGP, Toyota, Williams seemed to had on the start of 2009?
Or are the regulation changes (no fuel,smaller front tyres) to small to find out something similar (similar,in the pace that it gives, not technically) for the new cars?

USF1 will come to the grid full guns blazing.

The press desire to know their moves but USF1 just denies them access.

The Cosworth should be the new trick, with it's 15 hp more and better consumption thanks to FIA poltics.

Maybe Williams will do good, but they never quite have the pace to win a race recently.

There isn't an invention like the DD every year. It was very rare and lucky that they spotted it

Semi-auto gearbox? 3 tenths?
Twin keel? 2 tenths?
V-keel? 1 tenth?
Zero-keel? 1.5 tenths?
Seamless shift? 3 tenths?
The Alonso? 6 tenths?

Plenty of buzzwords are possible

Ferrari found a way to get extra six tenths.

Tripple Fuel Bags...

Maybe something for even faster tire change.

Is your poll suggesting Williams have no chance?

Sorry, added sir Franks team, BTW they talked I think since 2 years about their perfect mechanical KERS, and what? Nothing...

I think Ferrari/McLaren/Reno/Ross Brawn - they always can find way to cheat

It wasn't rare or lucky that they spotted it. The very concept was talked about by the teams during winter but most of the people presumed FIA would enforce it's new pro-overtaking down-with-dirty-air-and-big-diffusers policy. They made the new rules. There was some slack in them. Most people (including me) thought FIA would swiftly move to ban any apparatus breaking the spirit of the rules. They didn't. Perhaps because times are tough and Brawn needed the help. Perhaps. It certainly helped boost Mosley's agenda for attracting small teams. "Look, a small team can win too!" Forgetting that Brawn had half a season extra and Honda's massive budget to design the car.

/Rant over

^ What he said

The gaps in the rules were few this year - the DD gap was queried after the regulations were drafted, but the teams left the gate open for three teams to drive through. This year such opportunities are likely gone, as the rules haven't much changed.

The big issue will be tyre life, as the cars will start with 150 kg extra fuel this year, and the cars will end up with this year's racing weight at about half race distance, or more likely with one third of the race left to go, or even one quarter of the race left when compared to a three stopping strategy from this year. With the weight shifted back a bit due to skinnier front tyres, and no KERS weight issues, and with fuel tanks highly regulated, the cars will be more similar in weight too. Unless someone can come up with something clever with managing for fuel weights, I see the cars being more similar next season to each other than they were this year.

No wheels covers and much greater stress on the brakes will produce some interesting changes in brakes and their consequent aero. I reckon in that area there might be some better solutions.

With such heavier cars, a greater importance in the mechanical package will result also - suspensions will be more important than they have been for a long time IMO. But I don't see any holes in the rules opening up any doors in that area either. Its a refinement year IMO, with challenges in fuel weights, radiator packaging due to larger fuel tanks, tyre life, the compromise between qualifying position and getting tyre life in the race, and getting good brakes while retaining good aero. I presume the big teams will rise again, and that for instance the Ferrari will have a lower CofG than all the other cars. It's dubious that we'll find out if they did get it and it follows that therefore we'll not find out how they got it. We'll just get the platitudes about the team working hard but we'll get nothing meaningful IMO.

How about Williams with KERS.

Are they still planning running it, while all others are not? Or did they agree not to run it when readmitted to FOTA?

I read from another team that all the entrants had agreed not to run KERS.

A great shame IMO. Williams mechanical system was inspired. I think that for city cars, using batteries is dumb too - a mechanical KERS that weight an extra 30kg would greatly improve city stop start traffic induced high fuel consumption. Such a system would also stop brake disk and and pad wear, hence such a system further save running costs. The issue for a road car IMO would simply be where to input the power, is there something better than a CVT input method?

Whoever decided on batteries for the F1 program wrecked the whole concept IMO, and the tyre balance being so far out also destroyed KERS chances of being effective. Its ironic that the car makers who dominated FOTA banned KERS, and now the car manufacturers have mostly left the competition. And yet the Mercedes funded McLaren team actually had a KERS system that worked, even with the too wide front tyres.

:sigh: No KERS after spending all that money developing it ?

I can understand williams wanting to keep it as they developed their purely mechanical KERS but never actually got to put it on the car in 2009...

I see Audi have even put it on their road cars now...
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/audi-tec...-2009-6459.html

Whatever happened to innovation in F1 ?

I hated fuel stops though, just give them x litres of fuel per race
and let them design any engine they like.... v8 v10 v12, rotary...

And... they have a working system, it just turned out that the car works better without it.

If one does, tries to warn other teams as Ross Brawn did and most of them are dumb enough again not to listen then I guess yes, it can happen again.

Wow! Never thought of that. I think that's a great idea! And surely if they are trying to 'green' F1 this would help.

To add to that.. how about weighing the car without fuel - that way any fuel efficiency advantage would be doubly important, since it would allow you to have a lighter and therefore faster car.

To paraphrase, Ross basically said "This needs clarification" and the response was "We don't think so". They didn't understand that one line could be extrapolated to a diffuser with such an advantage until Williams and Toyota hit the track.

Mosley happened

I to would love to see some innovation in F1 still. Not this stale cr#p we have now and this would be a good start.

But it would have to be controlled under some sort of a budget.

Williams KERS was only initially purely mechanical (using CVT?), but a purely mechanical system like that that is a waste of time IMO.

Last I heard their current in-development KERS uses a flywheel (mechanical battery), but power is transferred using electricity (motor/generator).

I hope they keep it too (it's legal).

Homer Simpson: "They have Triple Diffusers on cars now?!?"

Actually Mosley's scheme for 2010 was for much more open rules for teams that achieved a budget cap, and for the rest of the teams, they had more restrictive rules.

The manufacturer influence greatly changed F1, with manufacturers investing greater and greater funds which were matched by equally greater expectations. Such expectations worked only if just the one manufacturer increased its expenditures, unfortunately they all did. And hence the FIA reacted, IMO somewhat too late. The manufacturers lead the fight against the FIA, and now curiously there are only three left, two if one considers Ferrari not a manufacturer (they do only build a few thousand cars a year), and Renault's interest seems somewhat limited. I also get the feeling that if all the manufacturers were still here, that Mercedes would not have bought Brawn ...

Indeed.

To get engine makers interested in pumping a fortune into engine development, the engine tech needs to be relevant to the real world. So what about saying that the engine is not just a single big engine, of little real world value. Instead, its got to be made of 5 little engines, of the sort that may be powering cars for the next decade or two, until electric takes over. Combine that with a fuel limit which makes for each little engine doing about 70mpg, but with 5 of them, they still get good performance (albeit heavier). Allow only limited sharing of components between the 5 engines, and allow lightweight construction (as that wouldn't much affect transferring the engine tech to the real world).

Re the DD - I reckon they have a lot to learn about aero that 'switches' depending on speed - they can develop better ways of making high downforce at low speeds, but have spoiling parts that break up airflow at high speed, to reduce drag more. Maybe using those adjustable front wings to control where the airflow changes.

I would have thought that tyre changes will only be down to how good the mechanics are this season. Get it right and you're back and running in about three seconds, but one fumble and you've lost three more.

Can't see any DD loophole like last year, which will bring a performance gain like the DD did.

Although plenty of technical directors didn't see it coming twelve months ago...

I'm inclined to agree with you that there won't be anything so significantly effective this season however.

I'm not an engineer, but coupling 5 engines in one car that uses all the limits, it sound too complex for me and to much things can go wrong in such solution.
Less restrictions - unfreezing the engine development under strict rules - fuel and horse power limit, that should be enough to encourage the makers. I think that taking some high-tech developed solutions from a 2-3 l 700 HP engine to the real world is a much less complex task, than making an 5 engine unit for a F1 car.



That sounds interesting, I don't know exactly, how the adjustable front wing regulations look like, and how much you can adjust there, but there could be plenty of space for the developing the rest of the aero in such "two way" mode, that works with high or low downforce, dependent to the adjustable setup of the fron wing, is it possible that I'm right?

Better yet: allow a certain amount of energy per race. That way you'd open up development away from petrol engines, too: electric, hybrid, nuclear or steam powered cars could all be there.

has no-one learned yet from the mishaps at Indianapolis because of allowing alternative kind of engines?
Think about the STP turbines....
The Mercedes engine in the Penske of 1994....
And what it could have caused...

Oh I forgot, who cares about those oval racers and how they blew their series into pieces....

That so often suggested bring what you want as long as it doesn't use more than an allocated amount of fuel has been tried in Gp C from 1982 tot 1990.
And after a hopeful start the formula sank after all.



Henri

What about a shrinking body shell, in a way this think carbon fiber shell to become flat on high speed making the drag and the frontal surface area slightly smaller...?

Called flex, its been happening for years. And it still does, but in some areas, its restricted.

I've been saying that for years!

The earliest was in a technical forum thread, which was more detailed.

But here's what I said in 2001:


I'd now add a ballasted driver with an all up ballasted weight of 75kg, and a centre of gravity for the driver of perhaps (at a guess) 1.3 metres from base of the driver. I don't like the trend to drivers who are smaller than jockeys and awarding them a competitive advantage because they are so small and light.

Another issue would be how clever the cars could be. Perhaps one way might be to only allow a certain amount of weight to be used for driver/car aids ... or perhaps just give the teams an FIA computer as the only source for all their electronic aids, which is really what they are doing now with the ECU. But everything is very restricted now. In an open formula, such aids should be allowed IMO.

Another issue would be to stop having smooth tracks. These were a good idea, but IMO they are not a good idea anymore. And we do not need smooth tracks, because right now, F1 cars ride the curbs as much as they can. IMO if on high speed turns, the cars had to handle corrugations, then suspensions would come back, things would be much more interesting. Grip levels would fall a lot, and the cars would be far more mechanical, and hence aero would play a much lesser role. And having aero working to increase handling on un-even roads - would surely greatly assist road cars, and hence be relevant. F1 cars have become just powerful carts IMO. They could be so much more.

Couldn't you have a single engine and shut down the cylinders, but aren't F1 cars almost always being driven on 100% throttle demand for most of the time the driver is accelerating?

What was wrong with them, I thought they were quite competitive overall? Drivers were still killed in the piston cars as well as the turbine ones weren't they, presumably neither car was more dangerous than the other I mean.

I was being a bit blue sky for sure - I was just trying to think of ways to get engine development and have it be affordable for the companies involved, and it would help if F1 engines had a lot more in common with a more normal engine. And if they had more in common, they would have power output more like 150hp, hence needing 5. Basically, F1 should start closing the gap between F1 engine tech and where car engines are going (small capacity, turbo, economical, lower revs (than F1)). IF F1 engine development was more usable in the real world, we might start to see some interesting innovations that could make a double diffuser type difference - obviously not for 2010 though.

Another thought - I reckon they can somehow direct exhaust gases more, to affect airflow more beneficially, in particular to reduce rear wing downforce at high speeds. It seems not quite arbitrary how they do it at the moment, but also not very well refined - probably being unfair there though.

Also, while you cannot have moveable aero parts, I wonder if that includes the driver themselves, or their helmet? Maybe helmets could have wings that the driver controls by moving their head. Or at least maybe they could give the driver a top fin, so they can balance out some of the forces on their heads from cornering speeds... If they had a big fin, and the helmet is so strong, maybe they could generate some extra cornering force... Then instead of their head being pushed to the outside when cornering, its pushed to the inside by aero... I am sure it would be banned on safety grounds, but it would be amusing to see if it could generate a significant benefit. I guess maybe the same thing for their gloves - fit them with deflectors, to modify the airflow..

Also I wonder if airflow around the inside of the cockpit matters? You know how when people go kayaking, they have those sort of covers, to stop water getting in - maybe an F1 cockpit could have a similar thing, to prevent turbulence inside the cockpit upsetting the airflow over the body? Even hotter though...

Hmm - the ideal helmet aerodynamically might be some sort of large Darth Vader thing, with such a big flange in front that covers the cockpit and a shark fin and a miniature rear wing - better for aero, if not safety...

Sadly, I think the most significant development for 2010 will be the one that gives the best predictions for when people will pit, and gives a driver the best chance of not rejoining behind a car on old tyres for lots of laps. Modelling the race better could be a killer difference in 2010 - watch for the team that always seems to be lucky with their stops, and come out in clear air - there is a software DD behind it...

Ah I am going to regret suggesting 5 small engines... It was only a thought about how to make it more attractive for engine developers, its not a real solution to that problem, but the principle of reversing the divergence of F1 engines from the general engine seems a good way to get more engine innovation, if engine development ever opens up again.

But what you said, shutting down cylinders - I guess it can't be done because of engine freeze, but with an F1 engine, could you actually switch it from a V8 firing sequence to a V6 firing sequence? Then you could save fuel, if you had pitted and were on new tyres, stuck behind a slow car on old tyres, so you could run longer? Probably destroy the cylinders though - doesn't the fuel provide part of the lubrication?

I wasn'nt referring to them as being dangerous or so.
Have you read the outcries from the opposition because of the money involved and money to spend ton joining the STP team? Money they didn't want to spend after haveng spend so much already in first replacing their roadsters and Offies for rear engined cars and Fords.

My message was this; Teams have to invest money etc. in developping their preffered choise of what they believe to be most optimal engine. But if one rich team spends more in developping an alternative that is superior (think about the mercedes engine of Penske in 1994) then everyone is obliged to follow suit in order to stand a chance to remain competitive. You should see/read how the CART teams felt ehen they realized that the engine of chois for the majority of the season (2.65 liter Quadcam V8) was useless at Indianapolis against a 4.43 Pushrod V8 like the Mercedes. Which meant for the teams to develop two entirely different engines and two entirely different cars to make optimal use of these different engines too! Anad that at a time when USAC proclamied they wanted to help racing with making it more accessable for the minor teams too. Instead, the costs only raised even more sky-high if the Pushrod was retained as a valid option.

And if F1 really wants to have budget caps, how can that work if you open up all engine freedom?
or do you want the teams that gambled on the wrong option to accept defeat and run around in circles despite they are in no chance to be competitive anymore but accept it because your budget is gone for this year?



That suggested unlimited engine formula that some out here promote can't work in F1 anymore if budget caps come in.
History has proven by now that it is better to steer engine opportunities within a narrow range of specification, a bit of freedom permitted. But not include too many alternatives because sooner or later it will be abused/used at the expence of the other competitors.
History has proven that on several occasions already.

That is the message.


Henri

Alonso is a diffuser?

I thought I'd read somewhere that Macca were planning a Triple Deck Diffuser?? Let the TDD be the new buzzword

Sadly, I agree you are completely right in your post. Having too dominant an engine would spoil the competition, and in a budget limited world (real budget or cap) would lead to some awful situations where there was no possibility to do anything other than surrender for the season.

Ways around it are:

- Copying formally included in the regulations. Engine technology (and all tech) has to be always shared after a limited window - say 3 races (or varying times depending on tech type). Same as the DD was shared after 1 race really - and after half a season others had it and were clawing back the difference. Harder to change engine mid season though - so maybe force a standard mount and shape, so other teams have a chance to copy the change.

- Align engine development with the real world, so that while it may be expensive to develop your own version of someone elses improvement, at least you get a wider benefit in using the same (well similar) development in your road cars. For example, if one team came up with the turbo, it would obviously be worth every engine maker also having one - assuming regulations are of the open variety.

- Allow innovation in limited areas each season. Aero one season, engine another, suspension another etc.
Everything else is frozen, and at the end of a season, everyone is allowed to copy anything they want from any car of the previous season - and is provided detailed tech data to make it relatively easy.

Aside - I have come to the conclusion they need to give up on aero development - its a dead end for the real world, ruins whole seasons because they cant fix overtaking, and instead for 2011 there should be a spec aero package and a spec bodyshell, and a ballast system which makes all drivers equal regardless of their actual shape/size That way, engines, drivers and so on can move around without a load of pointless development shoehorning them together.