Technical Regulations for 2009

Hello,

Here is a thread for all information and discussion about the Regulations for 2009.


Here are the current state of regulations:

-Widetrack of 2 meters instead of 1,8m
-Softer (compared to now) Slicks
-Downforce decrease by 50% compared to 2006 levels (see measures taken to do that below)
-lap times slower by 5 seconds compared to 2006 lap times
-Banning of winglets
-Front wing lowered (from 15cm to 7,5Cm) and widened (from 145 to 180cm)
-Limit of the number of elements on the front wing to 2 or 3
-Standard center part for the front wing (reducing turbulence)
-Rear wing higher and narrower (80cm wide (instead of 100) and 95cm tall (instead of 80cm)
-Maybe 3 elements permitted for the rear wing
-Diffuser moved towards the center axle of rear wheels
-Diffuser max steep angle and height increased (max height 17.5cm vs 12cm)
-Adjustable front wing flaps 2 times per lap by 6° max
-KERS, usable about 6,7 seconds (at max power) per lap
-Heating tyre blankets banned

The overall downforce (and probably aerodynamic efficiency, which is a bit sad but..) will be decreased by those following measures:

-ban of winglets: winglets can be seen as flow conditionners, they help the main elements (namely the wings and underfloor) to produce better downforce (and decreasing drag).

If one those winglet is not present, dramatic reductions of downforce are observed (up to 10%) so if all are banned, it is easy to imagine what the result will be.

-limiting the front/rear wing number of elements. By limiting the number of elements on the wings you limit the amount of downforce because in general, the more elements you have the more downforce you have (for a given drag)

-narrowing of the rear wing: by narrowing the rear wing, you force the rear wing to be settled at a great angle to achieve the same goal, which will be at the expense of drag so it won't be possible.

-Rear wing, diffuser decoupling: Actually the rear wing helps the diffuser to extract the air beneath the car, this is one a the major source of turbulence (the "dirty air") today, by shortening the diffuser and highering the rear wing you prevent the two from working together.

-A very natural measure will be that you can't increase too much the downforce on the front wing because you'll get a too much overtseer car.

Those measures a more aimed at preventing the teams to regain downforce over the years (till the next regulations change which will be in 2013) than achieving the 50% downforce cut..in fact nobody, neither the fIA neither the OWG is naive about the fact teams will have dowforce cuts by less than 50% but still the roots are there to prevent an inflation of downforce.


Another measure is a bit unclear now:
-limiting the angle at which a wing can be set. This is the most efficient maneuver, the downforce increase linearily with the angle at which the wing is tilted (called the "Angle of attack").
A wing can range from as little as 6° to more than 30° that actually means a 5 fold downforce increase capacity (but with and increase of drag), limiting it is a simple measure that help preventing that.

The thing is that in 2009 drivers will be able to increase one front wing flap (element) angle to gain downforce (as i have said above, increasing the angle is a major way to increase downforce) 2 times per lap.

This is intended to help in case of following someone from close and if downforce loss is a problem, raising the flap will compensate.



Misc information:

-March The 26th, the WMSC meeting will finalize the 2009 technical rules, the Sporting regulations (containing the budget cap) will be ready in July

-From april 14 to 17, teams will test at barcelone with the new slicks (softer than the previous ones tested in december at jerez). Another test session with slicks will be held in july.


I'll update information as it flows.

Questions, remarks, debates are welcome.

It sounds like they've decreased the aero grip and increased the mechanical grip for slow corners and kept the aero grip the same for fast corners (steeper diffuser, lower front wing etc)

Thanks!

I had forgotten about the tyre warmers. That will make the outlaps a lot slower. Any estimate how much, anyone?

First question would be where did you get this information from?

Second question is I'm curious to see one regulation that states simply: "lap times slower by 5 seconds compared to 2006 lap times."

It doesn't state how that must be achieved. Add sufficient ballast? Unlikely, but...

It also doesn't state how that will be measured, when it will be measured, if it will be measured on more than one occassion, what happens if this regulation is breached (as it surely will be).

Interesting.

In this post, i'll explain the turbulence created by a typical F1 car, the problems is poses, and the solutions adopted by the OWG.

The turbulence problem

When an object travels in a continuous fluid (Well so...everything that moves on earth) it creates a wake.

What is a wake?

A wake is zone of moving air. When a car moves in the air it forces the air encountering it to deviate. As the air progresses downstream of the car and reaches the aft end of the car, it will naturally try to rejoin just aft of it (directly in contact with the aft end of the car).
To do that without changing its state it would have to reform at an infinite speed. Clearly that's not possible.

What happens next is that the air will "stall" from the aft end of the car and will try to go back towards it, it will recirculate

That is the air will move in the same direction than the car. But this movement won't be purely horizontal, it will involves a circular motion.

Air being a viscous field, the streamlines that try to recirculate towards the aft of the car will bring with them the surroundings so that a large zone of air will be circularly moving towards the aft end of the car.

This zone is called the wake .

Now this simple example talked about a simple car moving through the air. But actually an F1 car is a bit more complicated as not only his body is moving, but also wings.

For some reasons, too complicated to explain here, wings, especially the rear wing when working in conjunction with the diffuser, creates also huge wakes.


what are the properties of those wakes?

Since the air is re-circulating towards the aft end of the car (or of the wing) the velocity of the wing relative to the air is lower (since the wing is moving forward, and the air in the wake is also moving in this direction).

What results here is a decrease of both downforce and drag.

Most commonly we say that in the wake the total pressure is lower(Which is mandatory since the air is moving, it is necessary that the pressure is lower as air moves from high pressure zones to low pressure zones).



From a first step, we see that the wake in itself is downforce reducing.


But the problems reinforces with the add of another phenomenon: The Wing tips Vortices


What are Wing tips Vortices?

If we had to simplify things we could say that a wing of formula 1 car is two surfaces with one (the upper one) being a high pressure zone and the lower being a low pressure zone.

This is that difference that creates the downforce, clearly the pressure being superior on the upper side this pushes the wing towards the ground (and then, the whole car).

But what happens on the midspan section also occurs at the wing tips, the higher pressure section try to push on the lower section.
Practically that means the flows on the upper part move around the tips to join the lower surface.
This process creates what we call induced drag but for what interests us here they create a pair (on each tip of the wing) of counter rotating vortices.

What are the properties of vortices?

A vortex is a zone of moving fluid (here air) that moves in a circular motion around and axis.
That axis can be either lateral or horizontal or vertical, but for what concerns us the wing tip vortices rotate along an horizontal axis. They actually extend far behind the wing and induce , depending on the wing that creates them, an upwash or downwash motion. Here for a typical F1 rear wing they tend to go upwash.

This upwash is problematic alone, if a car ran into it, then the angle at which his wing would attack (the so called angle of attack) wouldn't be the same, in fact, for the case of a F1 car, it would mean the angle of attack is reduced meaning that less downforce would be produced.

But the problem doesn't stop here, the vortices actually entertain the wake and move it upwash.
This upwash means more vertical velocity, which actually means, that the wing of the following car see even more reduced horizontal velocity, this means even less downforce.

Actually the results are catastrophic, because not only the downforce is decreased, but the drag is increased of the wings! which wouldn't have been the case with the wake alone.

Those vortices have another problem, they generally are the result of turbulent flows and themselves turbulent.


what is turbulence?

We come to the main point. A turbulent flow is a flow where the air doesn't move in smooth motions, instead it moves in all directions and in some cases, if we take a fixed point, a turbulent flow can even show different proprieties with time!

Turbulent flow however are not necessary a bad thing. They are heavily used on F1 cars because their motions means they have a lot of energy, they have a lot of low pressure zone.

A vortex is a turbulent flow condition and when created on the lower part of a wing it greatly helps the creation of downforce.


But when a vortex impact a whole wing its proprieties on the wing surface are not good and change the pressure repartitions on the wing. It creates a thicker boundary layer (a boundary layer is the zone of air directly in contact of the wing and a little bit above where the air velocity is ******** by friction forces), this actually creates a less cambered profile which again decrease downforce.



In summary, we can see that a wake, by nature decreases downforce and drag. We can see also that vortices can be beneficial when flowing above a surface (but not directly in contact) but that when the impact a surface, their direction and structure both decrease downforce and increase drag.
Wake and vortex (coming for the wing tips) combine to create a low energy (=less dowforce,more drag) zone behind a car.
The lower energy state is found as we close to the leading car, that means the effects of the wake+vortices are inverse proportional to the distance from the leading car.



When the speed increases (of both cars) the wake+vortices length increases that means, the following car, at a given distance, will experience different wake+vortices stages

Thus a car following another at 250km/h at Two car lengths will experience more loss of downforce than if he ran at say 100km/h at the same distance.
Or spoken differently, at 250km/h two car length distance, the downforce loss is equal to a closer distance at a lesser speed.


What does influences the effect of turbulences?

The first and foremost cause is the aerodynamic shape either of a car or a wing, or a diffuser etc..
We can then see that the effect of turbulence is not downforce amount dependent.

It is however linked to downforce amount by speed, but the downforce level dependence is only viable for a given car that increases its speed.

You can have two cars, one with Two times the downforce of the other and that one being less turbulence creating that the other.


This will be a major consideration for understanding the measures taken by the OWG.




The sensitivity to turbulence, and the measures taken by the OWG


What defines the sensitivity? essentially where the following car's aerodynamic devices are situated within the wake+vortices zone.

As we've seen two major points are responsible for the loss of downforce, the air velocity decrease and the upwash that changes the properties of the wing.



We'll see the measures taken by the OWG:

The front wing is by far the most affected of the elements so most features concern it:

-Decreasing the height of the front wing: This a major point here. It is found that, the higher the wing, the more the upwash effects. Thus by lowering the wing towards the ground, the upwash effects are diminished.

-Standard part for the mid section of front wing: The part of the wing that suffers the most from the whole turbulent effects is the mid section of a wing, this is simply the zone where the wake and vortices effect combined are the more important.
By securing a standard part (specially shaped by the OWG), the car will be secured with less downforce loss.

-Widening the front wing: When a wing is in the wake+vortices and losses its efficiency, it naturally propagates this to the aft aft the car.
Shorter wing feature more risk of creating their own wake. By enlarging them, the car will have more downforce aviable.

-Adjusting the flaps during race (2 times per lap). As the wake+vortices increase its length with speed the upwash movement will also increase, it is then not possible to totally be outside it.
By increasing the flaps deflection, the actual angle of attack will be restored so that downforce loss is minimized.




The turbulence creation mitigation

Decreasing sensitivity is good, but decreasing turbulence creation is also important.
As you may have hinted, the goal is to make for less wake and less vortices (so less upwash).
The rear wing and diffuser are primarily concerned.


-Rear wing narrowing and height increase: Something i just touched, is that the rear wing and diffuser work together.
The scope of that is beyond the topic but let's say that the rear wing helps the diffuser creating more downforce.
But by doing that she creates a huge wake behind her. by far the most important factor in turbulence.
Increasing the height of the rear wing will prevent the diffuser to work with her too much thus reducing the turbulence.

Narrowing the wing have for intended effect to prevent the rear wing to be a too big portion of the total downforce.

The reason is that the more downforce you create on a given wing, the more induced drag will result which results in vortices.

The solution when a wing is narrowed is to increase the angle of attack, but teams won't do that because it would increase the drag so much that it wouldn't be worth the effort.

-Diffuser height and steep angle increased: the goal here is to increase the angle of the upwash from the diffuser so that it doesn't encounter the following car's front wing.
Additionally this will helps reducing wake at the rear of the car.


-banning of appendices: Most appendices are vortex generators. As told before, vortices are desirable sometimes because they can increase downforce when they run above a surface.
Running above it actually make the flow directly in contact with the surface better.
Vortex generators are very important today as the condition the flows towards the rear.

The problem is however they are vortex generators, and, as they leave the car they have both direction and turbulent proprieties that are not good for the following car.

Another problem is that they don't work quite well when themselves being into wake, so they make loss of downforce even greater.


The turbulence over speed measures

We end that loooong post by tackling the last part, the fact that downforce loss increases with speed.

How to reduce that? A technical way would be to have adaptive aerodynamics, that is, downforce slope that would decrease with speed.

That's planned but not for 2009.

However one option is simply to give more tyre grip over aerodynamic grip.

The solution is purely mathematical:

The grip is given by the following equation: Tyre grip*(weight+downforce)

A first intuitive measure would be to say "decrease downforce, increase tyre grip!" so that, for a given loss of downforce when following a car, the actual total grip remaining would be greater (as the proportion of tyre grip would be greater and non affected by aerodynamics, it would stay more grip).

The little difficulty is tthe the equation of grip just says that...tyre grip increases the downforce grip!.

This surprising fact is because the "tyre grip" is not a real quantity, it is a conventional quantity, a coefficient.

It is the potential of the tyre to transfer the loads (thus here the downforce and weight).

So when you increase the tyre grip, you also increase the grip from downforce which means you increase the overall grip.

How to increase the tyre grip while being sure the total grip will stay the same and the proportion of grip from tyres will be higher?

To know that the partial derive of the equations tells us that the downforce needs to be cut by a larger margin than the tyre grip is increased.
Unfortunately, for the conditions to be fulfilled (that the tyre grip is higher in regards to the aerodynamic grip) you have some limits.

Those limits are the downforce cut, you can't cut downforce too much or else F1 cars will be slower than GP2 cars, but can't also increase the tyre grip indefinitely as not only there are limits here, but in general as you make tyre more grippy they're also more motion resistant which means they would be less responsive.

The OWG came to the conclusion than 50% dowforce and the introduction of softer slicks provided the conditions, but at the expense of a slower pace.

As planned the lap time should be 5 seconds slower than in 2006 (means about 3,4 seconds than this year).

In the future when more advanced aero design will be ready, downforce will increase again yet providing the same sensitivity and turbulence as in 2009 .

Originally posted by Imperial
First question would be where did you get this information from?

Second question is I'm curious to see one regulation that states simply: "lap times slower by 5 seconds compared to 2006 lap times."

It doesn't state how that must be achieved. Add sufficient ballast? Unlikely, but...

It also doesn't state how that will be measured, when it will be measured, if it will be measured on more than one occassion, what happens if this regulation is breached (as it surely will be).

Interesting.

My informations come directly from members of the OWG.

The 5 seconds slower is done simply by decreasing the total grip. See my post just above for knowing why.

The downforce decrease was measured by the tests but won't be measured in 2009, the measures were taken (as said in the first post) to prevent teams to regain the downforce lost just because there won't any measurement.

As a side note to that, max mosley stated that if the cars are not slower, slicks will be again banned.

Originally posted by Domination
It sounds like they've decreased the aero grip and increased the mechanical grip for slow corners and kept the aero grip the same for fast corners (steeper diffuser, lower front wing etc)

No in fact the overall grip is decreased.

The total grip follows the equation i gave in the first post. you can't oppose tyre grip and downforce, tyre grip multiplies downforce and weight , but weight is also a part of the inertial forces, so increasing weight is not good (it decrease the tyre grip in fact), so downforce is the most efficient way to have grip.

Until you have adaptive aerodynamics (which could arrive in 2011) there's no differences in speed Vs grip.

What i mean is that if total grip is lower, whatever you changed in the equation (tyre grip or downforce) you'll be slower at all speeds.

Originally posted by undersquare
Thanks!

I had forgotten about the tyre warmers. That will make the outlaps a lot slower. Any estimate how much, anyone?

According to the jerez tests, about 8 seconds, in fact enough to get Nick Heidfeld scared.

NH tested the downforce by 50% and slicks and was effectively 5 seconds slower than the other that ran on grooved and full downforce.

MS tested 20% downforce reduction and slicks and was just less than 1 second slower.

Keep in mind that teams will surely have more downforce thant the 50% of 2006 planned, that slicks will be better than the ones tested and that the car will be adapted so , total assumption, i think the lap times will be 3 seconds slower than now..maybe even less.

Thanks for the info Ogami musashi.

Originally posted by Ogami musashi

-lap times slower by 5 seconds compared to 2006 lap times

5 seconds? Seems a bit extreme. (How long before GP2 cars would be able to make the grid?!) Does that 5 seconds include the switch to slicks? If not, how many of those 5 seconds will the slicks get back?

Edit: Sorry, missed the part where you predict a difference in lap times of 3 seconds.

Thanks Ogami musashi.

What is the definition of winglets? Can you take e.g. the current BMW F1.08 as an example and pinpoint what will not be allowed under the 2009 regulations?

Will barge boards be allowed, do you know?

Yes the 5 seconds take the slicks into account. While it is planned by the teams that the cars will be slower than this year (by how much? this is will be the surprise) everyone including the FIA knows that the 5 seconds won't be here.

That's a bit of a paradox yes, since GP2 cars are this year 1 second faster, on some track it may happen that F1 cars will be just 1 or 2 seconds faster.

Anyway that's the plans, we'll see the reality.

Winglets are at the origin small vertical fins that are in extension of airplanes wings. Their purpose is to catch and diffuse the marginal vortex created at the wing's tips to reduce drag.

In F1 Winglets may have the same function but are often called "end plates", "winglets" is a term used for some little wings either at the end of the wings or on the body work. Their purpose is generally to create strong vortex to help the flows on critical parts like rear wing, sidepods, wheels etc..
Another form of winglets is the "flips ups" (attached to side pods most of the time) that have exactly the same role than an airplane winglets, that is catch turbulence and reduce it to help the flows.

I don't know to how much extent they'll be banned, it is almost sure all bodywork appendices will be banned, barge board is not sure tough.

The problem is that barge boards were initially used as deflector to help cooling but today are used as vortex generators for sidepods,wheels, underbody and intakes flow management.


Logically all those bans will not result only in a decrease in downforce, but also in an increase of drag, which i find personally not good, but Stefano dominicali hinted that in 2009 the bodywork regulations would be more free so maybe bodywork, suspensions and some other parameters will be better.

We'll see.

GP2 cars lap around 1.26 at barcelona while testing earlier this year.

I reckon ferrari tested with 20% less downforce because usually the teams make up 20-30% downforce during the offseason

So I reckon with 20% less downforce they may do 1.22-1.23s at barcelona. 50% might get you into 1.24s But thats just guessing on my part

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
That's a bit of a paradox yes, since GP2 cars are this year 1 second faster, on some track it may happen that F1 cars will be just 1 or 2 seconds faster.

Personally I find that quite disappointing. We're still quite a bit slower than 2004 F1 cars, and now next year F1 will barely be quicker than GP2. :

I think this was requested in the last thread discussing the new regs, but if someone has the Photoshop skills and available time, I'd be very interested to see what one of today's cars would look like, stretched, squeezed and de-wingleted to meet the proposed regs.

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
but Stefano dominicali hinted that in 2009 the bodywork regulations would be more free so maybe bodywork, suspensions and some other parameters will be better.

Now that should lead to extremely sculpted bodywork and suspension shapes to aide aero. More then we see now.

I do hope, since increasing drag is not good for slipstreaming and contrary to the direction of FIA for road relevance.

Originally posted by DrBob
I think this was requested in the last thread discussing the new regs, but if someone has the Photoshop skills and available time, I'd be very interested to see what one of today's cars would look like, stretched, squeezed and de-wingleted to meet the proposed regs.

Sorry, too easy.

Cheers Ogami, this sounds like great stuff and the WG have really properly looked into this. I can't wait for 2009 already.

I also like the idea of the driver controlling the wings. I have long thought that this should be happening in F1 as a natural evolution. After all, aircraft pilots have long had aerlerons.

It only makes sense that if one can change the brake balance and differential mid race (Kimi did this a lot on every lap I noticed in Oz) then the best drivers would also want to manually change the downforce levels too. Man, Schumi would love these toys!

That's a bit of a paradox yes, since GP2 cars are this year 1 second faster, on some track it may happen that F1 cars will be just 1 or 2 seconds faster.

That would be completely ridiculous. Also don't like the wing angle change, 'he pressed a button so was able to pass' it's too contrived.

I really hope they don't limit aero development too much. Oogami what do you think? mass redundancies on an unprecented scale, chris.

Yes i agree the front wing change during a lap is utter crap, KERS system+the aero changes should be enough to pass cars.

Dom

While i don't like the idea of "passing aid" (after all the faster only should overtake!) i don't think this is quite a situation like that.

For instance, you have to think that the results of OWG works will be mitigated as it is almost sure teams will have more downforce than planned (i think like some others than 30% less is realistic) so the results of 0,5sec/lap advantage will surely be a bit higher (Pat symonds said that between 0,5 and 1 seconds was totally acceptable racing wise) so an help could be good.
Also i think the flap will be good only to follow, not to overtake since it will drag but we'll see.

Anyway if you want to have my opinion i'm almost sure teams will use it fixed and will decrease the angle in straights..or they will play with downforce needed/drag on some corners.

I quite like the idea of downforce vs drag, which is a bit different from kers that is a pure bonus.


In a more technical way, adaptive aerodynamics would be a great thing for the future, with high angles teams could gain a lot of downforce at low speeds, and provided you have a good turbulence level, the loss of downforce would be not big (for a given loss, the loss is more important as you increase your speed, I.E 10% downforce loss represents a bigger part of the grip lost when speed increases) and that would bring back the difficulty of driving with aero grip, while at high speed the downforce propotion would decrease and enable close racing.

All without slowing down the cars.



As far as aero developpement is concerned, i'm mixed, at the same time i got the impression it will be restricted but at the same time teams directors are quite enthusiastic about 2009 so maybe we will see great aero developments.

I'll edit my first post as information flows.

My only grip is the speed, if the speed is really 5 second slower, that's a bit sad as i'm one of those of think the actual pace of F1 cars shape the driving style.

I'm for racing diversity and don't want all series to feature the same driving style and lines.

Theissen about KERS:

It is technology which is not available yet which goes way beyond what hybrid road cars are using today, so I am really excited about this project because I am sure we will leap-frog current technology. We will provide a step change for future road car technology and this is a position we wanted to be in for years and it really enhances what we do in F1.

Intriguing. This is in complete contrast to what Toyota said about KERS being 'primitive'.
What is BMW on to?

Toyota are just admitting that their road cars are using even more primitive technology than is already available.

From what i understood (don't know much about KERS) the challenge for F1 is that on road car similar systems are far heavier so in F1 teams will have to make it very compact and as of now, in the pits it said the KERS weight will maybe offset its advantages for 2009, so definitely weight and integration will be the challenge.

If KERS was so primitive then teams would not struggle to get it under current F1 weights.

Re-written the measures and aerodynamics problem post with much more complete information.


http://forums.autosp...418#post3048418

Thanks for the update. So will we know the full 2009 technical regulations in a couple of days?

hopefully Wednesday the WMSC will finalize the full rules yes.

I do hope it won't last too much before it is published on the FIA website.

First of all I’d like to thank Ogami musashi for posting this information, it's very informative. It seams like the FIA has been trying to crack the nut of how to get cars that can overtake for years now! The proof will be in the pudding of course. Maybe getting rid of refueling and increasing the points differential between 1st and 2nd would also facilitate this...

One of the things that interests me most is simply how the cars will look? I’ve been kinda heartbroken by how the cars have looked since narrow track and grooves were introduced in '98 (thank god they're getting rid of those two hideous anomalies!). For me a racing car should look great, think 1990 Ferrari 641 for inspiration - wide track, big slicks, low nose, sparks coming out the back!



Anyway, they'll look better than the ugly ducklings of today that's for sure, but I think the massive front wing and narrower rear wing will look a bit odd and take a bit of getting used to...

As for adjusting the front wing, I’m not a fan. It seams a bit gimmicky... if the drivers have to adjust anything during a lap, I’d prefer it to be a clutch and an H pattern gearbox!!

And as for the cars only being 1 sec quicker than a GP2 car over a lap... could they maybe just introduce some new GP2 regs to slow them by 5 secs a lap...?

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
hopefully Wednesday the WMSC will finalize the full rules yes.

I do hope it won't last too much before it is published on the FIA website.

So did the WMSC only talk about how to spend the Mclaren fine money or did they also talk about what's really important: the 2009 regulations?

Originally posted by Luke78
First of all I’d like to thank Ogami musashi for posting this information, it's very informative. It seams like the FIA has been trying to crack the nut of how to get cars that can overtake for years now! The proof will be in the pudding of course. Maybe getting rid of refueling and increasing the points differential between 1st and 2nd would also facilitate this...

One of the things that interests me most is simply how the cars will look? I’ve been kinda heartbroken by how the cars have looked since narrow track and grooves were introduced in '98 (thank god they're getting rid of those two hideous anomalies!). For me a racing car should look great, think 1990 Ferrari 641 for inspiration - wide track, big slicks, low nose, sparks coming out the back!



Anyway, they'll look better than the ugly ducklings of today that's for sure, but I think the massive front wing and narrower rear wing will look a bit odd and take a bit of getting used to...

As for adjusting the front wing, I’m not a fan. It seams a bit gimmicky... if the drivers have to adjust anything during a lap, I’d prefer it to be a clutch and an H pattern gearbox!!

And as for the cars only being 1 sec quicker than a GP2 car over a lap... could they maybe just introduce some new GP2 regs to slow them by 5 secs a lap...?

The cars will retain their front wing assemblies (with bridge wings, end plates etc..) but what is between the front wheels aft and forward of rear wheels will be banned.

The rear wing will appear very small as the car will be extended to 2meters but the rear wing will be only 80cm (instead of 100 now so that means it will loose 20cm on each side), as opposed the front wing will be low and wide (180 cm instead of 145cm which means even accounting for the new wide track it will appear larger).

The rear wing is still unclear, the goal is clearly to make less downforce from this one.
As i said earlier, the front wing will naturally be limited as if the teams created to much downforce with it the car will be oversteery.

But however, it is unclear if the rear wing will be at a great angle or not. It was once planned by the FIA to decrease downforce while retaining the same levels of drag.

It may be possible then the rear wing will be draggy and that the overall drag/lift ratio will be higher(means the aero efficiency will be lower).

If i can point to you to some design that should look kind of close, then i'll point to the swift 017.N the chassis for formula nippon 2009:

Swift 01.7 updated design

F1 cars would look something near that with of course differencies (due to F1 rules and the fact F1 teams will have their own designs).



About the pace, it may be that F1 cars will be as fast or maybe faster than now on slow circuit, since the slicks will provide lot of grip but it remains to be seen.

No GP2 won't slow down, but F1 cars will go faster gradually so..



@Timstr11:

Unfortunately i don't have any more news than you!

I really hope the new regs and the OWG can sort out this turbulence problem once and for all. This season we seem to be seeing the apogee of it actively spoiling the racing, after steadily increasing it's influence over the last two.

Look at the two races - everyone expected Ferrari and McLaren to be close, but they've looked anything but, with them seemingly swapping advantages from one race to the next. Now we're in danger of having every race like Monaco - pole is everything and following an other car destroys your pace by anything up to 6 seconds per lap.

Today in Autosport Mark Hughes asks when we're going to see Macca and Ferrari head-to-head. Well, we're not, unless they run four separate races for each car!

They need to go back to having titanium skid plates. Won't change anything performance wise but the spectable will be better. Sparks are better than sawdust.

Tin hat on here but it Isn't really formula one anymore is it? While i agree we need changes to increase the wheel to wheel racing, half the rules changes for the last 10 years have been rather sickening, especially the qualifying. The 2009 reulgations while be the completion of the dumbing down of the term 'Formula one the pinnacle of motorsport', now its 'Formula one the pinnacle of laughing stock'

The cars will look like something from the 1990s. It is true that maybe we are getting into dangerous territory with how fast the cars were going but we are also in the prime stage of sporting safety. Formula one cars should always be the prime sport of technological advance combined with driver skill IMO.

It is verry possible to achieve all safety measures while keeping cars relatively the same as they are now but with small changes to increase racing. Just my two cents on things.

Seeing those old pictures of F1 cars made me think that F1 is really going backwards in order to go forwards. Is it a good thing to see F1 cars looking like they did in the early 90's (even though they looked great?)

I guess no resolution was found yesterday? :/

Originally posted by F1Champion
Seeing those old pictures of F1 cars made me think that F1 is really going backwards in order to go forwards. Is it a good thing to see F1 cars looking like they did in the early 90's (even though they looked great?)

who said the cars will be like 90's?????

Quasi c: I'm sure yes, but maybe we'll have to wait more to see..

As long as the designers have their toys we'll have to face a lack of close racing. I don't see the relevance of downforce at all. Why not banning the front wing, reduce the diffuser to the step plane only and a rear wing of only one element?

Regarding the rear wing, isn't it the lower element and it's interaction with the diffuser that is an issue and not the upper element?.

Obi

Originally posted by Pingguest
As long as the designers have their toys we'll have to face a lack of close racing. I don't see the relevance of downforce at all. Why not banning the front wing, reduce the diffuser to the step plane only and a rear wing of only one element?

Hello pingguest,

the relevance is simply in the speed. I do understand you don't want wings, as they do have effects (to me good and bad) but you have to understand that without wings the pace would be much much slower.

I understand if this is not a concern to you as no one is forced to love high speed racing, however i then question the useness of that kind of racing being F1? Why not set another series like that? does those series doesn't already exists?

Also you seem to suggest that the power of engineer is a barrier to spectacle, while i don't agree entirely i concede this also have effect, but again, what's the relevance of F1?

You see, it is not that i don't like slower pace racing, it is just that i don't see why F1 should be, in the actual context, like that, while i see some reasons why it should be a high speed racing with downforce (but balanced).

IMHO.....IF the OWG proposals are what we get next season, i think that will be far more interesting than now.

Obi Offiah
Regarding the rear wing, isn't it the lower element and it's interaction with the diffuser that is an issue and not the upper element?.

Obi

Yes you're right about the lower elements but the problem is distance/pressure. That means the lesser the pressure the farther it will pumps.
So for instance, the whole rear wing is a problem.

By the way making the lower elements higher while retaining the same height for the upper has no real interest so it is better like that.




On a more general topic, i asked the FIA today about the new regs and they said that it should come between now and next WMSC meeting at the end of june but indeed it seems the rules were discussed at the previous WMSC and so it will take time before they get published.


Wait and see then (what else?)

On a more general topic, i asked the FIA today about the new regs and they said that it should come between now and next WMSC meeting at the end of june

This isn't going to leave a great deal of time for the teams to design their cars to spec. Anyway thanks for the update.

Nah in fact the rules are almost finished and a large part of them is adopted, that's just the publication that is a bit long since the rules will change quite a bit.


Ah and it was posted in a specific thread but another hint was given by bridgestone:

-There will be 4 different sets of slicks for 2009

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
Ah and it was posted in a specific thread but another hint was given by bridgestone:

-There will be 4 different sets of slicks for 2009

like the 4 different specifications they have now, 2 available per race?

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/66122

i think it includes two dry type and two rain types?

Although the tyre regulations for 2009 are not yet set in stone, Hamashima has suggested that they will likely offer four different compounds of slick tyres for the entire season.

Originally posted by Ogami musashi


Hello pingguest,

the relevance is simply in the speed. I do understand you don't want wings, as they do have effects (to me good and bad) but you have to understand that without wings the pace would be much much slower.

I understand if this is not a concern to you as no one is forced to love high speed racing, however i then question the useness of that kind of racing being F1? Why not set another series like that? does those series doesn't already exists?

Also you seem to suggest that the power of engineer is a barrier to spectacle, while i don't agree entirely i concede this also have effect, but again, what's the relevance of F1?

You see, it is not that i don't like slower pace racing, it is just that i don't see why F1 should be, in the actual context, like that, while i see some reasons why it should be a high speed racing with downforce (but balanced).

You seem to think that Formula 1 should be by far the fastest race series on earth. I don't understand why. Formula 1 hasn't always been the fastest series. In some periods Sportscars were faster.

Downforce has no relevance for us, the consumers. If the FIA would eliminate downforce there'd be more room for other technologies with more road relevance like tyres and engines. That may provide some better racing as well. Instead the FIA chooses to standardize the sport even further. If this continues, I won't be surprised if Formula 1 turns out to be a spec series within a decade.

Originally posted by Pingguest


You seem to think that Formula 1 should be by far the fastest race series on earth. I don't understand why. Formula 1 hasn't always been the fastest series. In some periods Sportscars were faster.

Downforce has no relevance for us, the consumers. If the FIA would eliminate downforce there'd be more room for other technologies with more road relevance like tyres and engines. That may provide some better racing as well. Instead the FIA chooses to standardize the sport even further. If this continues, I won't be surprised if Formula 1 turns out to be a spec series within a decade.

The fastest is a bonus, what i want is fast.

I don't agree formula 1 was not always the fastest, okay i may only start from 1980 but since then F1 cars were the fastest. Group C/GTP cars that sometimes posted similar lap times were on qualifying runs and their race lap times (even for the 500km sprint races of group C) were completely off.

And they posted similar lap times only on some tracks.


Why should F1 be the fastest? because fast driving is hard. This is the first simple reason, the second is that designing the fastest car is an engineering experience, especially designing a car able of being the fastest for a whole race (look at today race lap times only 2 seconds off the qualifying ones).


I don't understand why you think downforce is a stopper for other technologies??? downforce is no magical you still have to use tyres suspension and chassis and suspension and chassis are still developped today.

What is needed is a balance.


And i ask you pingguest, would you love an F1 car lapping barcelone in 2:30 minutes??

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/66122

i think it includes two dry type and two rain types?

Rain slicks? Is that right?

I understand that standard ECU with all of it's glory (not TC and driver aids) will go to 2009 as it is?

Originally posted by Risil


Rain slicks? Is that right?

yeah you're right, must be 4 dry compounds.



For ECU, as far as i know yes it will be the same.