Jump to content


Photo

Revised 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship regulations published


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#51 idrumond

idrumond
  • Member

  • 283 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 19 August 2009 - 19:50

I like the new rules.

Finally they got rid of refuelling! Lets hope the performance differs along the race like Snap Matt said.

The one thing I would change is the points system. How about 12 - 09 - 06 - 05 - 04 - 03 - 02 - 01? Much better IMO.

Advertisement

#52 Umpire

Umpire
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 19 August 2009 - 20:35

We finally get to see low fuel qualifying. Rejoice!

#53 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,353 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 19 August 2009 - 22:25

Sensible rule making, yet where all the 25 pages praising the excellence of FIA!???? :wave:


Yet, fan always quick to condemn the FIA en masse when decisions are not to their satisfaction :down:


How about a big thumbs up to FIA for low fuel Q3? :up: :up: :up: :up:

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 19 August 2009 - 22:26.


#54 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 August 2009 - 22:58

Sensible rule making...


Yeah.. when constantly changing the rules you're bound to hit a sweet spot in one tiny area from time to time... sensible indeed!

#55 PNSD

PNSD
  • Member

  • 3,276 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 19 August 2009 - 23:28

As we expected really...

This is the Qualifying we should have had from 2003!!! Taken them long enough to get it right!

#56 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,067 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 20 August 2009 - 00:07

I presume the front tyre contact patch is narrower? BS were going to have the narrower tyre for 2010? Has the profile of the front tyres gone down too? And are the wheels the same?

Edited by Melbourne Park, 20 August 2009 - 00:08.


#57 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 02:02

Some people you can never please. The FIA/FOTA agreement has produced stability = cost reduction. I can't see the disaster in the rules adopted, nobody has adequately explained what their beef is. :confused:

The tyre warmer thing was so much bull - we have been running tyre warmers in clubracing for 10+ years (bikes). The way they look after the tyres pays for itself as you don't destroy a tyre getting it up to speed and temperature. And what does a set of tyre warmers cost anyway. To me the support for their banning comes from people who have never raced. Is F1 the pinnacle of motorsport?

KERS status I am OK about, a hard choice as the two views of cost v innovation and "green energy" issues both have compelling arguments.

MP's obsession with front tyre width is something I still can't relate to. I wrestled with the explanation but couldn't honestly say I know how tyre width was going to revolutionise the KERS implementation.

I am just thankful the FIA doesn't appeared to have done a major U-turn on spec or racing regs and haven't introduced any more "plastic" racing or qualifying rules. It's also nice not to have the delivery having the style of a self promotion for Mosley and his wonderful guidance of the sport into a brave new future. Less hype, more solid thinking and stability. :up:

Edited by Muz Bee, 20 August 2009 - 02:03.


#58 Demo.

Demo.
  • Member

  • 1,205 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 02:13

Damn I was hoping the blankets were out for 2010!


They were
thank FOTA for them being back in :down:

#59 Demo.

Demo.
  • Member

  • 1,205 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 02:28

The tyre warmer thing was so much bull - we have been running tyre warmers in clubracing for 10+ years (bikes). The way they look after the tyres pays for itself as you don't destroy a tyre getting it up to speed and temperature. And what does a set of tyre warmers cost anyway. To me the support for their banning comes from people who have never raced. Is F1 the pinnacle of motorsport?



I can see where you are coming from when it comes to club level racing it helps the (less skilled /experienced) local rider/driver to protect their tyres not to mention gives them far more grip when they first go out on them.
It also can help save teams big bucks over the course of a season with not having to replace tyres that lasted 5 laps but got burned out due to a less skilled rider pushing too hard when they were too cold.
But we are not talking about local club level racing we are talking about the best in the world.

The lack of tyre warmers will not make one iota of a difference in how many set are used over a weekend in F1 so cost goes out the window.

The management of the tyres and accelerating/braking/cornering V long term grip levels/wear and tear as they warm up is something that its good to make a driver handle, after all how many times have people complained that its too easy for a driver in a modern racing car and here is the perfect thing that rewards the drivers skill and punishes those who are not as skilled.
The driver who goes flat out at the begining to try to get away from the others could well end up being passed by ten as his tyres degrade ( i know its strange to see in F1 but i am told by the 2 wheeled fanatics its something called overtaking :eek: )

Edited by Demo., 20 August 2009 - 02:31.


Advertisement

#60 Henrytheeigth

Henrytheeigth
  • Member

  • 4,655 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 02:33

They were
thank FOTA for them being back in :down:


I aint a fan of fota nor fia no more! :mad:

lol ah well, not worth getting an ulcer over it..

#61 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 03:22

I like this....Specially the refuelling ban, and low fuel qualifying, for sure!

I wish they would have come up with a different solution to the impound on Parc Ferme, I would really like these guys to be having to find an optimum set up for qualifying, and then a compromise set up for the race, though, I understand the need to cut costs, just wish there was another way, otherwise I'm satisfied, don't really care about the tire warmers, or KERS either way.

Does it mention anything about the tire compounds? do they still have that stupid rule where they HAVE to use both compounds? that would really suck, IMO. I mean, I'd rather it be like it used to be, where you qualify the tire you like, but you must race the tire you qualify, otherwise, they'd be forcing everyone into the same strategy like now.

For the most part, I think we have a good Formula for next year. :up:



#62 OfficeLinebacker

OfficeLinebacker
  • Member

  • 14,019 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 04:25

f) The only permitted type of tyre heating devices are blankets which use resistive heating elements.

From the 2010 Sporting Regulations.


Hmm so wheel warmers are banned? Or do those use a loophole where they're supposedly to warm the wheels?

#63 R2D2

R2D2
  • Member

  • 780 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 07:59

I don't suppose they've closed the double-diffuser loop hole in the Technical Regs, have they? I guess not even McLaren are interested in doing that any more. :)

#64 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,740 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 08:53

Hmm so wheel warmers are banned? Or do those use a loophole where they're supposedly to warm the wheels?


Every form of wheel warming device except for the tire blankets are banned.

#65 bankoq

bankoq
  • Member

  • 2,078 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:17

What about the width of front tires? Will they be narrower than rear tires from 2010? It's one of key factors as it changes cars' balance.

Edited by bankoq, 20 August 2009 - 10:18.


#66 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 11:05

What about the width of front tires? Will they be narrower than rear tires from 2010? It's one of key factors as it changes cars' balance.

Do they need a regulation for that? If Bridgestone are the only manufacturer, they can build a tyre as narrow as they want. I believe that the change was approved of, if not put forward, by them.

#67 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 11:08

I don't suppose they've closed the double-diffuser loop hole in the Technical Regs, have they? I guess not even McLaren are interested in doing that any more. :)

Seeing as 70% of the teams thought that the loophole wasn't there until about April of this year, we might need to wait until the new car launches to find out!

#68 abc

abc
  • Member

  • 1,949 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 20 August 2009 - 12:21

So two types of tires for a race rule stays for 2010? Then if one tire is massively quicker than the other one, they will use it with only limit being its endurance,in extreme case they use better tire for 59 laps and worse tire for just one lap when fuel load is not factor for pitstop anymore.
Preservation of tires will become huge factor. These rules are written for the likes of Kimi R. I only hope Kimi is still there in 2010 and Ferrari will not overreact and will not take too many steps in the direction of sacrificing better grip in trade off for longevity of tires.

#69 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,429 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 20 August 2009 - 13:17

with min weight being increased and the cars running with full tanks i'd guess kers will be less helpful off the start line next year.

Good to see everyone on the same fuel level for Q1 though.

#70 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,201 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 20 August 2009 - 13:22

with min weight being increased and the cars running with full tanks i'd guess kers will be less helpful off the start line next year.


Why would you think that? I would say the exact opposite.

#71 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,412 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 13:37

with min weight being increased and the cars running with full tanks i'd guess kers will be less helpful off the start line next year.

Good to see everyone on the same fuel level for Q1 though.



I would have thought that any increase in power to weight ratio would be helpful, whatever the weight increase.

In fact, I would state categorically, that it must be. :)

#72 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,429 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 20 August 2009 - 13:45

Why would you think that? I would say the exact opposite.


Horsepower is swamped by weight, add 5bhp to a go kart and you'll see a difference add the same to a fford and you won't. By adding so much extra weight to F1 cars the effect KERS has will be reduced.

#73 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,429 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 20 August 2009 - 13:50

I would have thought that any increase in power to weight ratio would be helpful, whatever the weight increase.

In fact, I would state categorically, that it must be. :)


i'm not saying KERS will make no difference just less of a difference than last year i reckon.


#74 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,429 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 20 August 2009 - 14:03

if you do a power/weight for a car on near empty tanks this year (ie it's lightest) and full tanks next (it's heaviest) it'll explain

2009 - 800bhp and 605kg Vs 860bhp and 605kg (KERS)

800/605 = 1.333 bhp/kg
860/605 = 1.4 bhp/kg (KERS)

difference of 0.1 bhp/kg

2010 - 800bhp and 780kg (620 + 160 race fuel) Vs 860bhp and 780kg (KERS)

800/780 = 1.02 bhp/kg
860/780 = 1.1 bhp/kg (KERS)

difference of 0.08 bhp/kg

as weight increases the power to weight advantage decreases.


#75 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,412 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 14:13

i'm not saying KERS will make no difference just less of a difference than last year i reckon.



I really don't think you will see any difference to how it is this year TBH, all cars will be heavier next year. The KERS will give the same advantage.

The advantage may not be quite so noticeable as this year especially at the start of the races but will become more noticeable as the cars expend their fuel loads.

#76 idrumond

idrumond
  • Member

  • 283 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 20 August 2009 - 14:55

The advantage may not be quite so noticeable as this year especially at the start of the races but will become more noticeable as the cars expend their fuel loads.


That's what Boing 2 said.

#77 VicR

VicR
  • Member

  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 14:56

I've studied the new technical regulations somewhat closely, and regarding to the max width, lenght and height, they are the same as today's regulations. Adding the 6th chapter regarding fuel and the fuel tank, which are also the same, I still can't understand how and where the engineers will be able to fit a fuel tank that is almost twice as big as the ones used today. I only see three possible explanations to this. One of the below must be true because it's physically impossible to fit a bigger tank with the new regulations.

1. When the 2009 technical regulations were constructed everybody inside the sport already knew refueling would be banned in 2010. Meaning, there's already space for a bigger fuel tank as we speak. The engineers and designers already had that in their mind when they designed the 2009 cars. Interesting concept if you think about all the stuff regarding the breakaway series this year.

2. If the above isn't true then something will have to be done to the engines and the fuel consumption. Fuel saving mappings controlled by the ECU can be one possible way. But how will it affect the final output? Will the cars be slower than right now? You can't do much to the aero to help fuel consumption with these new regulations.

3. At the end of the day refueling will not be banned.

It's one of these three things.

#78 katmen

katmen
  • Member

  • 570 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 14:58

I've studied the new technical regulations somewhat closely, and regarding to the max width, lenght and height, they are the same as today's regulations. Adding the 6th chapter regarding fuel and the fuel tank, which are also the same, I still can't understand how and where the engineers will be able to fit a fuel tank that is almost twice as big as the ones used today. I only see three possible explanations to this. One of the below must be true because it's physically impossible to fit a bigger tank with the new regulations.

1. When the 2009 technical regulations were constructed everybody inside the sport already knew refueling would be banned in 2010. Meaning, there's already space for a bigger fuel tank as we speak. The engineers and designers already had that in their mind when they designed the 2009 cars. Interesting concept if you think about all the stuff regarding the breakaway series this year.

2. If the above isn't true then something will have to be done to the engines and the fuel consumption. Fuel saving mappings controlled by the ECU can be one possible way. But how will it affect the final output? Will the cars be slower than right now? You can't do much to the aero to help fuel consumption with these new regulations.

3. At the end of the day refueling will not be banned.

It's one of these three things.


maybe there will be end of ballast games?

#79 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 15:12

maybe there will be end of ballast games?


Not a chance... VicR also forgot the possibility of shorter races..

I've been wondering for a long time myself about the implications of this refueling ban... we made a big fuss of the major aero changes for '09 but IMO this is quite a big thing as well.. I think teams like Ferrari and McLaren will have learned alot trying to package their relatively heavy KERS unit.. (at the expense of aero and balance) this could pay off for them in 2010..

Advertisement

#80 VicR

VicR
  • Member

  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 15:12

maybe there will be end of ballast games?


Without ballast the cars will be very tough to handle at the start of the races in that case. Imagine having all that fuel behind you, basicly the same regulations as today, and no ballast at the front.

#81 VicR

VicR
  • Member

  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 15:13

Not a chance... VicR also forgot the possibility of shorter races..

I've been wondering for a long time myself about the implications of this refueling ban... we made a big fuss of the major aero changes for '09 but IMO this is quite a big thing as well.. I think teams like Ferrari and McLaren will have learned alot trying to package their relatively heavy KERS unit.. (at the expense of aero and balance) this could pay off for them in 2010..


Shorter races? Yes, there was talk about that but where in the sporting regulations does it say that races will be less than 305 km?

5.3 The distance of all races...shall be equal to the least number of complete laps which exceed a distance of 305 km (Monaco 260 km).


Edited by VicR, 20 August 2009 - 15:18.


#82 OfficeLinebacker

OfficeLinebacker
  • Member

  • 14,019 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 15:16

Every form of wheel warming device except for the tire blankets are banned.


No, the rules say TYRE warming devices. Brawn at least apparently use WHEEL warmers that mount to the insides of the wheels. I was thinking perhaps they could come up with some rationalization like the metal of the wheel itself must be warmed for safety reasons.

The original "no tyre warming devices but blankets" rule was to ban the pizza oven technology.

#83 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 15:18

Shorter races? Yes, there was talk about that but where in the sporting regulations does it say that races will be less than 305 km?


Nowhere, but your third point implies a change in the regulations as well.. same for the fourth one I added :cat:

I've been worried since FOTA initially made the suggestion of shorter races.. I sure as hell am against the idea...

#84 Snap Matt

Snap Matt
  • Member

  • 1,157 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 15:18

I've studied the new technical regulations somewhat closely, and regarding to the max width, lenght and height, they are the same as today's regulations. Adding the 6th chapter regarding fuel and the fuel tank, which are also the same, I still can't understand how and where the engineers will be able to fit a fuel tank that is almost twice as big as the ones used today. I only see three possible explanations to this. One of the below must be true because it's physically impossible to fit a bigger tank with the new regulations.

1. When the 2009 technical regulations were constructed everybody inside the sport already knew refueling would be banned in 2010. Meaning, there's already space for a bigger fuel tank as we speak. The engineers and designers already had that in their mind when they designed the 2009 cars. Interesting concept if you think about all the stuff regarding the breakaway series this year.

2. If the above isn't true then something will have to be done to the engines and the fuel consumption. Fuel saving mappings controlled by the ECU can be one possible way. But how will it affect the final output? Will the cars be slower than right now? You can't do much to the aero to help fuel consumption with these new regulations.

3. At the end of the day refueling will not be banned.

It's one of these three things.

Did they change the chassis dimensions when refuelling was re-introduced? The cars didn't look massively different to me, but it's a long time ago now. Isn't the only thing that would stop a manufacturer from building a car that could carry a full race load of fuel the performance handicap it would give them, in terms of weight and possibly their aero concept (thinking of the low end on the Red Bull in particular this year)?

Everyone will be doing what they can to reduce the weight of fuel they need to carry to complete the race as well.

In which case the answer is mostly 1, but equally applies back to 1994, and a bit of 2. And by the time the 2011 cars are being developed, perhaps they will have decided to adopt idea #3 as well.

#85 VicR

VicR
  • Member

  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 August 2009 - 15:21

Did they change the chassis dimensions when refuelling was re-introduced? The cars didn't look massively different to me, but it's a long time ago now. Isn't the only thing that would stop a manufacturer from building a car that could carry a full race load of fuel the performance handicap it would give them, in terms of weight and possibly their aero concept (thinking of the low end on the Red Bull in particular this year)?


Did they change the chassis dimensions back then? I don't know. I don't remember and I haven't looked it up. But it's a good question. But the engine characteristics change, that's for sure.

#86 katmen

katmen
  • Member

  • 570 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 15:22

Without ballast the cars will be very tough to handle at the start of the races in that case. Imagine having all that fuel behind you, basicly the same regulations as today, and no ballast at the front.

I thought that some ballast will be converted to fuel, but not all. Maybe some kers parts will be moved to the front.

#87 OfficeLinebacker

OfficeLinebacker
  • Member

  • 14,019 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 15:38

I thought that some ballast will be converted to fuel,


But the minimum weight will be at the end of the race, when you don't want fuel weight, you want only ballast weight.

At the end you want to be as close to the minimum as possible, probably a bit under. Then the car picks up as much rubber and debris on the tyres as possible on the cool down lap.

Ballast is far more efficient than fuel if you have a choice as to how to carry the weight.

#88 katmen

katmen
  • Member

  • 570 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 15:44

But the minimum weight will be at the end of the race, when you don't want fuel weight, you want only ballast weight.

At the end you want to be as close to the minimum as possible, probably a bit under. Then the car picks up as much rubber and debris on the tyres as possible on the cool down lap.

Ballast is far more efficient than fuel if you have a choice as to how to carry the weight.

yes, you are right but some engineering magic will be performed or there will be driver anorexia more spread

#89 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 August 2009 - 15:44

I thought that some ballast will be converted to fuel, but not all. Maybe some kers parts will be moved to the front.


KERS is already a nightmare to package, and in the case of those who used it (apart from McLaren), the heavy bits are situated right where the additional fuel will most likely be...

Everything seems to go against it...

#90 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,067 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 20 August 2009 - 23:25

...
MP's obsession with front tyre width is something I still can't relate to. I wrestled with the explanation but couldn't honestly say I know how tyre width was going to revolutionise the KERS implementation.


Talk to Brawn about it ... tyres are where its at in racing, its been that way for quite a while. The control tyre just makes it even more important to get the car to use them right.

It appears perhaps that the tyres will be narrower. The regulations say the following:

12.6.3 Tyre specifications will be determined by the FIA no later than 1 September of the previous season. Once
determined in this way, the specification of the tyres will not be changed during the Championship season
without the agreement of all competing teams.

Concerning the tyres being narrower, BS said in April they were going to be. And since KERS is still legal, the balance has to be improved.

I am disappointed that there has been no driver weight ballast established. While the world gets taller on average and heavier, F1 drivers look more and more like horse jockeys. Its very bad IMO.

Concerning what Bridgestone said in April about the tyres being narrower at the front for 2010, here it is - but I haven't read what they actually are going to do):

Bridgestone is planning to introduce a narrower and lower profile front tyre next season to better suit the handling characteristics of the current generation of Formula 1 cars.

Although F1's control tyre supplier switched from grooved to slick rubber this year, the dimensions of both the fronts and the rears remained unchanged. The removal of the grooves, which were the same size at the front and rear, has given the front tyres proportionally more grip than the back this year, creating more oversteer.

This requires teams to push the weight distribution of their cars even further forward than in 2008, something which exacerbates the difficulties of the heavier drivers, such as Robert Kubica, in running KERS.

Bridgestone is developing this spec of tyres in parallel with a change in the compounds, which is necessary because of the banning of refuelling next year.

"We are now discussing it with the FIA," said Bridgestone head of motorsport tyre development Hirohide Hamashima. "We haven't decided at the moment, but the trend is for a narrower front.

"The teams require Bridgestone to make the car balanced. In 2008, we proposed a smaller front tyre for 2009 but everybody refused it because they had already designed their cars, even though we commented on the oversteer tendency.

"In the winter, we tested a 2010 prototype tyre, a bit narrower, which made the car balance better than the current tyres. But it was not narrow enough for 2010 because they have to use KERS, so they asked us to think about that.

"At the moment, we have proposed an even narrower front tyre."

Hamashima ruled out the possibility of keeping the front tyres the same and widening the rears on cost grounds.

"A wider rear tyre is much more expensive because we have to revise the machinery and other things. We had narrower fronts in 1997, so we have the machines already."

Bridgetone Plans Narrower Front Tyres, Autosport Article

Edited by Melbourne Park, 20 August 2009 - 23:33.


#91 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:34

No, the rules say TYRE warming devices. Brawn at least apparently use WHEEL warmers that mount to the insides of the wheels. I was thinking perhaps they could come up with some rationalization like the metal of the wheel itself must be warmed for safety reasons.

The original "no tyre warming devices but blankets" rule was to ban the pizza oven technology.

No, Ferrari's 2005 tyre-ovens are not restricted by that rule as the rule has not changed since 2005. Look at the 2005 Sporting Regulations article 75f, it's the same as for 2010. The rationale behind Ferrari's ovens was that it was not the oven that heated the tyre, it just 'retained' the heat. It was still the blanket that heated the tyre, because what Ferrari did was simply to line the inner wall of the box with the same type of tyre blanket.



#92 gaston_foix

gaston_foix
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 21 August 2009 - 09:13

I didn't read the all topic but can someone tell me if the teams will be allowed to test during the season?