Jump to content


Photo

2013 Rules


  • Please log in to reply
370 replies to this topic

#201 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 September 2010 - 15:28

They do two staging in tractor pulling. im not sure how its done tho.

But i have imagined it was something like this:
http://www.turbos.bw...oducts/r2s.aspx

Actually i imagined that they had the turbos exhaust sides in a true serial way.


I am confused by descriptions I have read of series turbocharging. On one hand I have seen it described exactly as a two stage system - both turbos are always "active", with one turbo compressor feeding the second. Other descriptions I have read sound like one turbo works at low rpms, and the other at higher rpms. Which sounds more like seuqential turbocharging to me.

In any case, it may be that they use a mechanical supercharger along with a single turbo, giving the two stages of supercharging. This does sound like the new VW engine.....

Edited by Wuzak, 16 September 2010 - 15:31.


Advertisement

#202 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 September 2010 - 15:34

Other detaisl revealed is that the turbos may be arranged in a two stage system (Renken called it compound, but I associate that with using turbines to returning power to the crank by mechanical drive), turbines in exhaust to drive accesories, and a possible future steam turbine heat recovery system. Also the KERS recovery system will now likely be based on 4 wheels, rather than the 2 in the current rules.


Of course, if they already have a turbo or two, they could use one or both to drive accesories, or at least drive altenators to drive the electric motor or recharge the batteries.

#203 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 16 September 2010 - 18:11

I am confused by descriptions I have read of series turbocharging. On one hand I have seen it described exactly as a two stage system - both turbos are always "active", with one turbo compressor feeding the second. Other descriptions I have read sound like one turbo works at low rpms, and the other at higher rpms. Which sounds more like seuqential turbocharging to me.

In any case, it may be that they use a mechanical supercharger along with a single turbo, giving the two stages of supercharging. This does sound like the new VW engine.....


The system described on the link above is of the series-sequential type. At low speeds the small high pressure turbocharger (the one closest to the engine) provides the boost alone (with the low pressure turbocharger just spinning along), at middle engine speeds both the high and low pressure turbochargers supply boost in a series configuration, and at high engine speeds the low pressure turbo provide the boost alone as the high pressure turbo is 'disconnected' with the two bypass valves.

On a classical two stage, aka series turbocharging, the low pressure and the high pressure turbocharger are always active.

#204 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 16 September 2010 - 18:19

Of course, if they already have a turbo or two, they could use one or both to drive accesories, or at least drive altenators to drive the electric motor or recharge the batteries.

Not going to happen. i swear by it!



The system described on the link above is of the series-sequential type.


looks more like a parallel setup to me. with valves to control it.

On a classical two stage, aka series turbocharging, the low pressure and the high pressure turbocharger are always active.


Like as in: The first one feeds the other one so that higher boost levels are achieved?

Edited by MatsNorway, 16 September 2010 - 18:19.


#205 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 16 September 2010 - 19:39

Not going to happen. i swear by it!





looks more like a parallel setup to me. with valves to control it.



Like as in: The first one feeds the other one so that higher boost levels are achieved?


It is not anything like a parallel setup. In a parallel setup each turbo provides the engine with air in parallel: turbo 1 takes air from the outside, compresses it and feeds it to the engine, turbo 2 takes air from the outside, compresses it and feeds it too the engine. With a parallel twin turbo setup each turbo is basically sized to provide air for half the engine need.

This is how a parallel setup can look like:
Posted Image

In a series setup one turbocharger compresses the outside air which is then fed to the second turbocharger which also compresses it before it is sent to the engine. Basically, the total boost is pressure before first turbocharger multiplied by first turbo pressure ratio and multiplied by second turbo pressure ratio. For instance 1*3*3 = 9 bar absolute pressure. That way it is possible to surpass the circa 6 bar absolute boost limit a single stage turbo can manage. The first low pressure turbo is sized to provide air for the full engine need, the second turbocharger is smaller due to the smaller volumetric air flow to the second turbocharger - a result of the air being denser due to the pressure increase by the first turbo.

The classical series aka two stage setup is basically identical to the system described in the link minus the bypass valve.

There are also parallel sequential turbo setups.

#206 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 17 September 2010 - 01:16

Would two parallel turbos be useful for a small in-line engine?

And would the sequential set up be required in a racing engine, which will spend most of its time in the high power range?

#207 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 17 September 2010 - 13:59

got it.

I agree.

In a series setup one turbocharger compresses the outside air which is then fed to the second turbocharger which also compresses it before it is sent to the engine. Basically, the total boost is pressure before first turbocharger multiplied by first turbo pressure ratio and multiplied by second turbo pressure ratio. For instance 1*3*3 = 9 bar absolute pressure. That way it is possible to surpass the circa 6 bar absolute boost limit a single stage turbo can manage. The first low pressure turbo is sized to provide air for the full engine need, the second turbocharger is smaller due to the smaller volumetric air flow to the second turbocharger - a result of the air being denser due to the pressure increase by the first turbo.


how do the exhaust gases go?

I was thinking in a serial there too.

Edited by MatsNorway, 17 September 2010 - 14:00.


#208 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,279 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 September 2010 - 03:46

how do the exhaust gases go?

I was thinking in a serial there too.

Usually the turbines are arranged the same as the compressors - serial if serial and parallel if parallel.

#209 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 18 September 2010 - 06:45

Would two parallel turbos be useful for a small in-line engine?

And would the sequential set up be required in a racing engine, which will spend most of its time in the high power range?



for a 4 cyl inline engine there is probably nothing more appropriate then a twin scroll single turbo. A twin turbo sequential will give you wider powerband, and better response at low RPM while keeping performance at the top of the RPM range, at the expense of complexity and added weight. I suspect they will go for a single turbo + some form of antilag...

#210 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 02 October 2010 - 01:09

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the modern efficient turbo engines use a minimal amount of boost?

If so, doesn't the proposed 3 bar boost seem excessive? For the same hp, would a slightly larger engine running lower boost be more efficient?

#211 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 02 October 2010 - 03:02

some configurations:


Posted Image

the VW setup compressor + turbo

Posted Image

a similar concept was used by Lancia in the Delta S4 Gr.B car - I don´t think we will see such a system in F1

Posted Image

the Group S Lancia ECV test car had an interesting 1.7 ltr. bi-turbo engine which used the tri-flux (apfelbeck) principle.
but I don´t think, that this specific cylinder head principle is suitable for an DFI engine.

Posted Image


#212 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 15 October 2010 - 08:29

It seems that the current engine manufacturers are baulking at the new (proposed) engine rules, and may be considering keeping the current V8s for some time to come.

Autosport article (subscription only)

One problem is that they are projecting development costs of $100m+. They also probably don't want a member of the VAG group entering F1 with engine regulations they prefer.

#213 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 15 October 2010 - 08:30

Would it be possible to adapt the current V8s to technologies such as direct fuel injection, and also add energy recovery systems?

#214 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,284 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 15 October 2010 - 09:40

I laughed at the idea of VAG being this unstoppable motorsport force. The last Doomsday machine was Toyota, and despite their reputation and funding, finally found a series where they couldn't turn it into momentum.

Yes Audi have been slaying people in sportscars, but against what competition? When Peugeot showed up and got going properly, Audi didn't look so awesome. Likewise their WTCC success with the SEATs has been due to car numbers/commitment vs BMW and Chevrolet, with the two latter brands running petrol engines in a series where the turbo diesels often had an advantage.

If anything I imagine VAG are more worried about their F1 chances than their rivals are.

#215 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 07 November 2010 - 09:37

http://www.auto-moto...13-3044637.html

Latest news on the the 2013 engine discussions from AMuS say that Renault and Cosworth have written to the FiA saying that a 1.6L four cylinder turbo engine would need regulating rpm, turbo pressure, compression, cylinder bore, valve diameter, minimum weight of pistons, conrods, crank shaft and the total engine to avoid a spending war.

#216 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,279 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:21

Latest news on the the 2013 engine discussions from AMuS say that Renault and Cosworth have written to the FiA saying that a 1.6L four cylinder turbo engine would need regulating rpm, turbo pressure, compression, cylinder bore, valve diameter, minimum weight of pistons, conrods, crank shaft and the total engine to avoid a spending war.

They are probably right too. So are we all agreed we don't want a spending war? We look back fondly on the glory days of Mercedes Benz, Auto Union, Alfa Romeo etc, but wasn't that a spending war? I think the right set of regulations (less emphasis on aero for example) could create the conditions where HP is not king, removing the incentive to spend mega-dollars chasing a few more HP.

#217 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:56

They are probably right too. So are we all agreed we don't want a spending war? We look back fondly on the glory days of Mercedes Benz, Auto Union, Alfa Romeo etc, but wasn't that a spending war? I think the right set of regulations (less emphasis on aero for example) could create the conditions where HP is not king, removing the incentive to spend mega-dollars chasing a few more HP.




HP will always be mighty important. unless ofc everyone got 1000hp+ then response and flat power curves become more important. but yea the lesser aero the more the drivability become. im all in for less aero.

F1 will always be a spending war compared to other forms of motor sport.

But why should we care? its not our money is it?

Im all in for diversity so i don't want a tightly speced motor.

#218 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 405 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 November 2010 - 11:00

The fear for a spending war isn't that justified. Even in the 2000s having the biggest budget was a guarantee for success. Honda and Toyota were the big spenders and their combined success was one lucky win (Hungary 2006). Renault had a far smaller budget and won both championships in 2005 and 2006.

#219 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 07 November 2010 - 11:30

If anything I imagine VAG are more worried about their F1 chances than their rivals are.


I wish the FIA in general would stop catering for manufacturers. They will bend to get VW "another manufacturer" into F1, you wait and see.


Advertisement

#220 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,279 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 November 2010 - 23:04

HP will always be mighty important. unless ofc everyone got 1000hp+ then response and flat power curves become more important. but yea the lesser aero the more the drivability become. im all in for less aero.

Above 600 hp or so, most of the power is only being used to push increasingly draggy aero through the air, for the sake of a few kilos of DF more than the next guy.

But why should we care? its not our money is it?

Most of us care about the racing and innovation. Spending mega dollars for incremental DF or HP gains, is not innovation. The last serious attempt at major engine innovation resulted in a rule-change.

Im all in for diversity so i don't want a tightly speced motor.

Yep! But the only way to open up the engine rules and maintain close competition and avoid a power escalation, is to apply a fuel-flow restriction or similar.

#221 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,988 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 07 November 2010 - 23:17

If one is going down the proposed path of an all but in name spec engine such as being proposed, it would make massively better sense to have a single supplier and spec than to waste money having parallel development and manufacturing programs of essentially the same design. Besides big cost savings, you should get better competitive equality losing the last remaining flimsy pretenses of there being non-spec engines as well. Obviously similar cost savings and equality can be had having a spec chassis, transmission and all other sub-systems as well. The concept of technical diversity is well and truly dead in F1, it's well past time to stop pretending otherwise and take full advantage of that fact.

#222 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,279 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 November 2010 - 23:37

If one is going down the proposed path of an all but in name spec engine such as being proposed, it would make massively better sense to have a single supplier and spec than to waste money having parallel development and manufacturing programs of essentially the same design. Besides big cost savings, you should get better competitive equality losing the last remaining flimsy pretenses of there being non-spec engines as well. Obviously similar cost savings and equality can be had having a spec chassis, transmission and all other sub-systems as well.

Agree 100%.

The concept of technical diversity is well and truly dead in F1, it's well past time to stop pretending otherwise and take full advantage of that fact.

Although you are correct, I hope the advocates of innovation in F1 keep fighting. There are plenty of spec series out there. Good racing and innovation are not mutually exclusve. It used to happen - it can happen again.

Edited by gruntguru, 07 November 2010 - 23:45.


#223 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,284 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 November 2010 - 07:50

How much innovation is there really in F1? Apply that to almost any industry, we are primarily in an era now of refinement. That's not to say there aren't big breakthroughs ahead, but they won't come from the automotive sector. Certainly not the racing world.

I'm kind of with desmo. A spec engine seems like the most unnatural thing you could imagine in F1, but look where we are now. Even without the rev limits and engine freezes, the designs more or less ended up in the same place anyways. Though in that sense we have the best of both worlds. We have a roughly spec engine (not huge differences in power, at least not enough to make someone uncompetitive or super competitive) but with enough manufacturer variety to keep the entrants and fans relatively happy.

The longer I watch racing the more I come to realise that the golden years of diversity are evolutionary accidents, and temporary.

#224 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,279 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 November 2010 - 11:55

How much innovation is there really in F1? Apply that to almost any industry, we are primarily in an era now of refinement. That's not to say there aren't big breakthroughs ahead, but they won't come from the automotive sector. Certainly not the racing world.

Im sure the blinkered majority were saying the same things 50 and 100 years ago. Here we are, with the most prescriptive set of rules GP racing has ever had - why do we need them if there are no breakthroughs ahead? You are certainly correct - under the current rulebook.

I'm kind of with desmo. A spec engine seems like the most unnatural thing you could imagine in F1, but look where we are now. Even without the rev limits and engine freezes, the designs more or less ended up in the same place anyways.

Of course they did. When the rules dictate a 2.4 litre, four stroke, poppet valves - dictates the modulus of elasticity for materials used etc etc etc. It is probably not unusual for an optimal solution to be converged apon.

Though in that sense we have the best of both worlds. We have a roughly spec engine (not huge differences in power, at least not enough to make someone uncompetitive or super competitive) but with enough manufacturer variety to keep the entrants and fans relatively happy.

Sounds like just about any spec series you care to name. F1 continues to ride the momentum of its glory days and the big name teams. It won't take a lot from here to fade into the morass of spec motor racing.

The longer I watch racing the more I come to realise that the golden years of diversity are evolutionary accidents, and temporary.

I don't think we are seing a convergence of technology - more a web of rules that little by little closes the doors on each new branch of innovation.

#225 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 08 November 2010 - 12:04

I am fascinated by innovation, but yesterday my only interest was whether Webber was going to catch Vettel, and whether Hamilton was going to catch Alonso.

#226 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 November 2010 - 12:34

I am fascinated by innovation, but yesterday my only interest was whether Webber was going to catch Vettel, and whether Hamilton was going to catch Alonso.


Well 2 things there Mr Mattthews, first when you have basically no variation in car or tyre then the ones who have slightly faster cars or setup aren't likely to be caught and even if they could be and again due to the lack of variation, once they get there the chances of getting passed are very slim.

It's incredible they are going to have these stupid rear wings to fake slipstreaming next year - why not just have real slipstreaming that has been a part of GP racing since the beginning of time.

#227 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,279 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 November 2010 - 12:44

I am fascinated by innovation, but yesterday my only interest was whether Webber was going to catch Vettel, and whether Hamilton was going to catch Alonso.

I am confident we all shared your interest, its intensity and duration.

And now back to the future (2013) - until the next race at least.

#228 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,284 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 November 2010 - 12:50

Of course they did. When the rules dictate a 2.4 litre, four stroke, poppet valves - dictates the modulus of elasticity for materials used etc etc etc. It is probably not unusual for an optimal solution to be converged apon.


They all moved to V10s without outside influence. The FIA only had to lock in the V10, and later V8, design because of the murmurs from Toyota that they were going to use V8s, V10s, and V12s in the same car depending on circuit. Which frankly was never going to work and probably wouldn't have happened, but the FIA did the sensible thing to prevent people going too far afield.

Diversity tends to come from chaos. Look at the first years of GP2 and now Moto2. Since everyone is still trying to find their way in the dark there's 'competition' and it's all very entertaining. But over time GP2 races became more and more predictable as people found the best way to approach the weekends. Same as F1 strategy, very rarely do people deviate in pit stop strategy.

Look at something like CART when it was still an open format. A lot of the money was from tobacco, engine mfgs, or associated b2b sponsorship. So to an extent people weren't as performance based on sponsorship revenue. So people did wacky things. Newman-Haas subcontracted a bespoke Swift. AAR redesigned the Reynard to such ridiculous levels that it became an Eagle 987. Penske went pure prototype and made one of their most interesting cars ever. But it sucked. So did the Eagle. And the Swift wasn't worth the effort. So Roger goes to Reynards, cleans them up, and cleans out the points. Newman-Haas went to the Lola and once they unlocked the potential in that car everyone started migrating towards it. CART didn't need to mandate a particular chassis, they arrived at it.

That said, I thought CART had the ideal mindset chassis wise. Let the market determine whether bespoke, in-house, or customer cars are the best way to go.

The innovation found in motorsport is a marketing thing primarily. A small % of the F1 fanbase cares about the technology, and the majority of that subsection is ignorant of what's going on. They talk about double difusers, single keels, and embarassingly attempt driving technique. The actual tech nerds are a very very small part of the audience. I don't think opening up the technology is neccessarily good. Everyone is nostalgic for a 92 Williams, but that was a really dull season. And racing leagues survive on being entertainment, with as much technology as your customer base will allow. If you want to see wonderful widgets, watch DARPA or NASA.


#229 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 08 November 2010 - 13:01

Well 2 things there Mr Mattthews, first when you have basically no variation in car or tyre then the ones who have slightly faster cars or setup aren't likely to be caught and even if they could be and again due to the lack of variation, once they get there the chances of getting passed are very slim.

Just like now, then! Actually, the racing has been pretty good this year, time for the rule-makers to step in and screw it up.

#230 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 November 2010 - 16:26

Just like now, then! Actually, the racing has been pretty good this year, time for the rule-makers to step in and screw it up.


It has not been good this year. It has been entertaining but there is a difference.
You see when you have a clear speed advantage and can`t pass without extreme dedication like rubens on schumi or most of koba moves you dont have as god racing as you could have had.

Less wing!

#231 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 08 November 2010 - 17:18

It has not been good this year. It has been entertaining but there is a difference.
You see when you have a clear speed advantage and can`t pass without extreme dedication like rubens on schumi or most of koba moves you dont have as god racing as you could have had.

I didn't say it has been good, I said pretty good - there is a difference. Of course I want it to be better, but I don't think it's going to happen. Entertaining is all we can hope for.

#232 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,053 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 08 November 2010 - 21:40

It has not been good this year. It has been entertaining but there is a difference.
You see when you have a clear speed advantage and can`t pass without extreme dedication like rubens on schumi or most of koba moves you dont have as god racing as you could have had.

Less wing!



No wing !

#233 mtknot

mtknot
  • Member

  • 660 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 November 2010 - 23:36

Many of you who want overtaking will get loads of it, and probably too much of it next year with the changes to regulations...

We have:

-Rear wing stalling device
-Tyres developed to be grippy and not durable; Tyre war without tyre war. This means even more mechanical grip, which is always a good thing.
-Removal of the DDD

In 2013 I'd like to see wide track cars make a return... the current cars would look beautiful if they were wide track....

#234 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 08 November 2010 - 23:39

-Rear wing stalling device

Why are we constantly being told that the f-duct is banned next year?

#235 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 November 2010 - 03:38

Just like now, then! Actually, the racing has been pretty good this year, time for the rule-makers to step in and screw it up.

Why are we constantly being told that the f-duct is banned next year?


Not sure the racing has been good, more a case of interesting from the point of no one wants to win the WDC. Seeing cars that are 1 to 2 seconds faster per lap than the car in front of them but unable to get passed is just plain wrong as seen as recently as the last race (Brazil) with the top 4 trying to get passed the Williams.

Umm thats a tuff qustion but my answer would be "because it is". There is a wing angle change for passing thing being touted though.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....chnical_changes

Technical changes
The maximum height of the diffuser will be cut from 175 millimetres (6.9 in) to 125 millimetres (4.9 in), reducing aerodynamic downforce. Furthermore, measures were agreed to exclude double diffuser designs.[58]
In week leading up to the 2010 Spanish Grand Prix, a formal proposal was submitted to FOTA by British engineering firm Flybrid to supply the entire grid with a mandatory, standardized KERS unit, following campaigns led by Ferrari and Renault to see the technology re-introduced for the 2011 season.[59] In the aftermath of the 2010 Canadian Grand Prix, Ferrari confirmed they would be running the KERS device on their 2011 car,[60] but the system will not be mandatory.
In order to compensate for the increase in weight brought about by KERS, the minimum weight of the car will increase from 620 kilograms (1,367 lb) to 640 kilograms (1,411 lb).[60]
FOTA have agreed to ban the controversial "F-duct" system developed by McLaren for the MP4-25 and later deployed by other teams through the 2010 season.[61]
At the meeting of the FIA World Motor Sport Council in Geneva in June 2010, an adjustable rear wing system was confirmed as an addition to the 2011 rules.[2] It will be introduced to aid overtaking, serving as a substitute for the F-duct system. In a similar system to the KERS regulator used in 2009, the adjustable rear wing would only be available under certain conditions; namely, drivers will only be able to use it when they are within one second of the car in front, but it would not be usable within the first two laps of a race except in the case of an early safety car. The system is expected to offer drivers an additional 15 km/h (9.3 mph) when passing,[62] and will deactivate when the driver first touches the brakes after using the rear wing. The concept, which has been negatively received by drivers and fans alike,[63] could be dropped if it proves impractical or unmanageable.[64]
2011 will see the return of the 107% rule in qualifying.[2][65] Under this arrangement, any driver who fails to set a time within 107% of the pole sitter's time in qualifying will not be permitted to take part in the race; for instance, if the pole time is 1 minute 40 seconds, a driver must set a time faster than 1 minute 47 seconds in order to make it to the grid.
For the first time, cars will have a mandatory weight distribution, reported to be a ratio of 46:54.[66] This is intended to prevent teams from having to make expensive changes to the internal configuration of their cars in the event of changes to tyre compounds introduced by new tyre supplier Pirelli.
The number of wheel tethers – the load-bearing cables connecting tyres to the bodywork – will be doubled for 2011, in response to an increasing number of accidents where wheels have been torn free of their mountings, including the death of Henry Surtees in a Formula Two race at Brands Hatch in 2009.



#236 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 09 November 2010 - 06:23

Many of you who want overtaking will get loads of it, and probably too much of it next year with the changes to regulations...

We have:

-Rear wing stalling device

-Tyres developed to be grippy and not durable; Tyre war without tyre war. This means even more mechanical grip, which is always a good thing.
-Removal of the DDD



Why are we constantly being told that the f-duct is banned next year?



Umm thats a tuff qustion but my answer would be "because it is".

I know it is, you know it is, apparently mtknot doesn't know it is. I was just responding to his post, is all.

#237 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,284 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 09 November 2010 - 06:30

I think the rear wing staller is something that increases the gap between the two planes to help overtaking, and is restricted as to how many times it can be used? Whereas the F-Duct is, well, a ducting system.

#238 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 09 November 2010 - 06:46

Whereas the F-Duct is, well, a ducting system.

Which as far as I know stalls the rear wing.

#239 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,284 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 09 November 2010 - 08:44

Yes, but it's more the system is being changed than the result. The slot gap seperator will be a physical change rather than an airflow one.

Advertisement

#240 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 November 2010 - 08:52

Which as far as I know stalls the rear wing.

I know it is, you know it is, apparently mtknot doesn't know it is. I was just responding to his post, is all.


Indeed it does where as next years simply lessens drag although I don't know how, angle change or Ross's example or other?

Oh, sorry :blush:


#241 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,284 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 09 November 2010 - 09:00

I'm not sure where they actually got with the rule change, but isn't this the one where there is going to be some sort of mechanism in the rear wing that will raise the upper half of the top plane? The idea being that if for some reason the system failed, it would automatically drop down into full downforce mode.

And by using a mechanism, I assume electronically controlled, they can limit how many times it can be used a lap, a la KERS, so people aren't using it all the time and cancelling each other out like the F-Duct currently does. It was nice when a few cars have it, now that everyone does it's useless.

#242 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 09 November 2010 - 09:19

I'm not sure where they actually got with the rule change, but isn't this the one where there is going to be some sort of mechanism in the rear wing that will raise the upper half of the top plane? The idea being that if for some reason the system failed, it would automatically drop down into full downforce mode.

And by using a mechanism, I assume electronically controlled, they can limit how many times it can be used a lap, a la KERS, so people aren't using it all the time and cancelling each other out like the F-Duct currently does. It was nice when a few cars have it, now that everyone does it's useless.


The flap will lay flat, I think, but it will only be available to drivers trying to pass.

#243 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,284 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 09 November 2010 - 09:22

And how will it determine who has earned the right to pass? Air pressure change on the nose as you hit the wake of the car ahead? Charlie Whiting with a master control deck? :p

#244 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 09 November 2010 - 10:56

And how will it determine who has earned the right to pass? Air pressure change on the nose as you hit the wake of the car ahead? Charlie Whiting with a master control deck? :p


A car has to be within 1s of teh car it is following...but I don't know how they are going to check that.

A question is will it be a problem with the rpm limit? With the F-duct the teams can set the gearing to suit its operation, plus alittle for the tow, but if you can only use this while trying to pass the gearing will be set for when it is not in operation, surely?

Maybe it's time that the rpm limits be removed again?

#245 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 09 November 2010 - 13:16

A car has to be within 1s of teh car it is following...but I don't know how they are going to check that.

They could paint big white chevrons on the track like they do on sections of motorway... The more they pratt about with F1 the more I lose interest.

#246 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 November 2010 - 13:56

Maybe it's time that the rpm limits be removed again?


Theres something worse in my mind and thats that you have to choose gearbox ratios pre race weekend. Another stupid attempt at cost saving that has damaged the racing.

So here you are, you qualify poorly and are in say 12th instead of the usual front row and you know you have a need for slipstreaming to pass guys in front who you know are slower so you raise your top gear slightly to facilitate extra speed in the draft BUT you can't go faster, you just hit a RPM wall and can't go past - same if theres a tailwind and you may gear down for a headwind etc. and the tailwind thing has already happened in a race this year where most cars were topped out 3/4's the way down the main straight.

I was shocked when I read that rule was in place and freeing up ratio's would hardly affect costs at all but improves racing.

Edited by cheapracer, 09 November 2010 - 13:57.


#247 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,284 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 09 November 2010 - 15:01

That'd still be a problem because setup is sealed after the start of qualifying. So they'd have to remove the ratio restriction, allow them to make additional changes after qualifying, allow further modifications so they can adjust the rear wing, etc. Then we need to bring back the morning warmup to test those changes, etc, et al. I don't think any races have been ruined by people not being able to adjust their gearing.

#248 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 November 2010 - 15:24

That'd still be a problem because setup is sealed after the start of qualifying. So they'd have to remove the ratio restriction, allow them to make additional changes after qualifying, allow further modifications so they can adjust the rear wing, etc. Then we need to bring back the morning warmup to test those changes, etc, et al. I don't think any races have been ruined by people not being able to adjust their gearing.


That used to be part of car setup over the weekend, an art we haven't seen for a while and it doesn't cost any extra.

You are incorrect, I mentioned a race this year (can't remember sorry) that a few drivers were complaining of exactly that issue, Button was one of them.

Oh I remember it was an early race and in the same race Massa was stuck behind a slower car for almost the entire race and it had a long straight and Massa just sat on the rev limiter while in the slipstream. I may look for the race later.

Edited by cheapracer, 09 November 2010 - 15:28.


#249 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 09 November 2010 - 21:59

I figure with the engine restrictions now the teams wouldn't be able to use the extra 2k rpm all the time, but could be quite handy for those slipstream moments.

I think I read somewhere a while back that gearratios were prederemined in the simulator before hitting the track, a long time before the FIA banned gear ratio changes at a race weekend.

#250 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 09 November 2010 - 23:33

And how will it determine who has earned the right to pass? Air pressure change on the nose as you hit the wake of the car ahead? Charlie Whiting with a master control deck? :p


I really liked Locock's idea of remote control consoles operated by celebrities. "Steering for Jenson Button at this event will be Miss Courtney Love, while Robbie Williams will be handling the braking and gear changes for Lewis Hamilton."