Jump to content


Photo

New technical regs


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 Gintonious

Gintonious
  • Member

  • 991 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 27 September 2012 - 12:39

Just published by the FIA.

In work so cant read them at the minute, hopefully its the end of the stepped nose design!

FIA Website

Advertisement

#2 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 September 2012 - 12:51

Yup, it's in there:

3.7.9 With the exception of an optional, single piece, non-structural fairing of prescribed laminate
(whose precise lay-up may be found in the Appendix to the regulations) which may not be
more than 625mm above the reference plane at any point, no bodywork situated more than
1950mm forward of rear face of the cockpit entry template may be more than 550mm above
the reference plane.



#3 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,698 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 27 September 2012 - 12:55

Yup, it's in there:

3.7.9 With the exception of an optional, single piece, non-structural fairing of prescribed laminate
(whose precise lay-up may be found in the Appendix to the regulations) which may not be
more than 625mm above the reference plane at any point, no bodywork situated more than
1950mm forward of rear face of the cockpit entry template may be more than 550mm above
the reference plane.


Anyone got the measurements for how far ahead the rear-face of the cockpit the step currently is? Have they moved that point forward?

#4 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 September 2012 - 13:24

Anyone got the measurements for how far ahead the rear-face of the cockpit the step currently is? Have they moved that point forward?

Nope. The step stays the same, they just allow to add a non-structural cover.

Edited by dau, 27 September 2012 - 13:24.


#5 Richard T

Richard T
  • Member

  • 1,189 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 27 September 2012 - 13:41

Thank god! This is for 2013 and not added this years regulations in case anyone was unsure...

#6 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 27 September 2012 - 13:48

So will the noses look like 2011 or will they be lower?

#7 jee

jee
  • Member

  • 718 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 27 September 2012 - 13:53

They will look like 2010

#8 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 27 September 2012 - 15:15

Only if it can be an aerodynamic advantage.

#9 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 27 September 2012 - 19:13

Just published by the FIA.

In work so cant read them at the minute, hopefully its the end of the stepped nose design!

FIA Website

Merc's DRS - no more in 2013. I wonder why.

#10 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 1,251 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 27 September 2012 - 20:14

Lotus DDRS out as well?

#11 TheWilliamzer

TheWilliamzer
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 27 September 2012 - 20:16

i'm getting this printed.

#12 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 27 September 2012 - 20:33

Lotus DDRS out as well?

http://en.espnf1.com...tml?CMP=OTC-RSS


#13 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,899 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 27 September 2012 - 21:42

Merc's DRS - no more in 2013. I wonder why.

Because FIA loves banning things.

#14 korzeniow

korzeniow
  • Member

  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 27 September 2012 - 21:45

Because FIA loves banning things.


Actually teams agreed to ban the solution.

#15 Arry2k

Arry2k
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 27 September 2012 - 21:55

Thank the lord! No more ugly noses :clap:

#16 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,369 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 27 September 2012 - 22:15

Time to force noses to the floor and ban splitters.

#17 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 28 September 2012 - 02:33

Time to force noses to the floor and ban splitters.


Yep, great way to also decrease downforce, though the top teams will surely not want to start over again.

#18 kissTheApex

kissTheApex
  • Member

  • 213 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 28 September 2012 - 02:38

But I like the ugly noses :)... Especially the Sauber's

#19 vas04614

vas04614
  • Member

  • 329 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 28 September 2012 - 03:47

Hike in entry fee for next year for F1 teams
I smell big debates and arguments between teams and FIA over this

Edited by vas04614, 28 September 2012 - 03:48.


Advertisement

#20 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,034 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 28 September 2012 - 03:55

Can we go back to the 2008 rear wings with DRS? Also reduce the width of the snow ploughs slightly? We should see some beauty back in the cars.

#21 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,475 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:21

Can we go back to the 2008 rear wings with DRS? Also reduce the width of the snow ploughs slightly? We should see some beauty back in the cars.

On that topic...

Why did they not lower the whole nose (ala McLaren and Marussia)? Surely that would reduce aerodynamic performance (initially, of course Mac and Marussia have it figured out), which would be desirable?

The cars would look better with the fully lowered nose.

They have missed a trick with this one IMO.

#22 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,475 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:23

Yep, great way to also decrease downforce,

:up:

though the top teams will surely not want to start over again.

:down: They should have no say.

They can afford to redesign their car, but don't want to lose their advantage, it's pathetic.


Fully lowering the nose would be an excellent idea. :up:

#23 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,369 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 28 September 2012 - 08:01

Yep, great way to also decrease downforce, though the top teams will surely not want to start over again.


Would cause a very large reduction in downforce from the floor. Would also result in much better looking cars.


An issue which Scarbs has brought up is that in the event of an accident, this temporary nose cover will simply fly off the car and could be lethal. Would be heading straight for the drivers head possibly.

#24 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 28 September 2012 - 08:32

Can we go back to the 2008 rear wings with DRS? Also reduce the width of the snow ploughs slightly? We should see some beauty back in the cars.

Front wing width will be reduced to 1650mm for 2014. Currently they can use the full 1800mm car width. Rear wings will stay the same as far as i'm aware.

On that topic...

Why did they not lower the whole nose (ala McLaren and Marussia)? Surely that would reduce aerodynamic performance (initially, of course Mac and Marussia have it figured out), which would be desirable?

The cars would look better with the fully lowered nose.

They have missed a trick with this one IMO.

The teams probably didn't want to change too much. Maybe some won't even run that fairing, they're all used to the stepped noses now.

Scarbs wrote that they wanted to drop the nose tips to 250mm for 2014, but i can't find anything in the regulations about this.

#25 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,369 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 28 September 2012 - 09:06

Scarbs wrote that they wanted to drop the nose tips to 250mm for 2014, but i can't find anything in the regulations about this.


I believe the bulkhead is also being reduced for 2014, eliminating the need for those covers.

#26 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,326 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 28 September 2012 - 10:41

I'm sure they discussed it and decided it's safe, but first thing that crossed my mind is that a non-structural piece of material right in front of the driver can separate itself from the car move towards the cockpit area during a heavy crash.



edit: funny, I was going to add something like 'it be nice to see what Scrabs has to say about it' and then I read Ali_G's post just above mine.

Edited by wingwalker, 28 September 2012 - 22:56.


#27 Ravenak

Ravenak
  • Member

  • 939 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 10:56

So wait. The teams are not forced to add this cover on the nose, right? Is it optional?

#28 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,369 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 28 September 2012 - 11:33

So wait. The teams are not forced to add this cover on the nose, right? Is it optional?


Completely optional.

I can't see any team not using it though. The aerodynamic gain would be too much to turn down I'd expect.

#29 Ravenak

Ravenak
  • Member

  • 939 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 28 September 2012 - 11:38

Who knows, they always manage to have "funny" ideas...

#30 george1981

george1981
  • Member

  • 770 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 28 September 2012 - 11:53

Completely optional.

I can't see any team not using it though. The aerodynamic gain would be too much to turn down I'd expect.


I'd heard last year that the stepped noses didn't have much of a detrimental affect on aerodynamics. Without the stepped nose the air then has to go around the driver's head, and the cockpit opening and airbox, so the stepped nose wasn't too much of a disruption.
The stepped noses look fugly IMO. I guess when the FIA state how the vanity cover is to be manufactured they're trying to ensure that it'll be light and won't do any damage in an accident.

#31 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,899 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 28 September 2012 - 16:36

Actually teams agreed to ban the solution.

It doesn't matter if they agree or not. Not to mention it's almost always down to politics.



Yep, great way to also decrease downforce, though the top teams will surely not want to start over again.

Yeah, great idea, let's reduce the good one (more resistant to turbulent flow). Additional benefit is that maybe we'll achieve our goal of making the cars slower than GP2 :D

Edited by DrProzac, 28 September 2012 - 16:40.


#32 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,801 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 28 September 2012 - 16:41

Merc's DRS - no more in 2013. I wonder why.


Because everything eventually gets banned!

Like with all things in the sport, I have got used to the stepped-noses but won't be sad to see them banished to history never to return (I hope)

#33 Foyle

Foyle
  • Member

  • 31 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 28 September 2012 - 17:40

On safety I would like to see a mandatory 20-30mm of firm but resilient foam under the drivers bum and spine. It would save a bit of the spinal impact that they get when they bounce - so good for their health. Perhaps also mandate that lowest point of seat must be 30-40mm above undertray - basically raise the cockpit slightly. This would also improve driver visibility slightly.

Also separate to the car mandate a minimum COG + weight for the driver - to be compensated for by additional ballast. So that don't penalise taller heavier drivers as much.

#34 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,369 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 28 September 2012 - 19:53

Yeah, great idea, let's reduce the good one (more resistant to turbulent flow). Additional benefit is that maybe we'll achieve our goal of making the cars slower than GP2 :D


Raised noses create downforce (well in turbulence) at the rear of the car. WOuld make a lot of difference if we cut downforce generation at the front of the car which was good at generating downforce while in turbulence.

I'd personally like to see venturi's reintroduced with very long sidepods. Do the tech regs so the centre of downforce is far enough forward to allow cars to run without front wings at practically all tracks. Let em run with barn door rear wings to balance the car for what I care.

#35 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,899 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 28 September 2012 - 20:45

Raised noses provide more airflow for the floor, which has two low pressure peaks - splitter area and diffuser area. Floor downforce is not only on the rear (Some CFD to visualize this: 1, 2, 3). Anyway regardless of CoP shifts the problem is that the percentage of dirty air prone df increases which is bad.
Also I do't like the concept of decreasing downforce. It's flawed in many different ways and in the end you can't turn the clocks back, not to mention making other racing series slower.

I fully agree with the second part of your post. I'd also like a ground effects oriented formula with a lot less wing generated downforce (but with the overall downforce level equal or a reasonably higher than we have for a few years now). I'd allow more freedom in other areas, like active aerodynamics for more efficient and low drag cooling (variable side-pod intake area, for example) etc. It would be good "green" marketing (BS, I know) plus it would be something new.

Ah, did I mention engines with at least V10 era power? :smoking:

Edited by DrProzac, 28 September 2012 - 20:45.


#36 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,773 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 28 September 2012 - 22:39

An issue which Scarbs has brought up is that in the event of an accident, this temporary nose cover will simply fly off the car and could be lethal. Would be heading straight for the drivers head possibly.


This crossed my mind when I first heard of this "modesty panel" idea - hopefully we won't find out if it will present a problem.


#37 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,369 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 02 October 2012 - 17:51

2014 will be interesting.

Nose can be a max 185mm above the ground. The bulkhead will be reduced to 550mm.

#38 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,485 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 02 October 2012 - 17:58

Merc's DRS - no more in 2013. I wonder why.

Obviously to stop this Schumacher domination everyone is getting tired of.