Jump to content


Photo

FIA scrap 2014 bodywork changes [split]


  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

#1 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,956 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 December 2012 - 14:37

Whoa! This is for 2014 but very significant:

2014 F1 Technical Regulations

A new draft with numerous changes was discussed and agreed by the F1 Technical Working Group and Powertrain Working Group.

The requirement for cars to be driven exclusively under electric power in the pit lane has been postponed until 2017.

A number of changes have been made to the power unit regulations with the aim of limiting technology in some areas in order to reduce development costs.

Changes made to bodywork design, originally aimed at reducing downforce and drag for increased efficiency, have reverted to 2012 specification.

The minimum weight limit has been raised to compensate for additional power unit weight.


So the lower front bulkhead and nose, removal of the beam wing, changes to the front and rear wing have been binned.

Edited by Timstr11, 05 December 2012 - 14:52.


Advertisement

#2 Richard T

Richard T
  • Member

  • 1,290 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 14:58

Whoa! This is for 2014 but very significant:

So the lower front bulkhead and nose, removal of the beam wing, changes to the front and rear wing have been binned.


THANK YOU FIA!

God i was fearing the cars would look like formula fords by then...

#3 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,233 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 15:01

Whoa! This is for 2014 but very significant:

So the lower front bulkhead and nose, removal of the beam wing, changes to the front and rear wing have been binned.


why some people are scathing of the FW/RW dimensions??? it's not affecting the racing in anyway, no matter what is the dimension, a good chasis will always win. more important is DRS,KERS power limits and Engine regs.

#4 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,956 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 December 2012 - 15:09

why some people are scathing of the FW/RW dimensions??? it's not affecting the racing in anyway, no matter what is the dimension, a good chasis will always win. more important is DRS,KERS power limits and Engine regs.

My point is the significance of the change for teams. The originally proposed changes were massive and you could argue it was another chance to reset the field (like in 2009). But it now looks like the 2013 aero will carry over into 2014, with changes to accommodate and take advantage of the new 2014 gearbox-ERS-engine package.

Good news for all teams or more beneficial to some teams? At least there will be less of a strain on aero development resources next year.

#5 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,256 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 15:35

Posts split away from the 2013 regulation thread - continue 2014 discussion here :)

#6 jimjimjeroo

jimjimjeroo
  • Member

  • 1,485 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 15:42

Were there any drawings of what the '14 cars may look like?

#7 Lamag

Lamag
  • Member

  • 1,094 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 15:45

Red Bull and Newey would to this.

#8 Lennat

Lennat
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 15:49

I sure hope they give the engines some more power than planned. 600 horsepower with not enough KERS and current aero would be a damn joke.

#9 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,956 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 December 2012 - 15:53

Were there any drawings of what the '14 cars may look like?

Posted Image
http://scarbsf1.com/...lation-changes/

#10 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 05 December 2012 - 16:05

Thx, for having to look at these oversized frontwings even longer.

#11 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,090 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 16:05

Does this mean we are stuck with ugly noses for another season?

#12 rsaca

rsaca
  • Member

  • 351 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 16:08

Does this mean we are stuck with ugly noses for another season?


No, fortunately, FIA confirmed the cars can have a "structurally irrelevant" cover for the step.

#13 Anderis

Anderis
  • Member

  • 2,671 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 16:10

The originally proposed changes were massive and you could argue it was another chance to reset the field (like in 2009).

Yeah, this is what I was hoping for. Significant changes in aerodynamics could shake up the field and give a chance to Caterham and Marussia to start without such a massive experience handicap like they have under current rules, which would most likely result them being closer to older teams than they are now.

#14 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 16:13

I can't believe this. Another horrible decision from the FIA.

#15 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 16:17

Well it's clear the FIA has no clue anymore...as if they ever really did.

We were on the cusp of seeing some genuinely interesting stuff come 2014, and now it's all been killed off for what exactly?

The current formula is the worst formula since 1950, and they want to continue the trend of triple decker wings? I was looking forward to an end of seeing tires punctured because of these eyesores.

I'd love to know which team or teams lobbied to keep the bodywork the same.

#16 Gagá Bueno

Gagá Bueno
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 16:32

I can't believe this. Another horrible decision from the FIA.


+1

I simply can't follow it, they seem to be completely out of their mind...

#17 amppatel

amppatel
  • Member

  • 506 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 16:57

No aero changes in 2014, shit...

#18 Guizotia

Guizotia
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 16:58

No aero changes in 2014, shit...


Oh dear.

#19 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 17:00

Typical FIA, waste years drawing up new rules that were well thought out and then scrap them at the last minute and introduce some half assed rules that will just make the cars look and handle worse.

Advertisement

#20 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 05 December 2012 - 17:12

No aero changes in 2014, shit...


Still bringing the new engines in though.

#21 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,757 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 05 December 2012 - 17:25

Thx, for having to look at these oversized frontwings even longer.


Yeah, frigging wide FW causing the majority of first corner incidents, making wheel-to-to wheel racing a rare specialty. And yes, it is just abnormally ugly.

Have a feeling that this here is the point and the date when Mecedes' chances for 2014 are starting to fade considerably. It sounds like Mateschitz has two teams, on the grid, and now they have the FIA in the pocket too. Brace yourselves for another three Vettel WDC's, the next few year's will be a walk in the park for Red Bull. They mihght even reward Mar Webber with an in-between WDC just for the fun of it. 630 mill, and more. Impressive, really.


#22 stanga

stanga
  • Member

  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 05 December 2012 - 17:27

I've been spending a fair amount of time recently looking at older formulas, and the current cars are frankly awful. The front wing is just ridiculous. A missed opportunity.

#23 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 17:27

I can't believe this. Another horrible decision from the FIA.

Well it's clear the FIA has no clue anymore...as if they ever really did. [...]

+1

I simply can't follow it, they seem to be completely out of their mind...

Typical FIA, waste years drawing up new rules that were well thought out and then scrap them at the last minute and introduce some half assed rules that will just make the cars look and handle worse.

Technical Regulation changes are drafted by the Technical Working Group, which consists of representatives of each team and the FIA Technical Delegate and then decided on by the F1 Commission, consisting of representatives from the teams, FIA, FOM, race organisers, sponsors and i think the tyre manufacturer as well. FIA's WMSC can only formally sign off what TWG and F1 Commission have decided on.

#24 toxicfusion

toxicfusion
  • Member

  • 523 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 17:28

I imagine the teams have argued, behind the scenes, that 2014 will see a lot of money spent out on the development of new engines and they are bound to produce some headaches that making changes across all aspects isn't a good idea.

#25 OoxLox

OoxLox
  • Member

  • 436 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 05 December 2012 - 17:33

Who cares? If anything, it's a lost opportunity for RBR as Newey seems to do pretty well with big aero changes. If there had been no DDD on the Brawn in 2009, we might be looking at Vettel 4xWDC by now because the RB that year was easily the best non-DDD car.

#26 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 17:40

First of all the link to the official Formula 1 website.

There have also been several tweaks to the 2014 regulations. The requirement for cars to be driven exclusively under electric power in the pit lane has been postponed until 2017 and changes made to bodywork design, originally aimed at reducing downforce and drag for increased efficiency, have reverted to the 2012 specification. The minimum weight limit has also been raised to compensate for the additional weight of the new 2014 power units.


It is not quite clear what those changes are exactly. In any case it will lessen the impact of the 2014 rules on the teams and cars, making it more difficult that the current order gets shaken up. Arguably some designers would have loved a bigger white sheet to explore new ideas.

Edited by H2H, 05 December 2012 - 17:42.


#27 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 05 December 2012 - 18:23

Who cares? If anything, it's a lost opportunity for RBR as Newey seems to do pretty well with big aero changes. If there had been no DDD on the Brawn in 2009, we might be looking at Vettel 4xWDC by now because the RB that year was easily the best non-DDD car.

I am not sure about that. Ferrari and the other guys would see through this and never endorse anything that could harm them, while Seb has clear and trouble free sailing. I wish those guys would explain each time they change specs, why it is necessary, especially when there are restrictions on testing, software programs need to be changed, etc., thus all king of a new cost is added.

___________

I see that H2H is on the same page regarding reasons for changes...

Edited by Sakae, 05 December 2012 - 18:25.


#28 tomjol

tomjol
  • Member

  • 133 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 05 December 2012 - 18:28

Who cares? If anything, it's a lost opportunity for RBR as Newey seems to do pretty well with big aero changes. If there had been no DDD on the Brawn in 2009, we might be looking at Vettel 4xWDC by now because the RB that year was easily the best non-DDD car.


Pretty sure that with three doubles on the trot and, as you say, potential for it to have been four, RBR have no interest in big aero changes.

#29 onewingedangel

onewingedangel
  • Member

  • 947 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 05 December 2012 - 18:31

Until we know more detail there is a chance people are overreacting - it could just be that rear wing dimensions will remain the same, rather than being Monza-spec at Monaco.

The cars overall are likely to be somewhat different anyway due to the new engine packaging.

#30 Rikhart

Rikhart
  • Member

  • 581 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 18:38

Well, that will mean the field will get even tighter than it is atm over the next two years, unless the engines turn out to have huge performance disparities. Closer racing is always good.

#31 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,656 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 18:39

The new engines weigh more?

#32 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,859 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 18:45

The new engines weigh more?


Not per se - but with all of the extra plumbing, intercoolers etc they may end up weighing more as a system so to speak.

#33 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,922 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 05 December 2012 - 18:57

God i was fearing the cars would look like formula fords by then...

+1

I wish they've sicked to the original idea of reintroducing (full) ground effects.

Edited by DrProzac, 05 December 2012 - 18:58.


#34 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,956 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 December 2012 - 19:03

According to AMuS, the reason they scrapped the 2014 aero changes is because the cars would have become an average of 5 seconds per lap slower.

#35 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,956 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 December 2012 - 19:07

I agree with Ferrari that we need less aero and more mechanical. To compensate for the 5 seconds per lap, they could have considered re-introducing active suspension.

#36 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,432 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 19:15

why some people are scathing of the FW/RW dimensions??? it's not affecting the racing in anyway, no matter what is the dimension, a good chasis will always win. more important is DRS,KERS power limits and Engine regs.


Yes it is. Removing these silly wide front wings would reduce the occurrence of punctures resulting from marginal racing incidents, e.g Perez and Ricciardo in India.

The wings also just happen to make the cars look like silly toys.

Edited by Disgrace, 05 December 2012 - 19:16.


#37 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,744 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 05 December 2012 - 19:29

huge surprise.

#38 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,233 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 19:32

Yes it is. Removing these silly wide front wings would reduce the occurrence of punctures resulting from marginal racing incidents, e.g Perez and Ricciardo in India.

The wings also just happen to make the cars look like silly toys.


the reason we had all these punctures can be attributed 80% to only a handful of drivers (grosjean/perez/maldonado i.e the GP2 bunch) and in some cases experienced drivers taking silly risks (i.e alonso-raikkonen suzuka)

the reason RW was reduced was to reduce the wake and front wing increased to give more DF to overtake ... or atleast that was the intention. i admit the endplates are causing more punctures than previous years, but it's not only due to the FW alone, brundle seemed to comment that the tire-walls have become thinner compared to early 2000's and causing more punctures with mere touch. i really have to problem if they shorten/widen FW or do without it cause when watching a race, i tend to concentrate on race, not the FW :smoking:


all those people (mostly Red fans) jumping in the idea that a major aero tweak will somehow reduce the dominance of RB must be trippin on something powerfull. it'll affect all cars, not only RB, and if anyone can claw back aero loss, it's RB and macca for that matter. also people are touting new Engine as some sort of 'Deux Ex Machina', well this day and age of CAD design, with a given dimenison and material and boost pressure, all engines will come out more or less the same (like 2006, renault was a bit low on juice, but that was mitigated ). if any manufacturer gains a potential 2-3% advantage over power , FIA will step in to equalize it any way. so it'll come down to reliability and Fuel economy, again 2 areas renault engines are slightly ahead of the others , not to mention drivability and tunability. renault powerplant has the most flexible torque map of the 4 engines available. people are counting out renault from this engine war, but it'd be unwise to do so. and with cosworth gone,majority of the field will run renault plant, STR is in talks with renault to supply Renault engine from 2014 according to some reports. marrusia is also considering switching to renault. so they'll have plenty of data to work with, more so than ferrari.

#39 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 20:01

According to AMuS, the reason they scrapped the 2014 aero changes is because the cars would have become an average of 5 seconds per lap slower.


Sort of why they should've let the teams run high boost, so they could crank out 850-900HP on the turbo engines alone before KERS.

But, what's interesting is that with the Monza spec packages, the 2012 pole position time was about 4 seconds slower than what it was when the F2004 took pole in 2004.

I suppose as that's ancient history, they figure no one will notice. :smoking:

Advertisement

#40 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 20:03

I agree with Ferrari that we need less aero and more mechanical. To compensate for the 5 seconds per lap, they could have considered re-introducing active suspension.


I agree.

I'd love to see an active suspension package with today's knowledge.

#41 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 20:06

All of this idiocy with the aero changes being dumped, and yet the need to run these joke engines has me more excited than ever for the 2014 edition of Le Mans. The ACO has it right as far as I am concerned.

#42 TifosiUSA

TifosiUSA
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 20:08

So the cars will continue to look horrible. Man, I'm rapidly losing interest in F1.

5 seconds a lap slower? How the **** would a lower nose and different RW/FW make them five seconds a lap slower? Oh yeah, probaly partly due to these weak new engines.

YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN

#43 sosidge

sosidge
  • Member

  • 1,674 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 20:23

If the front wings will stay at the current width through 2014 and beyond, that is a real shame - they cause a huge number of unnecessary slashed tyres and damage in normal racing incidents.

Don't really care about bulkhead changes and the like. Don't really buy into the argument that slower laptimes are a "bad" thing either - I watch F1 for RACING not the clock. As long as the cars are faster than the next category down, that is all that matters.

No doubt the reason for dropping the aero changes is that the powertrain changes are a big enough challenge for the teams on their own (yada yada yada).

#44 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,455 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 05 December 2012 - 21:01

Don't really care about bulkhead changes and the like. Don't really buy into the argument that slower laptimes are a "bad" thing either - I watch F1 for RACING not the clock. As long as the cars are faster than the next category down, that is all that matters.


Perhaps, but weaker engines with the same grip level may be noticeable, and less spectacular.

Edited by Risil, 05 December 2012 - 21:01.


#45 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 21:14

I'm still all in for six-wheelers and ground-effect without any wings.

#46 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 21:51

So, in 2014 the cars will have loads of downforce and LESS power than what we have now.

Ugly, on-rails cars that generate 0 excitement. Fake and pathetic "racing". Good luck FIA I'm not watching that garbage.

#47 r4mses

r4mses
  • Member

  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 22:02

I agree with Ferrari that we need less aero and more mechanical. To compensate for the 5 seconds per lap, they could have considered re-introducing active suspension.


...or just allow more powerful engines! 600HP... wtf? we had more in late 90s/early 00s :/

#48 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 2,189 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 22:09

I want 1000hp engines, is it too much? :drunk:

It seems road cars will be much more powerful than Formula 1 cars, what a shame.

#49 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,956 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 December 2012 - 22:12

So, in 2014 the cars will have loads of downforce and LESS power than what we have now.

In 2014, exhaust blown floors will not be possible or worthwile I think, so some downforce will be lost as a result.

#50 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 22:19

In 2014, exhaust blown floors will not be possible or worthwile I think, so some downforce will be lost as a result.


The effect was not that great this season (maybe 1 sec), and the two extra years of general aerodynamic development will outweigh it.