Jump to content


Photo

2009 aero rules


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,660 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 February 2008 - 11:04

I has been reported that the OWG proposal for 2009 aero rules have been accepted in unanimity and that teams are already working towards these rules.
But does anyone know when the final detailed rules will be published by the FIA?
I thought it was regulated that the tech rules have to be published before a certain date of the preceding year.

===================================
Recap of the 2009 aero rules:

-Front wing width increased to 180 instead of 140 cm.

-Front wing height decreased to 7.5 instead of 15 cm.

-The middle section of the front wing over a width of 40 cm will be a regulated standard part.

-The front wing flaps will be adjustable from the cockpit by a max angle of 6 degrees, twice a lap.

-Rear wing width decreased. 75 instead of 100 cm.

-Rear wing height increased. 95 instead of 80 cm.

-The diffusor to start from the centre of the rear axle rather than from the front end of the rear wheels (thus shorter). However, it rises to a height of 17.5 instead of 12.5 cm (thus steeper).

-Bodywork regulations will be such that barge boards, winglets etc, will no longer be seen on cars.
====================================

Hard to picture what the front wing will look like. Especially the end plates, since the width of the front wing is allowed to be the same as the overall width of the car (in F1's case 1800mm). We also don't know how the standard regulated middle section will look.

I'm also curios about the cockpit adjustable front wing. I wish they'd just automate the thing, rather than the driver flipping a switch back and forth each lap.

Advertisement

#2 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 24 February 2008 - 11:41

More bodywork discussions are to be held late this month or early march before the start of the season.


in addition to what you mentioned here are some other features:

-Downforce will be reduced by 50% compared to 2006.
-Track width of the car will be 2 meters.
-Of course slicks with softer compound will come back.

#3 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,660 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 February 2008 - 11:45

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
More bodywork discussions are to be held late this month or early march before the start of the season.


in addition to what you mentioned here are some other features:

-Downforce will be reduced by 50% compared to 2006.
-Track width of the car will be 2 meters.
-Of course slicks with softer compound will come back.

Ok, thanks for this.
So the cars will be wider as well.

#4 quasi C

quasi C
  • Member

  • 2,035 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 24 February 2008 - 11:48

How do people see the aero departments in the future? On the surface it seems they'll be able to cut staff by a fair amount but then you read stories of teams maintaining or expanding their aero capabilities such as Renault and their new CFD facility, I can't reconcile the two facts. Will we see aero development as meticulous and wonderous as we have been over the last 5 years?

#5 Cplu

Cplu
  • Member

  • 55 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 24 February 2008 - 11:55

any word on how they plan to outlaw winglets etc?

some odd wording stating "each surface must be a continual curve with no more than a 45deg upward angle increase" or something equally preposterous and ambiguous?

or will it be simply "no winglets"

which would make much more sense, but obviously be open to much interpretation :)

#6 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,660 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 February 2008 - 11:59

Depends on whether the budget cap is introduced. And even if it is, I think aero will remain the largest department.

Especially with the dramatic changes in the aero rules, aerodynamic throughput to adapt to the changes will be of extreme importance.

How do people see the aero departments in the future? On the surface it seems they'll be able to cut staff by a fair amount but then you read stories of teams maintaining or expanding their aero capabilities such as Renault and their new CFD facility, I can't reconcile the two facts. Will we see aero development as meticulous and wonderous as we have been over the last 5 years?



#7 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,660 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:04

Originally posted by Cplu$
any word on how they plan to outlaw winglets etc?

some odd wording stating "each surface must be a continual curve with no more than a 45deg upward angle increase" or something equally preposterous and ambiguous?

or will it be simply "no winglets"

which would make much more sense, but obviously be open to much interpretation :)

An example of how bodywork regulations are worded (taken from the old version of the 2009 tech regs) :

3.8.3 The highest and widest points of the upper and side surfaces of any bodywork lying between a point 1300mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and the rear wheel centre line, when measured in any longitudinal plane parallel to the car centre line or reference plane, must lie at their forward extremities. If their height or width reduces rearward of this point (with the exception of bodywork more than 400mm from the car centre line, less than 600mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and less than 135mm above the reference plane), they may not then increase over their entire length. Any intersection of the surfaces in this area with a longitudinal vertical or horizontal plane must form one continuous line which is visible from above or from the side of the car with the rear wheels removed. Once the surfaces in this area are defined in this way apertures for the purpose of cooling and engine exhaust exits may be introduced, no part however may protrude beyond the previously defined surface.

:stoned:

#8 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:35

The banning of winglet is thought is concern only the appendices that are too flow vectors sensitive.

AFAIK the amount of downforce is to be reduced but the efficiency is to be maintained so the aero dpt will stay big.

Actually since those regulations are a two years set, some other regulations will come in 2011 and a radical change in 2013 (together with the new engine format) so..;
But that's far away.

Actually AFCA in the thread of F2008 (i don't link it because i think it is better to discuss it here) translated an interview of rory bryne that tells us two test sessions with slick tyres are planned this season, one in april, the other in july.


Thoses regulations are not easy. To make a larger portion of the grip aviable coming from the tyres you actually need to cut the downforce in very large proportions, if not, because the tyre's grip multiplies the downforce, you end up with about the same balance.

But by decreasing downforce in a very large amount (like those 50%) you push the tyre's grip into the limit of what is feasible and so you end up taking the risk the car will finally be slower.

Another way to make the car less sensitive would have been to reduce either the turbulence either the sensibility or both.

Taking this approach only (without decreasing the downforce) would have guaranteed the cars would retain their speed but it would have been very hard to achieve.

So the OWG took both, they decreased the turbulence by less couping between the diffuser and the rear wing, and made less sensitive surface by widening and lowering the front wing, having more Ground effects and banning some vortex generators.

all in one according to their results, ones now only need to be 0,5 seconds faster than the lead car to overtake compared to a now 2 seconds.

However this is the ideal situation, bear in mind that teams will try to make to car faster so probably not 50% of dowforce will be lost, but how much? we'll see.

#9 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,660 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 February 2008 - 13:02

So you're saying that the level of downforce reduction is still under discussion because they still don't know if it will be too much or too little for the slick tires?
Does this mean that the dimensions given above can still change pending he outcome of the discussions?

#10 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 24 February 2008 - 13:27

No the level of downforce as far as the OWG is concerned is adopted.

this is 50%.

Basically you need a compromise. Let me explain you.
What we want to achieve is that when following one car, you have more total grip than now.
But the loss of downforce is set up dependant (the sensitivity of your car's aero surfaces) so it is very hard to change this.

So we start from the principle we can't change that so we want to have a tyre grip being a greater proportion into the total grip.

If we do so then because the loss of downforce is fixed, we will end with more grip following a car than now.

But where it comes tricky is that the tyre friction coefficient is like its name indicates a coefficient as it applies to both weight and downforce.

The total grip aviable is given by:

Tire grip coeficient*(weight+downforce).

So when you increase it, you actually increase also the downforce. It ends up that there's a minimum downforce decrease necessary to end up with more grip when following another car.

If you don't decrease it enough, the tyre grip coef will make up for the loss of downforce and in some case you'll even end up with more total grip than before which will lead to even more downforce.

on the lower limit, you have to guarantee a minimum total grip level or else the F1 cars would be slower than GP2 cars.
You can't also increase the tyre grip coeficient endlessly, not only there're limits but also as you increase it the cars tend to be less reactive.

So the OWG had to find the correct amount of downforce cut so that: tyre grip coeficient needed to maintain the current pace is possible and that you really end up with more grip following someone than before.

that's why they find out 50% of 2006 levels were good.

BUT, teams will try to be the fastest and because the tyres are controlled only the aero and mechanical set up will be the means to go faster.

So it is not realistic to think that in 2009 the downforce levels will be really cut by 50% but still they'll be cut good enough and because OWG did work also on the dowforce loss (they cut is by a half !) when following a car they're pretty optimistic it will make a major change.

#11 F1 Engineer

F1 Engineer
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 24 February 2008 - 13:29

Originally posted by Timstr11
So you're saying that the level of downforce reduction is still under discussion because they still don't know if it will be too much or too little for the slick tires?
Does this mean that the dimensions given above can still change pending he outcome of the discussions?

I think that the technical directors (or equivalents) of each team have agreed to the proposals set forward by Rory, Pat and Paddy, in principle. Grip itself is a complicated thing and although all three are excellent engineers; I think the final numbers may change, depending on the outcome of the remaining tests as things on paper (even if backed up by a wind-tunnel/simulator) don't always pan out exactly, although that would be detrimental to any design work alread completed at that point.

After that, I think its likely that we will know, before the FIA knows and the FIA will know before the press knows. Because although this will require FIA ratification, its more of a bureaucratic seal of approval than a formal review of whats been put forward.

#12 MichaelPM

MichaelPM
  • Member

  • 2,587 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 24 February 2008 - 15:40

If they could just limit and police the total downforce exerted on a car and opened the rules for where the teams want to distribute it then it would be massively more interesting.

#13 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 24 February 2008 - 17:52

i think more or less this will be the case not especially in 09but after that because clearly the plans now are to decrease the downforce progressively towards 2013.

I think however in 2009 we'll have some interesting low drag configurations.

#14 rhm

rhm
  • Member

  • 990 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 24 February 2008 - 18:00

Originally posted by Timstr11

Hard to picture what the front wing will look like. Especially the end plates, since the width of the front wing is allowed to be the same as the overall width of the car (in F1's case 1800mm). We also don't know how the standard regulated middle section will look.

I'm also curios about the cockpit adjustable front wing. I wish they'd just automate the thing, rather than the driver flipping a switch back and forth each lap.



I'm not sure what they're getting at with the front wing width. They've got the most important change which is to lower it closer to the ground - that alone makes it far less sensitive to the wake of the leading car in an overtaking scenario. There's a limit to how much front-downforce is useful, esp. as it looks like they are going to reduce rear downforce substantially by separating the rear wing and diffuser as well as reducing the contribution of the diffuser. Therefore what good is increasing the front-wing width? Front wings are already rather less wide than allowed by the current regulations because they cannot achieve good efficiency ahead of the front wheels, so they end the wing about 10cm inside the max width each side and fill the rest of the space with a horizontal fence at the bottom and a dive-plane at the top. I suppose it's possible the detailed regs will outlaw the complex end-plates we see today and possibly also this standard profile they will require for the centre section of the wing will generate little downforce, thus teams will be compelled to use the full width allowed to get the required downforce even with the lowering of the wing into ground effect.

The front-wing flap adjustment from the cockpit is an odd idea. To allow them to only adjust it twice per lap means they will roll off downforce (and drag) on the longest straight and then crank it back on for the remainder. But every other driver will be doing the same thing so how that helps with overtaking is hard to see. Also, how the hell to you fit a compact enough mechanism into the front-wing assembly to allow this? I bet that proposal is dropped before the rules are ratified.

I'm similarly baffled by the changes to the diffuser area. If you just want to reduce downforce, sure, shorten the length of it. But why are they increasing the height allowed? Doesn't that just result in it working the air harder and creating more turbulence? Also, reducing the downforce alone doesn't really help with overtaking, esp. if it's ground-effect downforce you are losing. Better to lengthen the diffuser inside the wheelbase and lower the maximum height at the exit. That will increase ground-effect downforce without increasing the effect on the following car. Then limit the rear wing to a single element with no lower beam-wing thus substantially reducing the up-draft, which is what really affects the following car.

Banning bargeboards will similarly reduce ground-effect downforce - not a good thing for overtaking. Removing winglets is a good change though - they increase the up-draft effect to the full width of the car rather than just the width of the rear wing.

#15 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,660 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 February 2008 - 18:04

Thanks Ogami musashi and F1 Engineer.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

The 2009 launch season will certainly the most exciting in a long time.
Certainly hope the grid gets a big shake-up.

#16 quasi C

quasi C
  • Member

  • 2,035 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 24 February 2008 - 18:15

Must've been interesting seeing Paddy Lowe and Pat Symonds get a look at F2004 wind tunnel numbers, maybe a bit of nostalgia and "ah if we'd only known this 4 years ago".

#17 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,660 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 24 February 2008 - 18:28

Originally posted by rhm

Also, how the hell to you fit a compact enough mechanism into the front-wing assembly to allow this? I bet that proposal is dropped before the rules are ratified.

A compact electrical motor/actuator in the nose cone will be the least of their problems I think.

#18 xflow7

xflow7
  • Member

  • 3,040 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 24 February 2008 - 18:49

I'm busy reveling in the return of properly wide cars with slicks. :)

#19 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,888 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 24 February 2008 - 19:32

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
(...)-Downforce will be reduced by 50% compared to 2006.(...)



Where would that leave the cars? What year did they have more or less the equivalent of 50% downforce of 2006? 1999? 2003? Anybody?

Advertisement

#20 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 24 February 2008 - 22:38

Originally posted by rhm



I'm not sure what they're getting at with the front wing width. They've got the most important change which is to lower it closer to the ground - that alone makes it far less sensitive to the wake of the leading car in an overtaking scenario. There's a limit to how much front-downforce is useful, esp. as it looks like they are going to reduce rear downforce substantially by separating the rear wing and diffuser as well as reducing the contribution of the diffuser. Therefore what good is increasing the front-wing width? Front wings are already rather less wide than allowed by the current regulations because they cannot achieve good efficiency ahead of the front wheels, so they end the wing about 10cm inside the max width each side and fill the rest of the space with a horizontal fence at the bottom and a dive-plane at the top. I suppose it's possible the detailed regs will outlaw the complex end-plates we see today and possibly also this standard profile they will require for the centre section of the wing will generate little downforce, thus teams will be compelled to use the full width allowed to get the required downforce even with the lowering of the wing into ground effect.


Well in fact, the main difference is that the 2009 width will allow for more precise wheel-divert flows than now.
Because as of now, the front wing can be placed only just before the center of the wheel so that it is not very useful, in 2009 the front wing will extent just short of 10cm of the max width so there, vortex generation will be helpful.

You actually could see that before the width of the front wing was reduced in 2001 the teams used to vortex generate at the exterior of the wheel, now they do it by the interior.

Also you probably nail that end plates will be restricted (i don't think banned) so since one of their job is to virtually increase the width, teams will use more width.


The front-wing flap adjustment from the cockpit is an odd idea. To allow them to only adjust it twice per lap means they will roll off downforce (and drag) on the longest straight and then crank it back on for the remainder. But every other driver will be doing the same thing so how that helps with overtaking is hard to see. Also, how the hell to you fit a compact enough mechanism into the front-wing assembly to allow this? I bet that proposal is dropped before the rules are ratified.


Actually the rules are adopted so this one is too. The fact is you took the role in the inverse way, while it is totally possible to use it as you said, the goal is to have a fixed AOA, and when running in the wake of another car increase this AOA to increase the lift coefficient.

But one interesting thing is that it will be surely used for some other purposes, and here we will have to see the rules because if the measurements of max downforce are taken at the lower AOA of course while running in the highest one the downforce will increase..but we'll see.


I'm similarly baffled by the changes to the diffuser area. If you just want to reduce downforce, sure, shorten the length of it. But why are they increasing the height allowed? Doesn't that just result in it working the air harder and creating more turbulence?


The turbulence from the diffuser is not a problem as this is very low energy vortex.
Actually the diffuser length is shortened not to decrease it but to cut the coupling with the rear wing.
Yes in fact, while it is shortened the steep angle is increased.

Also, reducing the downforce alone doesn't really help with overtaking, esp. if it's ground-effect downforce you are losing. Better to lengthen the diffuser inside the wheelbase and lower the maximum height at the exit. That will increase ground-effect downforce without increasing the effect on the following car. Then limit the rear wing to a single element with no lower beam-wing thus substantially reducing the up-draft, which is what really affects the following car.


Actually increasing the height at the exit increases the diffuser efficiency thus the downforce. The diffuser slows down the flows. by doing this is the reference length it increases the velocity prior to it.

Now about decreasing downforce itself, yes it helps, but you have to cut it by a large margin while increasing the tyre coeficient.

If you do so, assuming the same downforce loss than before, you have more grip following someone.

Another method is to make either less turbulence or the following car less sensitive, in fact the OWG choose both methods, cutting downforce AND decreasing aero sensitivity and turbulence.

It is easier to cut downforce tough.

anning bargeboards will similarly reduce ground-effect downforce - not a good thing for overtaking. Removing winglets is a good change though - they increase the up-draft effect to the full width of the car rather than just the width of the rear wing. [/B]


Yeah on this one i agree, but i'm not quite sure the bargeboard in itself will be banned, i think this more the barge board as it is now, that is a massive vortex generator for the sidepods and rear wheel drag reduction.


Originally posted by atreiu
Where would that leave the cars? What year did they have more or less the equivalent of 50% downforce of 2006? 1999? 2003? Anybody?


This would lead to about 750kg@240km/h for a monaco race trim, about 1250kg maximum overall.

#21 Just

Just
  • Member

  • 673 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 25 February 2008 - 00:23

So any predictions on how lap times will be affected in '09?

#22 Cplu

Cplu
  • Member

  • 55 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 25 February 2008 - 02:44

Originally posted by MichaelPM
If they could just limit and police the total downforce exerted on a car and opened the rules for where the teams want to distribute it then it would be massively more interesting.


and, that would be easy as to enforce.

two standard hard points, one front, one rear.

500kg on the back, 500kg in the rear (this could be different for say, three classes of track - H,M&L to make it easy)

car touch ground = good to race.

car not touch ground = you is a cheater, go back to the rear of the grid.

#23 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,518 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 25 February 2008 - 05:14

I think it would be much better to rule that an F1 car at Z(say 320 km/h) needs to make no less (or more) than X air pression at 5 metres behind the back of the car at Y cm (or a plane size). Obviously no wind and at sea level and temperature for reference. With that whole book of rules that bureaucrats make would be slashed since this garantees that a certain point behind the car there will be a certain air "quality".

#24 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,140 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 25 February 2008 - 05:50

Originally posted by rhm
The front-wing flap adjustment from the cockpit is an odd idea. To allow them to only adjust it twice per lap means they will roll off downforce (and drag) on the longest straight and then crank it back on for the remainder. But every other driver will be doing the same thing so how that helps with overtaking is hard to see.

If there is a shorter straight - and there often is - then the trailing car could leave its "flaps engaged" configuration on the main straight, and only use a small amount of stored energy on the main straight. That would mean that after the straight, the trailing car would have more stored energy available than the car in front, and could use "flaps up" mode on the second main straight. So the difference between the cars would be maximized on the second straight.

Is an extra downforce configuration also an option? So that the car uses the same wing setting for the whole circuit, but uses a super low downforce setting for the end of the main straight, which would allow later braking and a higher entry speed to the corner after the main straight?



#25 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,338 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 25 February 2008 - 08:06

How is widening the front wing and lowering it nearer the ground going to reduce downforce ? Massive gains to be made there.

#26 Gecko

Gecko
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 25 February 2008 - 08:58

Originally posted by Ali_G
How is widening the front wing and lowering it nearer the ground going to reduce downforce ? Massive gains to be made there.


By reducing the downforce available at the rear.

Downforce is not simply additive, it also needs to be applied at the right point of the car as the center of downforce must be fairly close to the center of gravity of the car. If the downforce is limited at the rear, then having a larger front wing does not mean you can simply pile up more downforce there as you will unbalance the car. The larger front wing will therefore in all likelihood be running safely below the maximum available performance (before stall), which should also mean that the airflow around it will be more stable, allowing the car to run closer to the one in front.

#27 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 25 February 2008 - 09:59

Originally posted by Just
So any predictions on how lap times will be affected in '09?


On the jerez tests the lap times were almost similar to the one in 2007. I think we will have a good idea at the first test session of the year in barcelona in april.

Originally posted by AlexS
I think it would be much better to rule that an F1 car at Z(say 320 km/h) needs to make no less (or more) than X air pression at 5 metres behind the back of the car at Y cm (or a plane size). Obviously no wind and at sea level and temperature for reference. With that whole book of rules that bureaucrats make would be slashed since this garantees that a certain point behind the car there will be a certain air "quality".


You can't police that as there're to many parameters changing, just for example a car under braking.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park

Is an extra downforce configuration also an option? So that the car uses the same wing setting for the whole circuit, but uses a super low downforce setting for the end of the main straight, which would allow later braking and a higher entry speed to the corner after the main straight?


We'll have to wait to see the rules, but the adjustment is there on the basis that you can increase your flaps when following a car to regain the downforce lost (26% at half a car length).

#28 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,140 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 25 February 2008 - 11:25

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
We'll have to wait to see the rules, but the adjustment is there on the basis that you can increase your flaps when following a car to regain the downforce lost (26% at half a car length).

Well, the rule was saying about how many times you can change the flaps, if I read it correctly. I don't think it said it must be done on the main straight.

A good place to pass is under brakes at the end of the main straight. If you come off or out of the turn leading into the main straight and you are in the wind shadow of the car in front, then why let the aero flaps down? Since you are already benefiting from drafting the car in front? Just use your hybrid boost so that you will have a bit more than the car in front, and then engage your flaps to lower downforce, and brake later, and you have passed the car under brakes. Its the most popular classic way of overtaking isn't it?

#29 D A

D A
  • Member

  • 888 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 25 February 2008 - 11:28

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Well, the rule was saying about how many times you can change the flaps, if I read it correctly. I don't think it said it must be done on the main straight.

A good place to pass is under brakes at the end of the main straight. If you come off or out of the turn leading into the main straight and you are in the wind shadow of the car in front, then why let the aero flaps down? Since you are already benefiting from drafting the car in front? Just use your hybrid boost so that you will have a bit more than the car in front, and then engage your flaps to lower downforce, and brake later, and you have passed the car under brakes. Its the most popular classic way of overtaking isn't it?


The point is that everybody will be doing it on the main straight. If the driver infront is doing it infront of another, it doesn't really change much.

#30 jeremy durward

jeremy durward
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 25 February 2008 - 11:43

i think the idea is more that you can now follow a car closely without losing the front through corners, sure it can be used for straights and drag ruduction too, but the main idea is still deffintely for following other cars

#31 Cplu

Cplu
  • Member

  • 55 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 25 February 2008 - 11:44

Originally posted by AlexS
I think it would be much better to rule that an F1 car at Z(say 320 km/h) needs to make no less (or more) than X air pression at 5 metres behind the back of the car at Y cm (or a plane size). Obviously no wind and at sea level and temperature for reference. With that whole book of rules that bureaucrats make would be slashed since this garantees that a certain point behind the car there will be a certain air "quality".


how you going to test that easily in parc ferme??

#32 D A

D A
  • Member

  • 888 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 25 February 2008 - 11:47

However I expect the change in flaps will benefit the most on the straights. I think nearly everybody will run with higher downforce everywhere except the main straight (to get as much downforce as possible on the twisty bits, but still be able to go fast on the straight.

#33 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 25 February 2008 - 12:05

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Well, the rule was saying about how many times you can change the flaps, if I read it correctly. I don't think it said it must be done on the main straight.

A good place to pass is under brakes at the end of the main straight. If you come off or out of the turn leading into the main straight and you are in the wind shadow of the car in front, then why let the aero flaps down? Since you are already benefiting from drafting the car in front? Just use your hybrid boost so that you will have a bit more than the car in front, and then engage your flaps to lower downforce, and brake later, and you have passed the car under brakes. Its the most popular classic way of overtaking isn't it?



of course this is possible but this is not the intended use. As jeremy said and as i said, the original purpose is to retain the front downforce when following someone close.

Of course this is sure this will be used in some other ways, and that's why i think that a cool addition.

#34 jeremy durward

jeremy durward
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 25 February 2008 - 12:08

maybe they'll have to qualify in low downforce trim, thus making the car unbalanced in high downforce trim and slow unless behind another car

#35 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,140 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 25 February 2008 - 12:38

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
of course this is possible but this is not the intended use.

:lol: Well, the argument is an old one about rule interpretations - the "intent of the rule". I think that if the FIA say the downforce can only be released on the main straight, then they would surely put that in the rule. And somehow I doubt that they will mention the intent of the rule, and that everybody has to follow the rule's intent!

That would be absolutely marvellous if they would do so, I would applause the FIA and kiss the ground with joy! :clap: :clap: :clap: but just like with flexing wings and moving floors and all the rest, I doubt that the FIA will ask teams to follow what the rules are intended to achieve.

#36 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,140 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 25 February 2008 - 12:42

Originally posted by Cplu$


how you going to test that easily in parc ferme??

A portable wind tunnel! Hmm, maybe you could hang a weight behind an F1 car, and measure the disturbance somehow? If it hangs too high, there is too much air there? Put ribbons or smoke behind the car, and measure its direction?

#37 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 25 February 2008 - 13:06

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
A portable wind tunnel! Hmm, maybe you could hang a weight behind an F1 car, and measure the disturbance somehow? If it hangs too high, there is too much air there? Put ribbons or smoke behind the car, and measure its direction?


Perhaps it will be one of those 'workable' regulations by which F1 will now be run. Like the spending cap, the teams will be asked to co-operate, and all will be well with the world....

#38 Cplu

Cplu
  • Member

  • 55 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 25 February 2008 - 13:26

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
A portable wind tunnel! Hmm, maybe you could hang a weight behind an F1 car, and measure the disturbance somehow? If it hangs too high, there is too much air there? Put ribbons or smoke behind the car, and measure its direction?


you don't honestly think that is feasible do you? :)

#39 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,140 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 25 February 2008 - 14:09

Originally posted by Cplu$


you don't honestly think that is feasible do you? :)

The portable tunnel? ;) :lol: No! The smoke would be interesting though - imagine if they said the airflow had to be over the car behind, and that smoke trails were required! Or ribbons on the cars! In yacht, we put ribbons on the sails to show that the air is flowing in the correct direction. Such tell-tales work.

I wonder if a load cell arrangement could be put into the wheel bearings, so that the downforce could be measured on each wheel? That might work - you only have to weigh each wheels downforce via four load cells in the wheels. I know the wheels rotate, but there might be a solution there.

Advertisement

#40 Cplu

Cplu
  • Member

  • 55 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 25 February 2008 - 14:59

my solution previously is much easier, and much harder to cheat with.

#41 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,464 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 27 February 2008 - 11:56

Is this tunnel a winglet!!

http://www.f1today.n...s/15lmayt96.jpg

If it was made a bunch of seperate deflecting plates it would be a winglet? But as an intergral part of the nose it would be allowed? Quite a mine field for the scrutineers. :|