1239 replies to this topic

[Pingguest]

Quote

Originally posted by Ogami musashi


The fastest is a bonus, what i want is fast.

I don't agree formula 1 was not always the fastest, okay i may only start from 1980 but since then F1 cars were the fastest. Group C/GTP cars that sometimes posted similar lap times were on qualifying runs and their race lap times (even for the 500km sprint races of group C) were completely off.

The Group C cars were slower due the higher minimum weight and because their races were significantly longer. But Can-Am cars were faster and technically most advanced.

Quote

Why should F1 be the fastest? because fast driving is hard. This is the first simple reason, the second is that designing the fastest car is an engineering experience, especially designing a car able of being the fastest for a whole race (look at today race lap times only 2 seconds off the qualifying ones).

The current race times are about two seconds of the qualifying times mostly due the post-qualifying parc fermé regulations, tyre regulations and refuelling. With a proper qualifying format, a massive deregulation of the tyres and ban on pit stops the races times would be at least five seconds off the qualifying times.

But pace isn't everything. A car isn't harder to driver if it's faster as well. In most cases a faster car is easier to drive. The 1983 flat bottomed Formula 1 cars were harder and at least three seconds slower on most tracks compared to their 1982 ground effected predecessors.

Quote

I don't understand why you think downforce is a stopper for other technologies??? downforce is no magical you still have to use tyres suspension and chassis and suspension and chassis are still developped today.

Well, tyre development for instance was heavily curtailed and finally even banned. The cornering speeds played a big role in the FIA decision to introduce both grooved and standardized tyres.

[Ogami musashi]

Quote

Originally posted by Pingguest


The Group C cars were slower due the higher minimum weight and because their races were significantly longer. But Can-Am cars were faster and technically most advanced.

You're talking about two series with 10 years intervals. The faster can-am were from 1970 to 1976 if i'm not mistaken, while group C were 90 and even, you have to consider that the ones who were faster were in fact 2 or 3 cars from the 3.5L era mainly the peugeot 905.

Other than that the cars were not as fast as F1 cars.

Quote

The current race times are about two seconds of the qualifying times mostly due the post-qualifying parc fermé regulations, tyre regulations and refuelling. With a proper qualifying format, a massive deregulation of the tyres and ban on pit stops the races times would be at least five seconds off the qualifying times.

Logically what you say is right, but look at the qualifying times..they're the fastest ever done, so that means either the qualifying cars could be much faster, either the race trim car because of parc fermé are impressively close.
Now i agree we could with regulation make thoses 5,6 difference but let's not loose our point, if you ban aeros this won't be 5 or 6 seconds but more like 1 minute off.

Quote

But pace isn't everything. A car isn't harder to driver if it's faster as well. In most cases a faster car is easier to drive. The 1983 flat bottomed Formula 1 cars were harder and at least three seconds slower on most tracks compared to their 1982 ground effected predecessors.

That's a fair comment but taken out of the theory that still applies but with some minor changes.

What i mean is that yes, that's true a slower car can be harder to drive (like a nascar compared to let's say F1 on some aspects) but my point was that, once you're into a formula, here open wheeler for sprint, the faster is the harder to drive.

As an example let's say you have you car and go through a turn a 50km/h, now with your car again do it at 100km/h. Even if we consider you car has been modified to be able to take the turn at this speed, the fact the turn radius, thus distance and width is not changed make the driving harder here.

Now of course there're some variations, this year's F1 cars are surely harder to drive than in 2004 were the F1 cars were the faster.

But that's down to little specificities and that doesn't change the whole driving style of pilots.


That why i say, until you intentionally make your no aero cars harder to drive (with for example super hard tyres, low level suspensions, picky torque curve etc..) the fact that on a given track they'll run at slower speed will mean they'll be easier to drive.
Which i would say "why not making it intentionally hard?". Because if was never the purpose of F1 (neither any engineering series) to make the cars harder to drive.

Now what's you're suggesting i think is to put the whole "engineering" in question for F1 but the following comment from you seems to contradict this.

Quote

Well, tyre development for instance was heavily curtailed and finally even banned. The cornering speeds played a big role in the FIA decision to introduce both grooved and standardized tyres. [

I agree the downforce was the backbone of speed for years and in this way that's a bit of a mistake as we should have maintained a better balance.

Now don't be fooled, tyres were controlled because the FIA didn't managed to cut downforce as planned, you can reverse the process, if tyre developpement was too heavy, downforce would have been severly cut.

This is just maths, when you increase tyre grip, you the efficiency from aero grip, so you always have to trade one for the other.

[quasi C]

Formula 1 should be the fastest (around a lap) formula on earth, I couldn't stand the idea of it being otherwise. if times are cut by 5 seconds that's very disappointing. Then again, hopefully it won't be that much, probably 2-3.

[BOX68]

Agree with Quasi C
Formula One is all about the fastest cars around a given lap.
Without that it don't mean as much to me

[mach4]

What is the reasoning for banning tyre warmers?

[Clatter]

Quote

Originally posted by mach4
What is the reasoning for banning tyre warmers?

It means the cars will be slower after the pit-stops therefore giving more possibilities of passes. It will also mean there is a potential advantage to those drivers that can preserve their tyres in staying out longer.

[Clatter]

Quote

Originally posted by BOX68
Agree with Quasi C
Formula One is all about the fastest cars around a given lap.
Without that it don't mean as much to me

Your incorrect. F1 is all about which car can cover the race distance in the shortest time. If all you want is to see them be fast over one lap then watch the Q's and don't bother with the race.

[Arion]

Quote

Originally posted by Clatter


It means the cars will be slower after the pit-stops therefore giving more possibilities of passes. It will also mean there is a potential advantage to those drivers that can preserve their tyres in staying out longer.

but doesn't it mean drivers who are more aggressive on the tyres will be able to get the heat into their tyres quicker after the pitstop, therefore have an advantage?

[Gilles4Ever]

Quote

Originally posted by Clatter


Your incorrect. F1 is all about which car can cover the race distance in the shortest time. If all you want is to see them be fast over one lap then watch the Q's and don't bother with the race.

Formula 1 is about building cars to a formula. I think it just happened to come about that it happened to be the most prestigious and fastest. I dont think it being the fastest series is the be all and end all. If you slowed all the cars down by 5 seconds a lap you wouldn't be able to see the difference, so what difference does it make? Does F1 have to be the fastest to be the most elite? I don't think so!

[primer]

Don't want KERS. Rest sounds okay-ish.

[johnbeamer]

Ogami

Great post on how downforce is generated in F1 and the role of turbulence and vortices. One thing i was hoping you could clarify is the role of barge boards as vortex generators.

My understanding is that the bargeboards create vortices for two purposes: one to clean up the air as it moves over the rear of the car and particularly as it enters the sidepods. And two to create a number of "vertical vortices" that get swept up under the car thereby increasing the "ground effect".

Recently we've seen quite a lot of detail on the barge boards, for instance the "stepped" design that Red Bull, among others, have employed on their barge boards. Is it correct to assume that these "steps" create the vortices that sweep under the car?

I guess the question is what part of the barge board create this vertical vortex?

Thanks
John

[Ogami musashi]

The precise vortex function of barge boards is a bit too hard to say as they are very detailed.

The original plan of barge boards was to clean the air coming at the inlets but they soon diverted to vortex generators.

This is the stepped corners that create vortex. The upper pressure surface comes via the corners to the lower part but can't follow it since it is a sharp corner thus a vortex is created.

The recent design create multiple vortices, some of them being for different direction but the goal is to create a continuity to them in order all vortices form a huge vortex structure. By doing that, the slow down of the vortices is harder so there's more energy into them.

Yes vortices help closing the side of the underbody preventing air high pressure air to enter the underbody.


Actually if you look at devices near the bargeboards you'll see many other vortex generators.

[Ogami musashi]

Hello,

In today's press conference, Stefano domenicali, john howett and christian horner confirmed that there were talks held recently to discuss some aerodynamic issues for 2009 and that there're still some grey areas which would explain why nothing has been published.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/66349

[scottb32]

Thanks Ogami

Has the split-rear-wing idea been forever shelved?

To me, a standardized rear wing makes the most sense (along with the diffuser). That way you can play with the air in front of the wing - either making more downforce or less drag - but the wake signature would remain similar amoung all cars. PS: I know it is ugly ;)

[Ogami musashi]

The CDG wing had been dropped yes because the first tests showed that the efficiency was not here and it would have meant a lot of test and alterations to make it work.


Yes a standard rear wing would be sufficient but of course the problem is that F1 has to stay pinnacle of technology.

At the recent motorsport business forum in bahrein, Ron dennis and Several technical director like christian horner expressed their will that F1 future regulations should allow the serie to stay the pinnacle of motorsport and so that regulations should be done very carefully.

"Pinnacle of motorsport" includes that the serie stay the fastest, has the highest technology and remain very competitive so any standard part will go through a lot of debate before it is adopted.

For the recall the idea of a standard rear wing (for overtaking possibilities) as been put on table in 2001. It was planned to have a lower downforce (monza level) rear wing with drag characteristics of brazil.

As you see it never went adopted.

I'm not in favour for that, because we can do otherwise by carefully monitoring the rear wing/diffuser and front wing of leading car.

In 1989, F1 cars use to have huge vortex structures at the rear but since the ride height was very low and front wing very low and large they did not have so much problem following others.
And for the records in the 1989-1991 era, F1 cars lapped only about 3 or 4 seconds slower than now, and in race with no refueling allowed, were about only 8 seconds slower than today.

In opposite, in 1995, with much reduced downforce and slower cars, overtakings were not that easy and slipstreaming was bit hard.

It shows that the problem is mainly shape dependent.

[Ogami musashi]

As it was rumoured inside the paddock for months here is the confirmation that KERS is actually posing a weight challenge, so some teams wish an increase in minimum weight over the 605 kg of now in order to be able to still use ballast.

Opinions diverge in the teams:

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/66521


As a side note, as stated in the actual regs (but as you can see the new ones are even not finalized), the cars will be wider but also lower by 5cm (100mm instead of 150mm above the rerefence plane which is aligned with the ground).

The tyres will see a change, as they will be bigger but the front tyres will return to a significantly lower size than the rear.

The flat bottom will be also larger which means the skid block will stay the same size while the bodywork will be enlarged.

One thing that probably won't stay is that for now, bodywork behind the rear wheels can be 2meters wide, it was supposed to be the CDG wings.


As you see there're still talks about. One personnal opinion is that F1 cars should retain the 605limit (it was first even set down to 550Kg) as the KERS interest is in its low weight but also since any increase in weight just decrease the performances of the cars.


Ah yes just to remind you that next week from Monday to Thursday, F1 teams test at barcelona and that several tests with new slicks and downforce levels of 2009 are planned.
We already know michael schumacher will test them for ferrari on Wednesday on.

[Hacklerf]

I am interested to see what these cars will look like

[AFCA]

Michael was already asked about it in Bahrain and basically said it wouldn't happen...

Quote

Originally posted by AFCA
Q: Becase of the introduction of KERS, some want to increase the minimum weight of the car. Do you know about that ?
Michael: ''Yes, for a year. I believe, however, there will be no increase. For some time some teams were in favour of it but it was turned down.''

[Atreiu]

Quote

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
(...)In 1989, F1 cars use to have huge vortex structures at the rear but since the ride height was very low and front wing very low and large they did not have so much problem following others.
And for the records in the 1989-1991 era, F1 cars lapped only about 3 or 4 seconds slower than now, and in race with no refueling allowed, were about only 8 seconds slower than today.(...)

Those were the days, and I never thought those cars were slow.




Making the cars heavier is outrageous, IMO.

[Ogami musashi]

In this issue of blog entry by Edward groman, Patrick head reveals (or confirm) some points in the first post of this topic concerning how the car look like:

Quote

"Every team knows that 2009 is an enormous challenge because the cars are going to be completely different. A big change may be welcome but all of these winglets and flip-ups and bits and bobs all over the car aerodynamically, pretty much disappear, so the cars will generally be much cleaner.

And a very interesting point that i notched already:

Quote

"I don't really have any objection to it(the new car). It's a lot cleaner-looking. The front wing on the car to me looks ridiculous...it is a lot wider that the current front wing and almost comes to the outer edge of the front tyres...so the tendency for drivers to knock front wings off up against other cars if going to be pretty damn huge, I'd say. This was pointed out at an early stage, but it was considered and the feeling seems to be the drivers are just going to have to get on with it."

http://timesonline.t...09-already.html

[EvilPhil II]

Quote

And a very interesting point that i notched already:

http://timesonline.t...09-already.html [/B]

No different really than the cars were up until the start of the 1993 season... oddly enough when Max started messing with the rules.

[Ogami musashi]

The front wing will be a bit wider in fact than before 93.
Also what will be noticed will be the width of the rear wing which goes from 100cm to 80cm while the cars will be widened to 2meters.

[wingwalker]

It (times blog) says "probably slicks". Ouch! Aren't they 100% confirmed?

[Atreiu]

Max has said that there will only be slicks if the cars are significantly slower. Hopefully we'll soon not worry at all about what he has to say.

[wingwalker]

Quote

Originally posted by Atreiu
Max has said that there will only be slicks if the cars are significantly slower. Hopefully we'll soon not worry at all about what he has to say.

And teams aren't pressing on him making the decision now? Cause I imagine that would be a pretty major role in designing the car (read: teams knowing first what the decision is would have a pretty big advantage, and It is not unthinkable that some teams would know earlier...).

[wingwalker]

Another point I was wanting to make earlier on, is that front row GP2 cars were 4 seconds slower than back of the grid F1 cars (at Silverstone, pretty representative circuit I think).. So with the new GP2 car being 1+ second faster and F1 cars significantly slower (I don't believe 5 seconds, but 2+ seem plausible enough) there might be no gap at all (or a very small one) between the series.

[Atreiu]

That can be easily and almost instantly fixed by making the cars heavier and their tyres smaller. Or something else.
If things go right with F1, I think nobody will really bother with the gap between it and GP2, but you do have a point.

[saudoso]

Quote

Originally posted by wingwalker
Another point I was wanting to make earlier on, is that front row GP2 cars were 4 seconds slower than back of the grid F1 cars (at Silverstone, pretty representative circuit I think).. So with the new GP2 car being 1+ second faster and F1 cars significantly slower (I don't believe 5 seconds, but 2+ seem plausible enough) there might be no gap at all (or a very small one) between the series.

You can rest assured that even if in march 2009 GP2 cars are faster than F1 by october they will be 3 seconds slower. There will be way too much room for improvement next year.

[Ogami musashi]

As far as i know Slicks are adopted BUT if next year cornering speeds go up then the FIA may ban them again.
(With immediate effect, as safety purposed rule can be imposed by FIA even without teams support)

But i don't think it will be the case, i think the cornering speeds will be a bit slower or on par because the front wing vs rear wing size make that you can't make too much of it or your design will be completely unstable.

Actually, the slowing of cars is a complex topic because it is at the initiative of both FIA and some teams (Ferrari being one of them).

I strongly advice you to have a look at the 2004-6 GPWC/FIA battle when the GPWC threatened to have their own championship running in competition with F1.

The deal was serious, there were actually employees and works started for the championship creation and one example is that Alain Prost was one consultant for the GPWC (later renamed "Grand prix Racing") structure.

The subject is important because if you look back at what the FIA and some teams offered and what the GPWC wanted (basically what interests us here, is that the teams in the GPWC wanted to ensure the cars were the fastest of any motorsport, and having more engineering freedom), the conciliation of both (the so called GPMA-FIA agreement till 2012) you'll see many many regulations and trends to come.

the 2009 rules were in fact planned for 2008.

Basically the FIA has made to secret that they want aerodynamics research to be stopped in F1 (but retaining some downforce necessary to what they call "the awe of F1", via standard aerodynamics) and concentrate the research on chassis dynamics (with possible introduction of active chassis, brake management etc..) and slow the cars.
All of this is balanced by the teams who agreed to stay in F1 only if freedom of engineering is permitted and lap times guaranteed.

So 2009 regulations are a first step but the future may be more dramatic in 2012 as a new clash may happen.


On the topic of GP2, in 2005 when F1 cars went to V8's, the FIA declared that if the V8's F1 cars were too close to GP2 cars in lap time then the FIA would slow down the GP2 cars....

[wingwalker]

Quote

Originally posted by Ogami musashi



On the topic of GP2, in 2005 when F1 cars went to V8's, the FIA declared that if the V8's F1 cars were too close to GP2 cars in lap time then the FIA would slow down the GP2 cars....

Woah, way to go. But it would be a natural way of defending their own business. My earlier point wasn't really saying anything else than it did, we already know that no matter what will happen in the GP2 the main focus of everyone will be on F1. But some GP2 cars being faster than some F1 cars does some like an oddity, at least to me.

BTW, I'm totally happy and excited about the new regs. I always thought that teams are simply too comfortable with long periods between accepting new solutions on paper and actually putting them on functional F1 car. Pushing them to come up with something new on shorter terms is very much OK in my book - maybe designing of the cars will become less of a 'polishing exercise' and area for new radical ideas will be bigger (even if just a bit).

[wingwalker]

What about the budget cap?

Also, Ogami musashi, for your contribution to this thread.

[Atreiu]

Budget cap?
Please no.

[FA and RK fan]

Quote

Originally posted by Ogami musashi
Also what will be noticed will be the width of the rear wing which goes from 100cm to 80cm while the cars will be widened to 2meters.

i thought rear wing is currently 120 cm width and it is going to be 100 cm next year. i Assume this because, rear tyres are about 400 mm width (385 mm IIRC) and rear wing is right in between of them.

imo 80 cm would be to narrow, especially because of clen cars, and it would be totaly unefficient, unless it would be alot higher.

[Ogami musashi]

No in the regulation it states the wing must be 100cm max wide. Next year 80cm is to concentrate the effects of vortices and wake on a narrow zone.

Now you're totally right, despite being higher (by 15cm which is quite a thing) the rear wing is meant to be less effective. That's the deal to prevent team to regain downforce I.E front wing is basically more efficient next year (wider, far closer to the ground with adjustable flaps) but rear wing is not, so to have a correct balance teams will need to limit the total downforce so that the car doesn't end up overtseery.

[FA and RK fan]

what about suspension? It is going to be different, right, if the cars are wider, with different tyres and less aero downforce?

also i have a question, it is probably for technical forum, but iam going to ask here:

did any team ever tried an ''active'' wheel base. A mechanism that would change wheel base during the race. To make cars better suited for some corners. Is it even posible to develop such mechanism and run it on the car?

i heard about active suspension, imo it's a shame it is forbiden. And AFAIK it only regulated rides hight and not a wheel base.

[wingwalker]

Seems like the 2009 cars will have a tendency to go oversteer when not setup perfectly. Bad news for the Alonso, Kubica and I think Kimi.

But again, it is awfully early to tell.

[Buckmaster]

is that split rear wing still on? I forget the technical term for it...

[FA and RK fan]

you meant CDG wing, no it has been abandoned for some time now,

but as i read rules for 2011, i think, they will reduce the size of front wing, well thats the idea, so why make it bigger just to make it smaller again after 2-3 years. it doesn't make any sence to me.

[D A]

A question regarding the new width of the cars:

Next year the cars will be 20 cm wider than this year's cars. What part of the chassis will get the most of that extra width? The "tub" or the sidepods? I presume that bigger sidepods will cause some more drag. Another question, will we see more cars using sidepods with a lot of bodywork outside of the radiator openings, like this year's Ferrari, or will they be more like the McLaren?


It sure will be interesting to see how the new cars will look like.

[Ogami musashi]

The 2011 regs are still in discussion and there will be a lot of it since the OWG will be working on new aero regs for 2011 and 2013, simply there's not enough time to reshape completly the cars, still the 2009 change is big enough to force teams to work on them since last year.


I don't know about suspensions sorry.

About bodyworks, it is not yet known, as it is now, only the complete car (with wheels) has to be between 1.96 and 2 meters.

[Darrenj]

5 seconds slower than 2006
1 to 2 secsonds faster than GP2
For a guy who has seen these beasts in the 90's and early 2000 at Spa, Rio (also 1986) and Magny Cours several times I am not wasting my money again... As a purist it is too much...

GP2 here I came...

[Mark A]

From the F2008 thread.

Ferrari tested slicks today in Barcelona.

[Ogami musashi]

Quote

Originally posted by Darrenj
5 seconds slower than 2006
1 to 2 secsonds faster than GP2
For a guy who has seen these beasts in the 90's and early 2000 at Spa, Rio (also 1986) and Magny Cours several times I am not wasting my money again... As a purist it is too much...

GP2 here I came...

You should wait a little bit more before throwing away F1, today De la rosa lapped faster than any other car with grooved tyres and 2008 downforce;

[mark f1]

Originally posted by D A

Quote

Next year the cars will be 20 cm wider than this year's cars. What part of the chassis will get the most of that extra width? The "tub" or the sidepods? I presume that bigger sidepods will cause some more drag. Another question, will we see more cars using sidepods with a lot of bodywork outside of the radiator openings, like this year's Ferrari, or will they be more like the McLaren?

Why would this mean the actual car is wider? As far as I see it, the actual width of the bodywork would not change, they would just have bigger wishbones to push the tyres out to the width required.

[Ogami musashi]

pedro de la rosa gives his opinions on new tyres and confirms he was running with 50% of today's downforce.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/66644

[shonguiz]

Can someone explain to me why tyre warmers will be banned ?

[Ogami musashi]

The official reason is costs, yes costs (i suppose this is the costs of operating them).


And again..this is NOT an FIA only proposal, but a teams one agreed by the FIA.

[Atic Atac]

Quote

Originally posted by shonguiz
Can someone explain to me why tyre warmers will be banned ?

Apart from the official explanationes, i think it´s just a matter of introducing variables in the race than can change the result.

Nobody want´s races with no emotion and the lack of tyre warmers can lead to more mistakes and to some funny actions when a pilot leaves the pit´s in front of another pilot with his tyres heated.

Not really good in safety terms but....

[D A]

Quote

Originally posted by mark f1
Originally posted by D A


Why would this mean the actual car is wider? As far as I see it, the actual width of the bodywork would not change, they would just have bigger wishbones to push the tyres out to the width required.

I was under the assumption that the bodywork width would be included in the new regs? Or is it only the wheels that would be extented to 2 meters?

[Villes Gilleneuve]

Quote

Originally posted by boydy87
Tin hat on here but it Isn't really formula one anymore is it? While i agree we need changes to increase the wheel to wheel racing, half the rules changes for the last 10 years have been rather sickening, especially the qualifying. The 2009 reulgations while be the completion of the dumbing down of the term 'Formula one the pinnacle of motorsport', now its 'Formula one the pinnacle of laughing stock'

Well, I've been watching F1 since the 70s, and it's already a laughing stock. The races are just plain boring, it's all over in the first ten laps, there are 2 competitive teams, and a lot of drivers that should not be in F1 in seats due to nepotism. At the end of all that, a bunch of ridiculous management that leads to lawsuits and the farce of Indy a few years back. 2007 was the closest thing to real racing in a decade, and look how that turned out.

These new aero rules come along with new engine rules and energy recovery systems that offer some real translation into the auto industry, as well as some responsibility to the spectators to provide some aspect of SPORT that depends on some driver input. As it stands, you might as well watch a NASA shuttle launch for the high tech spectacle with a predictable outcome.

Any time in the history of F1 that there is a major technical shift, more innovative thinking results and the sport is better for it. Imagine a F1 race where any one of even five teams could have a winner -this hasn't been the case in 25 years.