28 replies to this topic

[LikesF1InAnUnhealthyWay]

Evening all...

I have just been reading over the tech changes put forwards for 2011 (published 2007 Link)

I was quite amused to read talk of reducing cutting max wing by 50%, gaining 50% less drag. Then using less powerful engines saving 50% fuel, while having the cars accelerate at the same speed and have the same top speed (because of the lack of drag). The cars would however lap slightly quicker...

right...

Then I read the word plank!!!

In my opionion it is exactly what we need from an overtaking point of view. I would think it would be quite a play field leveler.

Thoughts... will it happen? I think not at this point.

[ZenSpeed]

Evening all...

I have just been reading over the tech changes put forwards for 2011 (published 2007 Link)

I was quite amused to read talk of reducing cutting max wing by 50%, gaining 50% less drag. Then using less powerful engines saving 50% fuel, while having the cars accelerate at the same speed and have the same top speed (because of the lack of drag). The cars would however lap slightly quicker...

right...

Then I read the word plank!!!

In my opionion it is exactly what we need from an overtaking point of view. I would think it would be quite a play field leveler.

Thoughts... will it happen? I think not at this point.

Well, hopefully we will have regulations that will allow for some good racing before F1, like most highly structured events of its kind will chase to exist. I doubt we will be talking of the Monaco GP of 2020......I'd call it a chance for a better sunset

Edited by ZenSpeed, 29 December 2009 - 19:15.

[Ali_G]

I can see

1. Reintroduction of limited venturi tunnels under the car to help overtaking.
2. Further reduction in front and rear wings.
3. Banning the rear diffuser (no need with underbody venturis)
4. A move to smaller capacity turbo engines.

I also wouldn't mind seeing a ban on the front splitter. I find it very ugly.

However, apart from the engine change, will we see further aerodynamic changes after last year's changes ?

Edited by Ali_G, 29 December 2009 - 19:28.

[LikesF1InAnUnhealthyWay]

There is some pretty radical stuff in there, seems like the FIA are seriously pushing 1 car for all rules. They want to have FIA supplied wings but note they are a charictor defining part of the car and fans may not like them all being the same.

some highlights...

a. A prescribed downforce-generating under-tray and skid ‘plank’ extending to the very
rear of the car. This will have a forward centre of pressure to minimise the size of
the front wing. This component will generate the majority of aerodynamic downforce.
These parts will be supplied by the FIA along with fixing mechanisms which must be
rigidly incorporated into the main chassis and power-train components.

b. Front and rear wings being constrained to fit within defined ‘boxes’ and consist of a
fixed number of elements. The purpose of this is to constrain the designer from
producing overly complex assemblies. The rear wing will be the main mechanism by
which adaptive drag is achieved, while the relatively small (compared to today) front
wing serves as a trim to achieve balance. The front wing ‘box’ will be close to the
ground to minimise the affect of wake turbulence.

c. Front and rear wing settings maybe electronically controlled, but within set limits
defined from time to time by the FIA. This is to allow much reduced drag along the
straights to improve fuel efficiency and yet retain the downforce required around
corners, under braking and under acceleration so as to retain overall lap times. Failsafe
design, as used on aircraft, will be mandated.

Improving the show: A turbulence sensor complete with an aircraft type back up system (for
robustness) will be supplied by the FIA. When travelling in high turbulence levels such as
those generated by the close presence of a leading car, the ride height of the car, both front
and rear, must be altered in response to the output of this sensor (within a set range, at a set
rate, and with appropriate hysteresis, determined from time to time by the FIA) to
compensate for the degradation in performance. In free stream the car is to return to a
baseline ride height. The purpose is to allow for full compensation for downforce losses due
to being in the wake of another car.

[alexbiker]

I can see

1. Reintroduction of limited venturi tunnels under the car to help overtaking.
2. Further reduction in front and rear wings.
3. Banning the rear diffuser (no need with underbody venturis)
4. A move to smaller capacity turbo engines.

I also wouldn't mind seeing a ban on the front splitter. I find it very ugly.

However, apart from the engine change, will we see further aerodynamic changes after last year's changes ?

Venturis - with you all the way. Can't ban a front splitter though - at some point the air has to split over and under the car, towards the front, and that's the front splitter. The question might be - how will it be radically redesigned to match the venturis - as it will have to be?

[DOF_power]

There is some pretty radical stuff in there, seems like the FIA are seriously pushing 1 car for all rules. They want to have FIA supplied wings but note they are a charictor defining part of the car and fans may not like them all being the same.

some highlights...

a. A prescribed downforce-generating under-tray and skid ‘plank’ extending to the very
rear of the car. This will have a forward centre of pressure to minimise the size of
the front wing. This component will generate the majority of aerodynamic downforce.
These parts will be supplied by the FIA along with fixing mechanisms which must be
rigidly incorporated into the main chassis and power-train components.

b. Front and rear wings being constrained to fit within defined ‘boxes’ and consist of a
fixed number of elements. The purpose of this is to constrain the designer from
producing overly complex assemblies. The rear wing will be the main mechanism by
which adaptive drag is achieved, while the relatively small (compared to today) front
wing serves as a trim to achieve balance. The front wing ‘box’ will be close to the
ground to minimise the affect of wake turbulence.

c. Front and rear wing settings maybe electronically controlled, but within set limits
defined from time to time by the FIA. This is to allow much reduced drag along the
straights to improve fuel efficiency and yet retain the downforce required around
corners, under braking and under acceleration so as to retain overall lap times. Failsafe
design, as used on aircraft, will be mandated.

Improving the show: A turbulence sensor complete with an aircraft type back up system (for
robustness) will be supplied by the FIA. When travelling in high turbulence levels such as
those generated by the close presence of a leading car, the ride height of the car, both front
and rear, must be altered in response to the output of this sensor (within a set range, at a set
rate, and with appropriate hysteresis, determined from time to time by the FIA) to
compensate for the degradation in performance. In free stream the car is to return to a
baseline ride height. The purpose is to allow for full compensation for downforce losses due
to being in the wake of another car.

Basically it's the active suspensions of the 90s, witch did just that.
But they shouldn't have banned the active suspensions in the first place.

[Ali_G]

Venturis - with you all the way. Can't ban a front splitter though - at some point the air has to split over and under the car, towards the front, and that's the front splitter. The question might be - how will it be radically redesigned to match the venturis - as it will have to be?

Well when I say front splitter, I'm talking about the splitters introduced by Tyrell in 1990. Splitters just infront of the driver and under the nose, behind where the flat bottom starts. Before this configuration, we have a completely flat nose which went all the way to the end.



MP4/6 for instance essentially had a nose which hugged the ground all the way to the end. Looked much better IMO and IIRC, it is a less pitch sensitive configuration.

Edited by Ali_G, 29 December 2009 - 20:11.

[LikesF1InAnUnhealthyWay]

Basically it's the active suspensions of the 90s, witch did just that.
But they shouldn't have banned the active suspensions in the first place.

Yeah thats exactly what came to mind mind as I read it

[DOF_power]

Well when I say front splitter, I'm talking about the splitters introduced by Tyrell in 1990. Splitters just infront of the driver and under the nose, behind where the flat bottom starts. Before this configuration, we have a completely flat nose which went all the way to the end.



MP4/6 for instance essentially had a nose which hugged the ground all the way to the end. Looked much better IMO and IIRC, it is a less pitch sensitive configuration.

It looked better, but would fail modern safety requirements.

[Ali_G]

It looked better, but would fail modern safety requirements.

On what grounds ? Is there a minimum height for the nose in the technical specifications ?

[Victor_RO]

On what grounds ? Is there a minimum height for the nose in the technical specifications ?

Possibly. But the greatest risk with this nose configuration is hitting a car from behind square-on and the nose sliding underneath... and the driver's helmet coming close to kissing the gearbox of the car ahead.

[Ali_G]

Possibly. But the greatest risk with this nose configuration is hitting a car from behind square-on and the nose sliding underneath... and the driver's helmet coming close to kissing the gearbox of the car ahead.

I would imagine the same thing could happen with last year's Brawn considering how low the nose dipped to. Certainly could have happened with the F2001.

I can't remember it ever being a problem when CART was running the old Lola chassis either.

[scottb32]

Basically it's the active suspensions of the 90s, witch did just that.
But they shouldn't have banned the active suspensions in the first place.

I'm not 100% sure - but I think the active suspension of the early 90's worked primarily on track layout and input loads. Although hitting turbulence would affect suspension slightly, it would not directly react to turbulence from a car in front. This idea of reacting to turbulence may actually be a great idea.

Any corrections/info is appreciated.

[Tufty]

New tech regs - and a pretty substantial change at that - coupled with unknown tyres... another opportunity for the grid to get reshuffled. I hope this doesn't produce the whitewash that early 09 produced, but at the same time the midseason this year was fantastic with everyone working to catch up.

[wewantourdarbyback]

That document is dated June 22 2007. I imagine there could be serious revisions with A) a new Concorde agreement in place and B) a new sheriff in town.

[wepmob2000]

Well, hopefully we will have regulations that will allow for some good racing before F1, like most highly structured events of its kind will chase to exist. I doubt we will be talking of the Monaco GP of 2020......I'd call it a chance for a better sunset

Just wondering why you say this? I'm not disagreeing, just interested in peoples predictions for the future of F1, to me it looks pretty grim unless people start standing up to the eco-nazis.

[V8 Fireworks]

New tech regs - and a pretty substantial change at that - coupled with unknown tyres... another opportunity for the grid to get reshuffled. I hope this doesn't produce the whitewash that early 09 produced, but at the same time the midseason this year was fantastic with everyone working to catch up.

better overtaking wanted? if it delivers then it is the way.



Even NASCAR races get strung out in less than 2-3 laps after SC at some tracks though despite massive draft and little aero sensitivity in following other car, is it really possible to always enable overtaking in 1.5 hr GP with ultra fast cars?

[Tufty]

better overtaking wanted? if it delivers then it is the way.



Even NASCAR races get strung out in less than 2-3 laps after SC at some tracks though despite massive draft and little aero sensitivity in following other car, is it really possible to always enable overtaking in 1.5 hr GP with ultra fast cars?

We'll find out soon I guess

[zepunishment]

i always thought that cutting aerodynamic downforce and concentrating more on mechanical grip was the way forward myself. the active ride height for wake seems like a very good idea though.

[ff1600]

Not much will change. The same people will be fast more or less.

[Ogami musashi]

Those regulations are not valid anymore AFAIK.

Teams and FIA agreed to have stability (that is the same 2009 rules) until 2013 when an all new formula (with the world engine) will be introduced.

[DOF_power]

There's no new dawn.
Seriously who comes up these old news/treads ?!

[Boing 2]

a. A prescribed downforce-generating under-tray and skid ‘plank’ extending to the very
rear of the car.


Improving the show: A turbulence sensor complete with an aircraft type back up system (for
robustness) will be supplied by the FIA. [b]When travelling in high turbulence levels such as
those generated by the close presence of a leading car, the ride height of the car, both front
and rear, must be altered in response to the output of this sensor

i wonder how this will work? the point of the plank is to stop engineers running the cars on their bellies, so you set the car up to run the plank as close to the ground as possible. Hence you establish and police ride height by the plank dimension, however in that case there's no space left to lower the ride heights as the car is almost on it's plank.

If you need to leave space to lower the ride heights then the car must be set up to run a fair bit of a gap between plank and ground normally, how is this policed? how do you stop the teams using this gap when the cars in clear air?

[Victor_RO]

i wonder how this will work? the point of the plank is to stop engineers running the cars on their bellies, so you set the car up to run the plank as close to the ground as possible. Hence you establish and police ride height by the plank dimension, however in that case there's no space left to lower the ride heights as the car is almost on it's plank.

If you need to leave space to lower the ride heights then the car must be set up to run a fair bit of a gap between plank and ground normally, how is this policed? how do you stop the teams using this gap when the cars in clear air?

Not necessarily. Perhaps, in the case of the venturis, the plank will be there in order to keep at least some amount of clearance between the DF-generating underbelly and the ground and prevent the venturis from stalling and losing all downforce.

[Simon Says]

First change the point system so that drivers are forced to take more risks. Even if cars become alot more easier to overtake ( which supposedly was to happen wiht the 2009 rules ), if drivers are not willing to take the risk, then it will still be boring.

Edited by Simon Says, 30 December 2009 - 15:42.

[LikesF1InAnUnhealthyWay]

While these rules will not come into effect it seems, they do concern me... while I am all for making the cars better for overtaking, what I dont like is the idea of force fixing it to make it that way, like how they did that thing in champ car (if my memory serves me right.. it may of been IRL) where they force even number qualifiers to start on one tire and odds on another. Its a step too far.

The issue with no refulling now is that the cars will qualify in speed order (mostly) then drive of and space out because there was no mix up thanks to fuel. The only moment of grace will be tire strats but I think mostly teams will be running the sameish kind of windows or will just mimic each other anyway. It could be a really bland year I fear.

I have always liked the idea of being able to drop out the rear wing, and maybe front on the straights. It ticks the green box and would give more boost than kers ever did in terms of drag advantage.

[ZenSpeed]

Just wondering why you say this? I'm not disagreeing, just interested in peoples predictions for the future of F1, to me it looks pretty grim unless people start standing up to the eco-nazis.

It has nothing to do with the environmental crisis, which is undoubtedly a serious issue, but they could always develop F1 cars that are the forefront of green technology, hence solving any perceived issue of F1 as an environmental issue.

My expectation is simply a realistic financial and political one. Oil consumption is at an all time high, thanks to the ever increasing demand of industrialized countries and the mushrooming economies of China, India and Brazil (forget their non oil dependency for energy, we use oil for everything). Peak oil has been reached and passed and we don't have as many years of availability as we have behind us, because the use today is tenfold.

The only reason why the problem has been put in the background for now is because of the worldwide recessions triggered by the collapse of the US real estate and financial sectors. This has temporarily caused reduced demand for oil, with relative collapse of its price. But as soon as you see signs of recovery, the price of oils shoots up again, and that in turn causes the recoveries to slow down. It's a catch 22.

Oil is not just gasoline for cars, fuel for planes, fuel for heating and electrical energy. It is plastic, which is present in everything we use, from my laptop I am using now to the toothpaste and brush I used 10 minutes ago, from the lighter I am using to light my cigarette to the wrap I used to store my left-over, from the bottle of San Pellegrino on my table to the cell phone sitting on the desk. Oil is everywhere, all the time, in our lives. Not only oil is energy or plastic, but it's used to deliver oil and produce plastic.

The world reserves can last at this pace 20-50 years. Without it, the entire capitalist system is bound to collapse. After all, our governments are legal ponzi schemes, functioning on borrowing more money they can collect, with deficit budgets that cannot be repaid and that soon will have no buyers available. Money is printed not on real reserves of gold or silver. As long as energy is available, they can play on, but the end of this game is not that far. Do you really think that a world society that needs to reprogam itself entirely to survive the inevitable social and political unrest will have time and resources for trivia as Formula 1. I seriously doubt it

Edited by ZenSpeed, 30 December 2009 - 19:55.

[wepmob2000]

It has nothing to do with the environmental crisis, which is undoubtedly a serious issue, but they could always develop F1 cars that are the forefront of green technology, hence solving any perceived issue of F1 as an environmental issue.

My expectation is simply a realistic financial and political one. Oil consumption is at an all time high, thanks to the ever increasing demand of industrialized countries and the mushrooming economies of China, India and Brazil (forget their non oil dependency for energy, we use oil for everything). Peak oil has been reached and passed and we don't have as many years of availability as we have behind us, because the use today is tenfold.

The only reason why the problem has been put in the background for now is because of the worldwide recessions triggered by the collapse of the US real estate and financial sectors. This has temporarily caused reduced demand for oil, with relative collapse of its price. But as soon as you see signs of recovery, the price of oils shoots up again, and that in turn causes the recoveries to slow down. It's a catch 22.

Oil is not just gasoline for cars, fuel for planes, fuel for heating and electrical energy. It is plastic, which is present in everything we use, from my laptop I am using now to the toothpaste and brush I used 10 minutes ago, from the lighter I am using to light my cigarette to the wrap I used to store my left-over, from the bottle of San Pellegrino on my table to the cell phone sitting on the desk. Oil is everywhere, all the time, in our lives. Not only oil is energy or plastic, but it's used to deliver oil and produce plastic.

The world reserves can last at this pace 20-50 years. Without it, the entire capitalist system is bound to collapse. After all, our governments are legal ponzi schemes, functioning on borrowing more money they can collect, with deficit budgets that cannot be repaid and that soon will have no buyers available. Money is printed not on real reserves of gold or silver. As long as energy is available, they can play on, but the end of this game is not that far. Do you really think that a world society that needs to reprogam itself entirely to survive the inevitable social and political unrest will have time and resources for trivia as Formula 1. I seriously doubt it

Thanks for the insightful reply, its impossible to disagree with anything you say, it is inevitable this will happen

[alg7_munif]

First change the point system so that drivers are forced to take more risks. Even if cars become alot more easier to overtake ( which supposedly was to happen wiht the 2009 rules ), if drivers are not willing to take the risk, then it will still be boring.

How do you do that? You could give more points to the front runners but it could give a negative effect when drivers won't take the risk if they will be losing valueble points if they screw up.