BBC "Exclusive": Pat Head & Rory Byrne propose "biggest ... change since 1983" in '13

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by RF_Racer

not some ECO green F1 cars with silly little 4 pot 1.6 litre engines that are found in a small family hatch.

You've just hit upon the reason why engine manufacturers are going down that route.

Currently these "silly little 4 pot 1.6 litre engines" are turning out upwards of 180bhp with a broad spread of torque to match, and the main thing is that they are doing this whilst at the same time being remarkably economical.

[Sodemo]

Its funny how manufacturers seem to have shifted from pimping diesel engines, to pimping small turbo petrol engines. So is diesel back on the "uncool" list, as aside from Audi, I don't see anyone pushing it any more.

[Joe Taylor]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Its funny how manufacturers seem to have shifted from pimping diesel engines, to pimping small turbo petrol engines. So is diesel back on the "uncool" list, as aside from Audi, I don't see anyone pushing it any more.

It's all to do with the emissions regulations - going down the diesel route helps lower certain areas such as Carbon Monoxide and unburned fuel, as well as increasing overall efficiency, but greatly increase soot and usually weight. Downsizing petrol engines means that soot is no longer a problem and also means that CO2 emissions are lower. The rapid development of direct injection technology has helped too, particularly with increasing the efficiency of petrol engines.

[RF_Racer]

I dont belive thats the problem, they managed in the 80's a wider car also punches a bigger hole in the air and allows for a greater slip stream from further back.

You can see how they got narrower and narrower..

180cm width

F1's odd wing regulations



98 spec



200cm



220cm

[wnut]

Originally Posted by E-racer

It does look like a great idea. Reducing the cars dependance on aero is one of the most important areas to adress in order to promote overtaking. I guess the question is how much of this will actually see the light of day. Similar ideas to these have been floating around for a long time and never seem to come to fruition. People who spent a lot on windtunnels don't tend to like talk about decreasing aero much :-)

You're absolutely right about the wind tunnel owners, but heres hoping.

[Woolley]

It's not so much the rules that encourage me, so much as the proposal comes from two guys who firstly understand the engineering and secondly are passionate about racing. I can't think of two people more ideal to be writing the regs. Which of course means there's no chance of them being given the gig.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by RF_Racer

I dont belive thats the problem, they managed in the 80's a wider car also punches a bigger hole in the air and allows for a greater slip stream from further back.

You can see how they got narrower and narrower..

180cm width
F1's odd wing regulations
98 spec
200cm
220cm

Of those I think 2m looks best, 2.2m looks a bit too wide IMO, and 1.8m also doesn't look too bad. The only question is which is better for the racing. 2.2m is probably too wide for racing as well as aesthetics, so it's somewhere in the 1.8m-2m region. Perhaps even moving to 1.9m wide cars, but perhaps a major factor in making the cars look wide will be the wider sidepods, which will make F1 cars look awesome.

The small turbo engines should work, although I would probably rather have 700hp+KERS rather than 600hp+KERS to ensure current lap times, although the KERS systems will be 160hp (120 kW) at peak levels supposedly. It remains to be seen how long this will be permitted for per lap, but it means that the cars would have 750hp when KERS is live, which is about current power levels (without KERS).

My thought about 700hp+KERS would mean more actual power (and normally for me 860hp sounds too much) than currently, but would be to compensate for the lack of aero grip. If the aero grip is excessive, the boost pressures could easily be reduced down so that lap times are at current speeds or slightly slower. Five seconds a lap is not too much I suppose, but I don't want F1 cars to get continually slower (but they clearly shouldn't be too fast for the circuits).

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Woolley

It's not so much the rules that encourage me, so much as the proposal comes from two guys who firstly understand the engineering and secondly are passionate about racing. I can't think of two people more ideal to be writing the regs. Which of course means there's no chance of them being given the gig.

They will probably give the gig to a wandering drunk.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

They will probably give the gig to a wandering drunk.

I'd accept it as well.

[Fox89]

Sounds pretty promising, although after watching the last two F1 seasons I am thinking more and more that the problem with the spectacle of the sport these days is less to do with aero and more to do with clever engineers and technology.

In 2009 we had a major regulations shake up with the purpose of drastically reducing the reliance on aero in order to improve overtaking. By the time the start of the 2010 season rolled around we had cars with more downforce than ever. My concern is that whatever regulations you introduce, you'll get people like Adrian Newey discovering new and inventive ways to get back all the performance and downforce the rules are designed to eliminate. And with modern wind tunnels and supercomputers running CFD calculations 24/7, the engineer has a whole host of tools at his disposal to do just that!

Having said that, I am excited by this news and looking forward to seeing the finalised changes.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Fox89

In 2009 we had a major regulations shake up with the purpose of drastically reducing the reliance on aero in order to improve overtaking. By the time the start of the 2010 season rolled around we had cars with more downforce than ever. My concern is that whatever regulations you introduce, you'll get people like Adrian Newey discovering new and inventive ways to get back all the performance and downforce the rules are designed to eliminate. And with modern wind tunnels and supercomputers running CFD calculations 24/7, the engineer has a whole host of tools at his disposal to do just that!

These are very valid concerns, a set of rules is something that needs continuous maintenance to ensure that the cars are still providing excellent regulation. Unless, of course, you put the evolution process on ice, or at least in the fridge - something I would support wholeheartedly for any hypothetical sub-F1 non-spec series (something I wildly support, for several reasons), but isn't really F1. The only thing I would point out is - reading between the lines - the undertray may be a standard component, or a part where the regulations provide negligible latitude.

Perhaps that is two arguments for two separate things. The first is a set of rules so that the cars can easily be pegged back - this is easier to do with engines (reduce the revs or turbo pressure) than aero, which is not as simple as tweaking a set of values on a computer program. The second is a set of rules that more severely restricts resources. I am in favour of the current RRA, although I would like a little more transparency on what it is.

[gregc]

Might as well stick my 2p in...

On the face of it this sounds good - the right people are involved at the moment at least. I share the concerns about smart engineers working around whatever restrictions are introduced, however unless I'm missing something (very likely) surely simply limiting the number of separate vertical and horizontal elements on the front (especially) and rear wings would help?

The complexity of this years front wings has been obvious, with multi element endplates, turning vanes, and many horizontal bits too. Could the FIA & co not find a wording that says something along the lines of "one continuous, unbroken front element with one discrete upper element either side of the nose, plus two supporting struts attached to the nosecone and two single piece endplates".

I'm picking on the front wing in particular here because it's a) the most obviously complicated bit and b) most obviously affected by the car in front, but in general (famous last words...) how hard can it be....?

What I'm getting at is that surely the regs should force simple aero as much as possible, and to me specifically limiting the number of elements seems an easy win. Make those upper front wing elements as curvy as you like, but there can be two of them and they must remain within (for example, at random...) 20 degrees to the horizontal.

Probably being very naive at the same time as getting depressingly geeky about the whole thing, but what the hell

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

"Silly little 4 pot 1.6 litre engines that are found in a small family hatch"? Find me a 650hp small family hatch, then ...


I admit would be more comfortable with ~700hp + KERS though, to ensure power levels are roughly like current ones, but the cars - bearing in mind their power levels (remember, more powerful KERS) and cornering speeds, will still be the top of motorsport. Larger rear wheels are an option, but 2.2m track would possibly make overtaking worse around circuits like the Hungaroring or street circuits where there might not be as much physical room to overtake.

Can BMW go get all those 4 pots from Megatron Imagine 1,000+bhp again, with turbos flaming from all that unburnt fuel.. the bum of the chassis scraping on the ground.. could be good fun...

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by gregc

plus two supporting struts attached to the nosecone

I'd change that to 'two wing elements, one fastened to each side of the nosecone' and get rid of those ridiculous high noses. Ugly, promote take off when colliding with rear wheels, wings break off too easily.

Heck, stipulate that they're made of aluminium while you're at it so they can get bent instead of broken off. Sigh, happy days.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Woolley

I'd change that to 'two wing elements, one fastened to each side of the nosecone' and get rid of those ridiculous high noses. Ugly, promote take off when colliding with rear wheels, wings break off too easily.
.

I have no unusual aptitude in design but I agree about the raised nose. How can F1 be so confused about no overtaking when the front wing is as large as scaffolding? At minimum they should get of the high nose and reduce the size of the wing.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Of those I think 2m looks best, 2.2m looks a bit too wide IMO, and 1.8m also doesn't look too bad. The only question is which is better for the racing. 2.2m is probably too wide for racing as well as aesthetics, so it's somewhere in the 1.8m-2m region. Perhaps even moving to 1.9m wide cars, but perhaps a major factor in making the cars look wide will be the wider sidepods, which will make F1 cars look awesome.

For someone who grew up watching F1 in the 80s, I have a certain affinity towards the wider cars of that era. I think some of the best looking cars came between 1990-1993. Then again, I love the chunky 80's cars too, the 1983 Ferrari was just gorgeous. I personally have always hated the 1800mm cars ever since their inception in 1998 - 12 years of hate (and counting), more than a man can take. They have gotten rid of the grooved tyres, now all they need to do is to undo that other mistake, and to make the cars wider again. Wider cars are an all round win for everyone. They look better, they provide more drag and they make a car more stable in corners.

As I have mentioned in previous threads, drivers could overtake fine (easier than today) with 2200mm cars at tracks like Monaco, Hungary, Dallas, Jarama, some of the tightest tracks of the past era. Now we have tracks which are 20 metres wide in places (Sepang) so I doubt it will be an issue. I think the benefits of having wider cars will outweigh any notion of "lacking of track space".

If they were to twin the wider cars with superwide rear tyres, adjust the weight distribution a bit, then we could see some mega slides too, perhaps not 60s - 70s style sweeping drifting, but certainly some Senna-esque tail out moments like his epic Monaco Lotus laps.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

They will probably give the gig to a wandering drunk.

Said drunk couldn't hope to come up with a worse set of Regs than the OWG (Overtaking Working Group).
The OWG would have to be the best example of a committee failing to meet a design brief, actual overtaking, in the history of mankind!

[Pingguest]

Its not very unlikely that the new aerodynamics will be standardized. In that case, I can't see how the new rules will promote more overtaking. The cause of overtaking is a performance differential in the first place. Without a performance differential (being big enough) overtaking is going to be very difficult, if not non-existing.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In that case, I can't see how the new rules will promote more overtaking. .

Less turbulence seems to be the key. And no side skirts.

Even Le Mans has gone 'petite'!

“Downsized engines, essentially 2010-spec LMP2 power plants, will be enforced in new-for-2011 LMP1 cars. Teams will have a variety of options, including 3.4-litre naturally aspirated V8s, 2.0-litre turbos, or a 3.7-litre diesel turbo, which Audi has opted for with its V6 TDI. ”

[duke_toaster]

Under the current (by that I mean 2009/2010) rules, wasn't it necessary to stick a fair bit of lard and choke the restrictors of the LMP2s to keep them a distinct class? ALMS ran with the two merged ...

[Fox89]

Without a performance differential (being big enough) overtaking is going to be very difficult, if not non-existing.

Formula Ford, Touring Cars, Renault Clio Cup cars etc. manage to overtake all the time. Plenty of battles where positions change back and forth, not just the faster drivers coming through the packs. These are series with more or less identical cars, no performance differential at all, and they manage it just fine.

Why? Because cars following each other can get close enough to get in a slipstream. That's all you need, if a car can get in the slipstream of the one in front, it will go faster than the car it is following, even if they are identical machines, and have a chance to overtake. There's no need to have any difference in performance at all.

[PabloTeK]

Watch NASCAR at Talladega; all the cars run roughly the same HP there with very similar bodywork and they had I think 79 lead changes and 29 different leaders at the stripe at the spring race this year!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Fox89

Formula Ford, Touring Cars, Renault Clio Cup cars etc. manage to overtake all the time. Plenty of battles where positions change back and forth, not just the faster drivers coming through the packs. These are series with more or less identical cars, no performance differential at all, and they manage it just fine.

The cause for overtaking is a minimum performance differential in a certain time frame. As the cars you mentioned are considerably slower than Formula 1-cars, a smaller performance differential is required for successful overtaking manoeuvres.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Its not very unlikely that the new aerodynamics will be standardized.

While the undertray might be a standard component, I doubt the actual wings will be. Even so, just having a spec undertray wouldn't completely remove an aero differences, it's about making it mesh with the rest of the bodywork.

[Fox89]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The cause for overtaking is a minimum performance differential in a certain time frame. As the cars you mentioned are considerably slower than Formula 1-cars, a smaller performance differential is required for successful overtaking manoeuvres.

I disagree. I feel the closer the cars and drivers are in terms of performance the more overtaking we will see. As long as you reduce reliance on aero so that it is possible. If you have a car that is much faster than another, it is only going to overtake if it is behind a slower car. And why would it be? In qualifying it would have been in front of the slower car. So it takes mitigating circumstances such as Malaysia to put those faster cars at the back.

When you make it all about the drivers though, you'll get little mistakes or moments of bravery that allow the guy behind to get closer and get into the slipstream. So reducing the performance difference is a good thing.