The 2009 F1 car (pics and comments)

[Spawinte]

You'd think in an article mainly concerned with the look of the car they would provide a bloody bigger picture and more than one.

[nickyf1]

lol! I think it looks great, im at the stage now where i look at a 2008 spec car and think 'god that rear wing is wide'

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I wonder whether the shake down of the Front wing involved the driver adjustment...i'm curious to actually see in real terms how much of a deflection change actually occurs.

[RaiseYourFist]

That front wing looks just......wrong

[bodgit]

that car looks horrible, the front wing looks too big for the car and the rear wing looks as if its off a f3 car

[Teretonga]

What they appear to have done is to reduce the width of the rear wing and raised it.
So the wing is slightly smaller but works in less disturbed air.
It gives as much down force as before but because it is higher it may create less disturbance low down for the cars following.

In order to balance it out they front wing is larger but slightly less efficient than before.

This may create enough down force to balance the front and rear, and the larger (longer) front wing may be less prone to being affected by turbulance of the preceeding car.

Either way they seem to have missed a point.

Less downforce overall is what is required. Less efficient wings of a large size
at the rear would have given a desired effect and slowed down corner speeds, raised higher or not.
Then a less obvious answer would be a front wing that was less efficient, less sensitive and perhaps smaller could be used to balance the car out, meaning lower cornering speeds which in themselves would mean the aero was less important in cornering and that mechanical grip became more important, either through tyres or suspension development.

This would reduce the tension between corner speed and new circuit design, at least for a time (assuming continued development) creating longer lap times. Aero development needs to be reduced and the most effective way to divert those resources is to create less dependence and importance on them.

[broadrun96]

Any time frame on when teams will unveil the new cars for 09? Is it usually in Jan/Feb or later?

[Maxwell Murder]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Any time frame on when teams will unveil the new cars for 09? Is it usually in Jan/Feb or later?

Toyota will reveal their car on the 16th of January, BMW on the 20th and McLaren have said "late January". As far as I'm aware, no other teams have confirmed launch dates.

[Ogami musashi]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

In order to balance it out they front wing is larger but slightly less efficient than before..

The overall rear downforce is lost by the diffuser reduction and coupling decrease.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Less downforce overall is what is required.

For what? having less turbulence? Then no.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Less efficient wings of a large size
at the rear would have given a desired effect and slowed down corner speeds, raised higher or not..

Not at all, quite the inverse.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Then a less obvious answer would be a front wing that was less efficient, less sensitive and perhaps smaller could be used to balance the car out, meaning lower cornering speeds which in themselves would mean the aero was less important in cornering and that mechanical grip became more important, either through tyres or suspension development...

No, simply no. reduction of downforce and cornering speeds doesn't mean you'll have less disturbance.

It would of course work if you cut downforce to zero but if you use downforce to corner at high speed then it doesn't work at all.
If not, then why bother with downforce?

[sports-man]

God that's an ugly looking thing.
But at least we will get some better racing.
KERS systems will provide for quicker times to the first corner.
The size of that front wing makes it extremely vulnerable in the usual first corner melee.
I fully expect to see several cars pitting after the first lap to replace damaged or lost front wings after the first corners.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Ogami musashi

No, simply no. reduction of downforce and cornering speeds doesn't mean you'll have less disturbance.

But that doesn't mean that a reduction of downforce would make close racing more likely. A downforce reduction will chance the ratio between aerodynamic and mechanical grip and hence resulting a smaller proportion of grip being lost due to slipstreaming.

[Ogami musashi]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

But that doesn't mean that a reduction of downforce would make close racing more likely. A downforce reduction will chance the ratio between aerodynamic and mechanical grip and hence resulting a smaller proportion of grip being lost due to slipstreaming.

Only if you can guarantee that the wake is not worth with less downforce or that the cars with less downforce are not more sensitive.

And mind you the wake structure is really dependant on how much downforce you have between the diffuser and the rear wing.

Decreasing the rear wing downforce is one the worst thing to do for the wake.

Now let's be clear, the non downforce cars of the 60's had a lot of turbulence, the only salvating thing was that they didn't rely on it at all.
Let's be even more precise, the fact that the turbulence was bad was a performance increase for them as those cars lifted and following the other cars they had a lift decrease thus more grip.

So as you see we're talking of apple and oranges. You can't say "the answer is to cut downforce" by thinking of cars from 50 years ago that had not the same race dynamics as now.

So in my opinion, what do you/me/the fans want? fast cornering cars? the difference between an F1 car and a GP2 one is the downforce. It allows cars to sweep high speed corners.

You want to cut it? no problem, how much? 70%? okay, let's make the assumption we've worked the design so that the wake is the same as the 09 one so that, effectively we rely less on downforce.
Why bother with 30% of downforce??? those 30% would not allow the cars to corner at the highest speeds.

Downforce at low level is used on racing series for costs reasons, it is far cheaper to have 500kg of downforce than 500kg of tyre grip, but for F1 why would we use that?? Let's get rid of it!

As far as i'm concerned, i think the aerodynamic turning dynamics (the fact that downforce grows with speed which allows high speed cornering) is essential to F1 because it changes the driving style and makes it very technical with all the implications given.

You want to get rid of it and provide with another source of grip that behaves the same? i say superb and let's go! we'll concentrate on drag reduction then.

Now you don't care about cornering speed and want to see sliding cars? i understand, but then, do not ask for deacreased downforce to have similar F1 than now, ask for no downforce cars that will lap far slower and in a total different manner.

Well to me that's formula ford but well.

[Glen]

If you look at that Williams picture a few times over the course of a day or two you soon get used to it. Plus of course the cars will look very similar from the side - they only look odd (at the moment) from the front.

[FPV GTHO]

One thing with that Williams picture is its a frontal offset angle, so the effect of the narrow rear wing doesnt hit you. A full frontal picture will probably still take awhile to get used to.

[neilap]

As much as the cars will have lost downforce and cornering speeds, I am confident that the F1 teams have their brilliant scientists working for them to reverse the negative effects of any rule change. This year Mac claims to 'on paper' have increased their cars lap speed by close to 2 seconds. It is therefore logical to expect something similar in gains next year from most teams. After all its easier to make gains with a new concept than what has been for years.
Also, we are very focused on aero but aren't the tires supposed to make up much of the loss of grip? Yes, tires will matter more at the lower speed corners but still it will pay huge dividends at high speeds compared to the grooved tires.
Every time the rules change we feel the cars are going to be crap but all it does in force the teams to spend more money, and they will, thus in the end getting pretty close to the levels they were in previous years.
Even the switch to v8 motors was the bearer of doom and gloom but times were getting pretty close to v10 times. If the rules were not changed I would have expected a couple more years before the cars were at similar levels.

[Teretonga]

Ogami musashi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teretonga
Less downforce overall is what is required.

For what? having less turbulence? Then no.

Your making (incorrect ones) assumptions and then saying thats not the case.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Less efficient wings of a large size
at the rear would have given a desired effect and slowed down corner speeds, raised higher or not..


Not at all, quite the inverse.

I'd disagree. The amount of downforce available has a definite influence on the cornering speeds. Much less efficient wings of the 2008 would have reduced the cornering speeds substantially (especially if combined with reductions in diffuser and underbody aerodynamics). Certainly not the inverse.

[Ogami musashi]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Your making (incorrect ones) assumptions and then saying thats not the case.

I'm sorry i don't understand what you mean. Which assumptions?

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I'd disagree. The amount of downforce available has a definite influence on the cornering speeds. Much less efficient wings of the 2008 would have reduced the cornering speeds substantially (especially if combined with reductions in diffuser and underbody aerodynamics). Certainly not the inverse.

I said, "quite the inverse to" :

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Less efficient wings of a large size
at the rear would have given a desired effect

And i say no, the inverse, rear wing needs to have downforce to clean the wake.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

One thing with that Williams picture is its a frontal offset angle, so the effect of the narrow rear wing doesnt hit you. A full frontal picture will probably still take awhile to get used to.

...and even like this it still looks like a caricature. Right now I feel I'll spend the start of next year's Australian grand prix on the floor laughing. That's the effect seeing a full field of these things for the first time is going to have.

[wheadon]

check out autosport for a picture of williams 09 front wing. Straight line testing.

It's huge!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Ogami musashi

Now let's be clear, the non downforce cars of the 60's had a lot of turbulence, the only salvating thing was that they didn't rely on it at all.
Let's be even more precise, the fact that the turbulence was bad was a performance increase for them as those cars lifted and following the other cars they had a lift decrease thus more grip.

But I'm not (necessarily) proposing non-downforce Formula 1 cars. I think we should eliminate the front wing and high noses and make the undertray less aggressive.

So in my opinion, what do you/me/the fans want? fast cornering cars? the difference between an F1 car and a GP2 one is the downforce. It allows cars to sweep high speed corners.

Indeed, aerodynamics is an important factor for the difference in speed between Formula 1 and its feeder series. But it isn't the only factor.

As far as i'm concerned, i think the aerodynamic turning dynamics (the fact that downforce grows with speed which allows high speed cornering) is essential to F1 because it changes the driving style and makes it very technical with all the implications given.

Formula 1 requires an aggressive driving style. I'm not against that, but Formula 1 is out of balance. Aerodynamics may play a role in the cars' performance, but it shouldn't be the most important factor and certainly not, like nowadays, more or less the only factor of importance.

[olly83]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72161

Possibly the daftest looking F1 car of recent years IMO!!!

[ivanalesi]

Hold your breaths, it's uglier than everyone thought:
http://xpb.cc/viewpicture.asp?id=281223
http://xpb.cc/viewpicture.asp?id=281225
http://xpb.cc/viewpicture.asp?id=281226

It actually reminds me of a grown up version of Formula BMW's previous car, in anyway, it's for sure the ugliest car I've seen for years, even the old A1 was better!

[FPV GTHO]

It doesnt look anywhere near as good as the Williams, but appears to be BMW's hybrid car for testing by looking at the length and sidepods, so is probably the most accurate look into 2009 aero so far.

[ivanalesi]

Some more pics:
http://www.f1today.nl/fotos/testsess...november-2008/

[spider]

Rdiculous looking car! Brilliantly ugly. It's like a 'Spitting Image' interpretation of a Formula One car...