New aero regs for 2009.

[Matt]

...The bodywork has to be clean. That means no barge boards, no winglets, no chimneys, no flipups...

Source: http://f1.automoto365.com/news/contr...&news_id=28599

Oh yes. The rear wing is going to look a bit silly though.

[Davhut]

Interesting.
Now define "standard" part!

[FPV GTHO]

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

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

- The middle section over a width of 40 cm has to be a standard part.

- The driver may adjust the front wing flaps from the cockpit twice a lap by an angle of a maximum 6 degrees.

Wing height then goes lower than it was in 2004 before the current rules were put in, but still higher i believe than the last change before then around 2000/2001 which had them around 5cm. With a wider section it'll definately have more front downforce as well as being in cleaner air.

- Rear wing width 75 instead of 100 cm

- Rear wing height 95 instead of 80 cm.

Less width so less downforce, but the higher wing is in cleaner air so it might be marginal compared to this years but definately react different in dirty air.

The diffusor then starts from the centre of the rear axle rather than from the front end of the rear wheels. It may raise to 17.5 instead of 12.5 cm.

So it'll be shorter, but have more of a rake. Not sure how it'll affect the downforce or clean/dirty air it leaves.

The bodywork has to be clean. That means no barge boards, no winglets, no chimneys, no flipups.

Possibly the most important part from a fans point of view. The cars wont look so fussy and its likely they wont lose as much performance with minor damage.

If you follow another car within half a car length you will only lose 25 instead of 46 percent of the downforce and the balance shift will be 1 percent to the front rather than 4 percent to the back as it is now…sounds good.

And i guess thats the critical bit there from the tech side. The front end balance should improve with the new rules, meaning a better front end feel, more confidence on braking and turn in. Should be good.

[Nicholosophy]

This is a good start. I will be interested to see how this affects things.

What would be good is if the FIA could have a couple of cars based on these aero rules running around some test tracks to see whether the theory works in practice.

[ggreen29]

That this prediction comes from the FIA makes me very skeptical, given their many unsuccessful attempts so far...however having actual competitors like Byrne, Symonds and Lowe in the mix is encouraging.

Why don't they reduce the vertical dimension of the wing, meaning the distance between the top horizontal surface and the bottom horizontal surface? Wouldn't that greatly reduce the effectiveness of the wing? Another option would be to reduce the number of elements or slats, wouldn't it?

And I agree with the testing aspect. Like any other bit of engineering, field performance is the ultimate test.

[Kempi]

50% downforce reduction is a lot. GP2 will be hardpressed to stay behind a F1 car then.

[Down F0rce]

Sounds really good! The cars will look better and hopefully make it easier to overtake.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Kempi

50% downforce reduction is a lot. GP2 will be hardpressed to stay behind a F1 car then.

Then they should reduce the aero on GP2 cars too!

There is really no need for the amount of downforce we have today in modern motorsport, mechanical grip is preferrable in almost every possible track situation.

I don't like the idea of reducing the width of the rear wing, and I don't think sponsors or the teams will like it either, instead of reducing the width, why not just reduce the depth and the number of elements, so that the cars are "forced" to run with wings like Monza?

The only problem I can see is when these "new" cars take to a wet track like what we had in Fuji.

Overall this looks like a positive step, though I would rather see wider cars, no grooved tyres and so on, like we used to have in 1997 and before.

[JohnSSC]

The reason the FIA has been unsuccessful in limiting aero is that they have one team of engineers working the problems out whereas there are 11 F1 teams with herds of engineeers with enormous computer networks working to solve the problems.

My solution? Ban computers. Give them all slide rules and let them work things out that way. Most of them probably couldn't figure out their gas mileage without a calculator...

Of course, what to do with those pesky wind tunnels then? All that data and no way to use it. I know! They could turn the wind tunnels into giant clothes dryers....the piles of paper generated by the wind tunnel testing could be made into paper-mache furniture...

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I don't like the idea of reducing the width of the rear wing, and I don't think sponsors or the teams will like it either, instead of reducing the width, why not just reduce the depth and the number of elements, so that the cars are "forced" to run with wings like Monza?

I dont think it'll make much difference for the sponsors. Even Minardi used to only run a single sponsor on either face of the wing. The endplates probably generate more sponsorship than the wings themselves, and by all means they dont seem to be getting smaller. Infact, by raising the wing they may even become bigger.

[TFHarv]

hmm 50% reduction by FIA reckoning will probably tail out at about 10-15% once the big teams play around with the cars. If the changes they made to the rules each year made that big a difference then they would always be slower around circuits each year which is not the case in all venues.

What worries me is F1 is moving in the wrong direction, its not about new inovation making the cars faster and safer now its about limiting drivers equipment to make them take less risk and drive more conservativley. Yes saftey is always the most important factor as drivers lives are much more precious than the equipment they drive but changing the way a car feels and handles each season can't be the way to make drivers more comfatable and confident with their drives, can it?

Maybe trying to work out better ways of making circuit safety better would be more appropriate like making gravel trap work how they were designed ?

Sorry I went off topic a bit but its all a bit crazy to me changing elements of the car to slow them down instead of making the actual racing better and safer ?

[J-C]

At least the 3 main elements of the car; the front wing, the rear wing and the diffuser are all still open to interpretation, so the hundreds of people who work in F1 aero departments will not be being made redundant - quite the contrary really as in addition to the first three areas, sidepod profiles will become far more critical to optimise the performance of the diffuser and rear wing.

I have faith in the fact F1 tech people are developing the regs rather than Mad Max because hopefully it means the technical challenge will still be there, as only a limited part of the car will be standardised, unlike some of the things Mad Max was proposing.

I do feel though that some simpler things could have been done - like banning refuelling, making tyre stops optional, playing the eco-friendly card by reducing the amount of fuel a car can use from season to season. All these concepts would eradicate the horrible sprint-stop-sprint format of a modern GP, creating compromises that would allow different cars to be quick at different stages of a race, which is what allows overtaking. We've seen even with the current regulations that you can overtake if the will is there...

[Pingguest]

I don't like the standardisation of the middle section and ability of the driver to change the setup in the cockpit. The standardisation is against what's Formula 1 all about: innovation. The ability of the driver the adapt the setup sounds, especially due the restrictions, artificial to me.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I don't like the standardisation of the middle section and ability of the driver to change the setup in the cockpit. The standardisation is against what's Formula 1 all about: innovation. The ability of the driver the adapt the setup sounds, especially due the restrictions, artificial to me.

The drivers already have plenty of switches to play with in the cockpit (probably less in 2008 onwards),so the addition of a switch to alter the wing angle twice a lap isn't really going to make that much difference.

I would have prefered it if the wings were operated by the gas and brake pedals full time i.e. full downforce when applying the brakes,minimum downforce when accelerating.How much minimum and Maximum downforce there would be is down to the driver and his engineers.

[FPV GTHO]

Its only a 40cm stretch that'll be standardised, basically the part thats currently used as some form of spoon profile by all the teams.

[Leighton Irwin]

When and where each driver changes the wing angle will be interesting, especially the 2 drivers on the same team. However I expect that this will all be predetermined by the computer simulations although I can see some independent minded drivers playing a bit. This is one idea that may never make it to the track.
Mind you if Mad Max really wanted to keep the costs down all these changes would not happen. The wind tunnels are going to be running 24/7/365.

[jab]

It sounds quite good. Apart from the adjusting of the wings - that was banned along with the original-type wings in 69. Shouldn't be allowed - seems a bit dangerous

However, it sounds too good to be true. I see Autosport.com for one haven't run this yet...

[Sodemo]

My rules would be as follows (using some of theirs as a base).


- Front wing height decreased to 7.5 instead of 15 cm.
- Rear wing height 95 instead of 80 cm.
- Rear wing restricted to one single element
- Rear wing depth to be reduced by 8cm
- "Flat surfaces" rule to be applied over the middle section of the bodywork.
- Chassis widened to 200cm
- Slicks

Some good suggestions there I think.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

The drivers already have plenty of switches to play with in the cockpit (probably less in 2008 onwards),so the addition of a switch to alter the wing angle twice a lap isn't really going to make that much difference.

I would have prefered it if the wings were operated by the gas and brake pedals full time i.e. full downforce when applying the brakes,minimum downforce when accelerating.How much minimum and Maximum downforce there would be is down to the driver and his engineers.

I see some practical problems with the (semi-)moveable wings. If wings are moveable, they are more likely to brake. But with the proposed restrictions, it becomes artificial as well. Drivers are free to change the brake balans throughout the whole race. If drivers are going to be allowed to change the aerodynamics, why not applying the same liberty as with the brake balans?

Maybe I'm just too conservative for this sort of devices. The ban on moveable aerodynamics devices was introduced in 1969 because of safety reasons. But I don't think the ban should stay for practical reasons; shouldn't we keep an eye on what has grown from the past?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against a radical overhaul of the regulations. To make overtaking and close racing possible the FIA could, on the aero side, introduce a restricted form of ground effects or reduce downforce to the absolute minimum.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

My rules would be as follows (using some of theirs as a base).


- Front wing height decreased to 7.5 instead of 15 cm.
- Rear wing height 95 instead of 80 cm.
- Rear wing restricted to one single element
- Rear wing depth to be reduced by 8cm
- "Flat surfaces" rule to be applied over the middle section of the bodywork.
- Chassis widened to 200cm
- Slicks

Some good suggestions there I think.

My suggestions

- Lowered, control front wing.
- Current height, single element rear wing
- Slicks
- Control ground effect undertray

[ggreen29]

I don't understand why they are limiting the number of times the driver can adjust aero. And how are they going to police this? This is the group that can't get ambient temp or fuel temp measured accurately.

Also rather than make a standard wing section, why not just require the leading edges of both wings to be straight?

[Ogami musashi]

Hello,

There's a bit a blur around the sentence:

Windtunnel research has shown that with the new rules the overall downforce loss will be 50 percent compared to the 2006 aero. If you follow another car within half a car length you will only lose 25 instead of 46 percent of the downforce and the balance shift will be 1 percent to the front rather than 4 percent to the back as it is now

It is yet not clear if its an overall downforce reduction of 50% or a reduction of downforce losses behind a car of 50% (the examples following suggest that).

It was planned to do so (reduce the downforce by 50%) by 2006 with the infamous "At no time a car may generate more than 12500N of downforce" but following the WMSC meeting there were some amendments done to both the 2008 and 2009 technical regulations.
We'll have to wait if its the case or not.

I've told it on several forums, the problem of overtaking was due to vortex bursts following the heavy use of vortex lift on the cars.
This year, not all cars relied as much on vortex lift, so some cars were easier to follow than some others.

The problem was not due to the amount of downforce, the predicted reduction was more a question of cutting the cost of aero departments and was in conjunction with the planned reintroduction of slicks but the actual measure taken aero wise are not really towards a downforce regulations (the diffuser will bring more ground effects, the front wing will be in ground effect again and wider so will have more downforce, only the rear wing will produce less downforce).

By the way the chassis is planned to be 2meters wide again, the front wing widened will be in front of the tires again and hopefully slicks will be back, with the ability of the pilot to control the angle of the wing, lap times should drop.

I'm quite happy about that.

[ss_collins]

I'm a bit unlcear on where this has come from - there is no mention of it in the WMSC report on the FIA site and the 2009 regs have not been amended?

[Ogami musashi]

hello collins,

Yeah it is strange, but it seems it comes from autosport (but it is not on the site).
Just prior to the WSMC meeting, i saw the news with the same proposals, and then the news that the proposals were accepted came.

By the way, on the offical press release the FIA said they changed the regulations but still nothing new on their site.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I'm curious about the moveable front wing slats, and their being controlled from the cockpit.

As I understand it, the current method is effectively a screw thread type arrangement embedded within the endplate, that is adjustable during a pitstop using something akin to an "Allen key"

To be controlable from the cockpit means some form of electronic or hydraulic actuator/servo embedded within the front wing structure. This would need to be hard wired into the cars electronic or hydraulic systems.

Theoretically are wegoing to see cars retiring with electrical problems because a minor knock on the front wing caused the electronic servo to short. or a car to leak hydraulic fluid from a similarly minor incident ?

As for changing nose cones to in a race, there will now be additional time lost as the teams will have to disconnect and re-connect these electronics/hydraulics. Not forgetting the possiblity of the connectors being damaged.

Will the FIA rules say that these wings must be in working order at the end or a race? or will a team be allowed to fit a new nosecone as this season which can only be adjusted during a pitstop?