The definitive 2009 sporting and technical regs

[Marbot]

Just released.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regul...mpionship.aspx

Have a good read.

[Sodemo]

So we are still stuck with these crummy 1800mm chassis for next year then?

Which means we will still have loads of aero and grooved tyres also.

So much for things changing in 2009, I really don't know what I hold out any hope for a decent set of technical regs.

[duke_toaster]

Part 2 of that is wrong Sodemo, the tyre and aero changes are happening.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

From the technical regs

I can't make head-nor-tail of the aero specification but I did notice that the driver adjustable front wings are included, up to 6 degrees of movement, two adjustments per lap.

The KERS seems to be definite.

And the Blue, Yellow and Red LEDs for track signaling are mentioned ...or are they already on the cars?

[duke_toaster]

The flag LEDs came in for 2007 (I think).

EDIT : The SC rules have not been changed re. refuelling.

[Marbot]

'Grooves' are definitely out!

"The outer sidewall of all tyres which are to be used at an Event must be marked with a unique identification."

[Bononi]

If this is the "definitive" FIA's style, then it's all open to change...

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

So we are still stuck with these crummy 1800mm chassis for next year then?

1.8m chassis and 1.8m front wings should be interesting.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bononi

If this is the "definitive" FIA's style, then it's all open to change...

More than likely.

[Sodemo]

So why on earth no 2000mm chassis then?

[zac510]

Too big change to the design of the car this late in the day, I'd say.

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

So why on earth no 2000mm chassis then?

For a single seater 2000mm is just not necessary.

If the FIA widened the cars again then it'll just make things even more cramped at places like Monaco, and with more Street Circuits being introduced I think it's better to keep the cars as they are.

[pirenzo]

The new aero regs seem very ambiguous in places. Plenty of scope for teams to accuse one another of cheating then.

The overall width is 180cm. The bodywork width is 140cm and has been that way for longer than the grooved tyres have been around I'm sure.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

For a single seater 2000mm is just not necessary.

If the FIA widened the cars again then it'll just make things even more cramped at places like Monaco, and with more Street Circuits being introduced I think it's better to keep the cars as they are.

Wider cars = more drag = more stable = more drivable.

The extra 20cm is really not an issue at tracks like monaco, drivers would adjust, they coped fine for 30-40 years with 2200mm-2000mm chassis.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by pirenzo

The new aero regs seem very ambiguous in places. Plenty of scope for teams to accuse one another of cheating then.

That's the basic idea !

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

For a single seater 2000mm is just not necessary.

If the FIA widened the cars again then it'll just make things even more cramped at places like Monaco, and with more Street Circuits being introduced I think it's better to keep the cars as they are.

Before 1993 the cars had a maximum width of 2150mm and nobody complained about it.

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Before 1993 the cars had a maximum width of 2150mm and nobody complained about it.

I wouldn't have expected anybody to complain.

It's a no brainer than a wider car is going to be more stable etc than one that isn't but that's not the point, the fact is that they are quick enough without being 2000mm.

Le Mans prototypes & GT cars have a maximum width of 2000mm but they're 2-seater cars, why should a single seater racecar have to be the same? The whole reason for making them 1800mm in the first place was to bring the wheels in line with the bodywork, so as to stop cars locking wheels with each other.

[Tathrim]

I will read this tomorrow evening for a good couple of hours, and envisage the maximum and minimum in Sketchup, if possible, to give people an idea, and later, in comparison with the other (2008) cars, if needed.

EDIT: just saw the diagrams. seems simple enough.

EDIT 2: reference plane? whereabouts on the car is that?

[Ogami musashi]

The diagrams are wrong and don't respect the bodywork rules at all.
They are here for indication only.

The real drawings are not aviable for the public (the drawing showing the volumes, the drawing of the central standard section for the front wing etc..).

[pirenzo]

Yup, the drawings are incomplete and don't appear to be correct to the specifications laid out in the regulations proper.
FWIW Tathrim, the reference plane is the floor of the car, without plank.

It seems to me that basically we're getting something closer to 2008's machinery than early to mid 90s, but with considerably more control on the sort of profiles that are allowed.

Picture one of this year's cars with no winglets, nose bridges etc, with slicks and an absurd full width front wing, and you're getting close.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

I wouldn't have expected anybody to complain.

It's a no brainer than a wider car is going to be more stable etc than one that isn't but that's not the point, the fact is that they are quick enough without being 2000mm.

I don't think the cars should be widened to make them go faster. I think the cornering speeds should be lowered. But since the maximum width was reduced the cars are nervous and less predictable.

[Ogami musashi]

Originally Posted by pirenzo

Yup, the drawings are incomplete and don't appear to be correct to the specifications laid out in the regulations proper.
FWIW Tathrim, the reference plane is the floor of the car, without plank.

It seems to me that basically we're getting something closer to 2008's machinery than early to mid 90s, but with considerably more control on the sort of profiles that are allowed.

Picture one of this year's cars with no winglets, nose bridges etc, with slicks and an absurd full width front wing, and you're getting close.

Well for sure it seams to share some things with this year cars but the problem is that the 3 main points are changed: the front wing, the sidepods and the rear wing.

Since the front wing is far lower but that bridge are still allowed that means they will still have the possibility to direct flow (hopefully) towards sidepods, but sidepods havea minimum radius and they will run from the entry of the cockpit till the rear wheels so they'll be shaped differently possibly lower (so a bit like in the 90's) and the barge boards will be cut to minimal dimensions. Finally the rear wing will be at the same height than the top engine inlet and the ensemble of rear wing/beam wing/diffuser have a minimal vertical spacing.

So all in one i think re-design will be necessary, but for sure, the regulations are even more restrictive than before.



Hopefully those one will only stay for two years and let's hope the 2011 ones will be more open.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

But since the maximum width was reduced the cars are nervous and less predictable.

That also coincided with the introduction of the grooved tyres though

[Tathrim]

Just so people know, F1 Racing mag has a diagram that compares the two, to give people a visual idea. (Aug 2008, page 102-103)

Hope this helps.

[Ogami musashi]

taking into account new dimensions for wings and sidepods?