Technical regs to change over next five years

[Dazz9908]

http://www.motorsport.com./news/article.asp?ID=239936&FS=F1

2008
- regulations as published but possible elimination of aerodynamic appendices (barge boards, winglets, chimneys, etc) forward of rear wheel centreline and behind front wheel centreline (subject to unanimous agreement of competing teams);
Hope they all go!
- possible sporting regulations to restrict the use of wind tunnels and/or models for use in wind tunnels and/or test rigs (subject to the consent of a majority of competing teams) ;
can't see this happening
- (existing 2.4 litre engine remains frozen) BORING!

2009
- energy recovery and re-use from braking
- reduction of 50% of downforce I like the Idea :p :
- aerodynamic and other changes to facilitate overtaking this is good
- existing 2.4 litre engine remains frozen or, possibly, a four-race drive train (engine and transmission) Bloody hell this is stupid, one race, one drive train (engine and transmission) is better, we may aswell sit on the bridge and watch the motorway traffic.

2010
- a proportion of waste heat recovered and used to propel the carYes, get green, get clean
- a proportion of waste energy from exhaust gases recovered and used to propel the caras i said above
- wholly or partially standardised aerodynamics (or, possibly, new rules to encourage road-relevant research into aerodynamics)WTF, Really champ car car and all the lesser categories have this already covered, F1 Is more to Individualism pertained to that that team, F1 clones not needed.
- (existing 2.4 litre engine remains frozen, or, if applicable, four-race drive train remains frozen) Crap idea, not for racing.

2011
- perhaps a new four-race (OMG this sucks :crazy: ) engine including
- high-efficiency turbocharging
- fuel (energy) flow limits
- direct injection Looks like desiel TDi to me, on Bio-diesel, sound OK???
- downsizing so as to ensure very high (15000+) rpm Boring :rolleyes:
- bio fuels (possible freedom to use any bio fuel, with a limited maximum energy flow rate rather than a maximum fuel flow rate) I fully agree
- perhaps a new approach to the chassis with
- further reductions in downforce :up:
- greater emphasis on cornering performance and handling by means of chassis, suspension, and brake management :up:
- complete freedom to use electronics to make the car more energy-efficient (drive train, etc, management) good if no driver aids are included.
- possibly also free up driver-aid electronics Bull***
- materials ¨C limitations on materials to bring them more into line with those used in road cars boring
- other road-relevant technologies

2012
- new engine as above
- It is proposed that the foregoing should be a basis for discussion. There may be other interesting and important technologies as well as areas of research which are not mentioned.

Everything will be on the principle that new technologies, or rather the relevant devices, shall be freely available for sale to any team which wants them at an easily affordable price.

The FIA Senate has been mandated to finalise its regulation changes to the 2009 FIA Formula One World Championship, following a meeting on 19 December 2006. These will be voted on before 31 December 2006, in order for them to be incorporated into that championship.

some ideas are good, green and environment friendly +limit aero, but 4 race engine+transmissions, this is not racing , more commuteing along the Motorway, and opening up of driver aids I was hoping to see the driver come through not the electronic genius
Some real walk with the ferries stuff. May Max be gone before the really bad changes happen.

[ShiftingGears]

What does "free-up driver aid electronics" mean? As in, allow for more driver aids?

[jso1985]

some idead are really good but looks like that in 2013 all F1 cars will be road versions of Toyota's Starlet and Honda Civic :s

[Sleeper]

The only parts of these possible changes I like are the green technology and the removal of the aerodynamic apendages.

I dont like the downforce reduction so much as its unecessary. GP2 and Champ Car have proved that you dont need low downforce cars to get good racing , just cars that can follow each other, so I say bring back ground effects.

The rst of it seemsto be about standerdising parts and giving them truck engines.

[wmcot]

Aren't long life engines and drive trains for endurance cars????

Getting rid of the aero devices like winglets, chimneys, etc. will certainly clean up the looks of the cars!

Isn't an ad hoc reduction in downforce dangerous? Cars will be more difficult to keep on the track. That's all we need is F1 cars that become airborne at speed like the Mercedes at LeMans 1999(?)

Diesel and biofuels are fine, but shouldn't they be allowed to evolve into the sport naturally rather than artificially requiring them?

All in all, the "regs" seem to be very vague right now with a lot of "perhaps" and "possibly" written into them. Time will tell which ones actually get put into practice.

[call_me_andrew]

Isn't an ad hoc reduction in downforce dangerous? Cars will be more difficult to keep on the track. That's all we need is F1 cars that become airborne at speed like the Mercedes at LeMans 1999(?)

I don't think that would be dangerous. The cars produce so much downforce already, I don't think you'd have to worry about sacrificing stability.

The Mercedes flipped because it hit a bump. Once the car got high pressure air under the body, no aerodynamic device could save it.

Plus, if the cars loose speed in the turns, they'll be slower on the straights since they won't have as much momentum exiting the turns.

[cosmicpanda]

Aren't long life engines and drive trains for endurance cars????

Isn't an ad hoc reduction in downforce dangerous? Cars will be more difficult to keep on the track. That's all we need is F1 cars that become airborne at speed like the Mercedes at LeMans 1999(?)

Diesel and biofuels are fine, but shouldn't they be allowed to evolve into the sport naturally rather than artificially requiring them?

1) Yes. Isn't it nice to see some endurance back in the sport?

2) Toyota on a TV programme said that the cars have enough downforce to drive upside down. I think that a reduction is perfectly safe.

3) How are diesel and biofuels going to evolve naturally into the sport when regulations forbid them at the moment?

[Rusty Spanner]

Wow this is ambitious. They usually struggle to agree rule change from one year to the next let alone five years out.

At least there appears to be a clear philosophy behind the changes. Energy efficientcy and reduced cost (although I'm yet to figure out how its ever possible to change the rules and then expect them to cost less!)

I reckon there is a few sacrifical proposals in that lot for the FIA to trade away in order to get the things they really want. Stuff like freeing up driver-aids and limitations on materials.

[Dazz9908]

Wow this is ambitious. They usually struggle to agree rule change from one year to the next let alone five years out.

At least there appears to be a clear philosophy behind the changes. Energy efficientcy and reduced cost (although I'm yet to figure out how its ever possible to change the rules and then expect them to cost less!)

I reckon there is a few sacrifical proposals in that lot for the FIA to trade away in order to get the things they really want. Stuff like freeing up driver-aids and limitations on materials.
I think you hit the nail on the head Rusty, Get through want you want but throwing a few wobblies in to trade off.