New rules for F1 aero bits from 2009

[ioan]

Found this on another forum, and thought it would nice to have some intelligent discussion instead of all the Max, FIA, Ferrari insulting ones! ;)

So here you go:


The technical directors agreed to proposals which are as follows:

- 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.

- Rear wing width 75 instead of 100 cm

- Rear wing height 95 instead of 80 cm.


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

http://f1.automoto365.com/news/controller.php?lang=en&theme=default&team_id=0&month=10&year=2007&nextMode=GpNewsForm&news_id=28599

Let's hope this becomes reality. :D

[BDunnell]

I wonder what scope this will still give for 'innovative' wing designs? Can the more technically-minded here see any loopholes?

Still, from a layman's perspective, if it makes overtaking easier, I'm all for it.

[passmeatissue]

Excellent news! Great post. Just to finish off from that item with the predicted effect...

"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."

Just what we've been desperate for - 50% downforce reduction :D :D closer following :D :D :D .

[BDunnell]

Excellent news! Great post. Just to finish off from that item with the predicted effect...

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."

Just what we've been desperate for - 50% downforce reduction :D :D closer following :D :D :D .

And a bit more real racing, hopefully.

[passmeatissue]

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

It's a revolution.

[wmcot]

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

That one sounds a little difficult to enforce! I can see a lot of potential claims of "more than once a lap" or "more than 6 degrees" coming from other teams.

[passmeatissue]

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

That one sounds a little difficult to enforce! I can see a lot of potential claims of "more than once a lap" or "more than 6 degrees" coming from other teams.

Absolutely! Asking for trouble. Maybe Bernie had that bit put in...

[Malbec]

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

That one sounds a little difficult to enforce! I can see a lot of potential claims of "more than once a lap" or "more than 6 degrees" coming from other teams.

It also leaves the door open for future active aerodynamics doesn't it. It could lead to some big changes in the future.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

My fear is with more downforce created by the front wing more overall grip will be lost when cars follow each other, as it is the front wing that currently kills overtaking.

[GP-M3]

My fear is with more downforce created by the front wing more overall grip will be lost when cars follow each other, as it is the front wing that currently kills overtaking.

That's one reason why they allow the adjustment of the front wing, presumably when you are following you can go to the increased downforce setting. Helps allow for closer following. Sounds good if it works!

[ShiftingGears]

Hopefully this works while still allowing innovation, but I still want to see regulations that allow more engine power and wider cars.

[Valve Bounce]

Found this on another forum, and thought it would nice to have some intelligent discussion instead of all the Max, FIA, Ferrari insulting ones! ;)

So here you go:

http://f1.automoto365.com/news/controller.php?lang=en&theme=default&team_id=0&month=10&year=2007&nextMode=GpNewsForm&news_id=28599

Let's hope this becomes reality. :D


Has this been verified by either The Bild or Woman's Day?

[wmcot]

Maybe the could simplify it all by removing the winglets and flips and allowing flexible floors! :)

[janneppi]

The clean bodywork idea, while something I wouldn't mind is a difficult to govern.
Is it going to be similar to what we have now that prohibits wings from certain areas. For example Teams are not allowed to but an aero devices between the front and back tyres.
"No mister Whiting, this isn't an aero device, it's a...it's a...it's a integral part of the brake system, honest."

Or is going to be something in the lines of clean surface where sharp edges and tight radius corners aren't allowed.

"No mister Whiting, it may appear this is a sharp edge but infact this isn't a sharp edge at all, it has 534 130degree angle edges in a very small area and if you say one word more, we'll claim it's a part of the refueling system or something else."

That's how it's going to be. ;)

[ShiftingGears]

To reflect valves point, that source isn't verified on http://www.f1.com or autosport.com.

In any case, onboard wing angle adjustments don't fit anywhere within the FIA's apparent policy to increase overtaking and decrease corner speeds.

[aryan]

I'm very scpemtical about that onboard angle adjustment bit. I'll have a hard time accepting that the FIA is OK with that.

The other proposal seems nice, though I'm not sure it's good enough to allow us to get cars following each other more closely, maybe someone more into aerodynamics could provide an insight into this.

[fandango]

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

And he should have to adjust it with a sweeping brush handle!

I'm sceptical about all of this. One thing, though, and I've said it in other posts, if it's possible to say "If you follow another car within half a car length you will only lose 25 instead of 46 percent of the downforce..." then it's possible to measure the downforce loss to the car behind. So, why don't they just make a rules that limits the loss of downforce to a car running behind, and let the eggheads in the windtunnels figure out how? That way we might see some interesting and innovative designs, and not have all the cars exactly the same.

[Valve Bounce]

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

And he should have to adjust it with a sweeping brush handle!

I'm sceptical about all of this. One thing, though, and I've said it in other posts, if it's possible to say "If you follow another car within half a car length you will only lose 25 instead of 46 percent of the downforce..." then it's possible to measure the downforce loss to the car behind. So, why don't they just make a rules that limits the loss of downforce to a car running behind, and let the eggheads in the windtunnels figure out how? That way we might see some interesting and innovative designs, and not have all the cars exactly the same.


.............probably because different cars would lose different amounts of downforce when following another car. Then, of course, the exact distance behind the car in front would have to be accurate to 1 mm. Otherwise, there would be a difference in the resultant loss of downforce.

[wedge]

To reflect valves point, that source isn't verified on http://www.f1.com or autosport.com.

That's what I was thinking. I thought the FIA have allowed winglets and so forth but more restrictive dimensions :confused:


My fear is with more downforce created by the front wing more overall grip will be lost when cars follow each other, as it is the front wing that currently kills overtaking.

There is a school of thought that the front wing should be a lower because it is less sensitive to the turbulent air when following the wake of the car ahead. It's a view shared by ex-designers Nick Wirth and Gary Anderson who have with the FIA on a consultancy basis (Wirth worked on the CDG wing).

[BDunnell]

The clean bodywork idea, while something I wouldn't mind is a difficult to govern.
Is it going to be similar to what we have now that prohibits wings from certain areas. For example Teams are not allowed to but an aero devices between the front and back tyres.
"No mister Whiting, this isn't an aero device, it's a...it's a...it's a integral part of the brake system, honest."

Or is going to be something in the lines of clean surface where sharp edges and tight radius corners aren't allowed.

"No mister Whiting, it may appear this is a sharp edge but infact this isn't a sharp edge at all, it has 534 130degree angle edges in a very small area and if you say one word more, we'll claim it's a part of the refueling system or something else."

That's how it's going to be. ;)

I was just wondering about this. What will be deemed to constitute a 'winglet' or 'chimney'?

To be honest, I'm basically glad the FIA is giving all this a go, and it's probably impossible to end up with a set of rules containing no loopholes whatsoever. I know this is then the cause of major arguments, but not all possibilities can ever be covered.

The main thing that will improve overtaking....well, atleast the ability to follow another car more closely anyway, is the reduction in width of the rear wing combined with raising the height of it.

Basically, and putting into laymans terms for those of you without a wind-tunnel to hand, it will mean that the rear wings impact on the front wing of a following car will be less.

[aryan]

What happened to CDG?

Forget being ugly, if it meant better racing, I was all for it.

[Easy Drifter]

How are they going to be adjustable? Currently require manual turning. It will have to be either electronically or by hydralics. In either case one more potential item to fail. Both methods will make changing nose cones/wings more difficult and slower. If hydralics are used there is the danger of the line being torn off and loss of fluid at high pressure. Would it also affect the rest of the car's hydralics thereby stopping the car?
I would assume the twice a lap means once to change angle and once to return to normal position.
It will certainly alter the handling of the car and the drivers will have to be ready for this. I can see a huge amount of playing around in testing as the drivers figure out what the change will do to handling in different circumstances.
At tracks with long straights it might be advantageous to run more angle around the rest of the track and trim the wing out for the straight.
The areo boys and the engineers are going to have fun with this. The drivers may not agree.
Again it will be advantage to the big teams with more research money and better wind tunnels.
It is an interesting concept but I doubt it will come into effect.

[SGWilko]

for those of you without a wind-tunnel to hand,

Would you believe I loaned mine to a mate just yesterday :)

What worries me the most, about the driver adjustable front wing bit, is that the mechanism for adjusting it may be subject to flex in high downforce. Man, that is going to be one big grey area........

[Sleeper]

What cought my attention was the adjustment to the diffuser. I'm not sure, but I think its going to result in a big decrease in downforce produced by the cars floor. Not a good idea IMO as downforce created by the cars floor creates proportionally less drag than the upper bodywork for the same amount of DF.I've often stated here that the proportion of upper bodywork DF to floor created DF should be adjusted to favour the latter and hopefully reduce the sensitivity of the wings and such and make for better racing. This seems to do the opposit, but I could be very wrong on this.

[call_me_andrew]

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

To me, that sounds like the only good idea presented (although impossible to police).

I think lowering (and widening) the front wing while raising the rear wing will increase downforce.

[Daniel]

I was just wondering about this. What will be deemed to constitute a 'winglet' or 'chimney'?

To be honest, I'm basically glad the FIA is giving all this a go, and it's probably impossible to end up with a set of rules containing no loopholes whatsoever. I know this is then the cause of major arguments, but not all possibilities can ever be covered.
The rule should be. No aerodynamic bits inbetween the wheels and someone who is not halfwit in nature (perhaps a random member of the public) will judge what is a winglet or what is part of the flux capacitor system.

[passmeatissue]

What cought my attention was the adjustment to the diffuser. I'm not sure, but I think its going to result in a big decrease in downforce produced by the cars floor. Not a good idea IMO as downforce created by the cars floor creates proportionally less drag than the upper bodywork for the same amount of DF.I've often stated here that the proportion of upper bodywork DF to floor created DF should be adjusted to favour the latter and hopefully reduce the sensitivity of the wings and such and make for better racing. This seems to do the opposit, but I could be very wrong on this.

The fact that downforce is reduced by "exactly" 50% makes it look like that was a target. I wonder if having reduced the rear wing and removed the winglets, the diffuser was adjusted to get that 50%?

50% is a big reduction in downforce, will they do something to get back some lap time, do you think? GP2 will be faster now. Anyone have an idea how much lap time halving downforce would add?

[Powered by Cosworth]

The clean surface thing sounds silly, I think winglets and barge boards look damn good.

Give all the teams higher power 1994 cars with modern safty features I say.

[wmcot]

Someone will find a loophole like a wing or McLaren "horns" on the driver's helmet - it's not attached to the car! ;)

[airshifter]

Good post matter ioan!


I'm all for the changes if it's true. Back to some real racing with more driver skill coming into play.

As far as the ability to adjust the front wing, it could easily be monitored through telemetry. It seems to me it would be as some have already stated, an opportunity for drivers to use it during passing situations. I'm sure the better drivers would also use it on laps away from traffic as well.

I don't see why it would be a problem. Schumacher was always using his brake bias adjustment. It would be another thing for the better drivers to take advantage of, thus weeding out the lesser drivers more on skill than the car.

[aryan]

Good post matter ioan!


Yes, great thread ioan. We can now talk about something different from the past couple of weeks. Thanks. :up: :up:

[aryan]

I don't see why it would be a problem. Schumacher was always using his brake bias adjustment. It would be another thing for the better drivers to take advantage of, thus weeding out the lesser drivers more on skill than the car.


Agreed. I'm all for giving drivers more tools and introducing more variables for drivers to differentiate themselves.

The sceptics among us however wonder about two things: if/how you can monitor that it has been chaged only twice a lap, and if this will even more complicate the whole movable aerodynamic debate, and make it even harder to determine what is a movable aero device and what is not.

[passmeatissue]

The fact that downforce is reduced by "exactly" 50% makes it look like that was a target. I wonder if having reduced the rear wing and removed the winglets, the diffuser was adjusted to get that 50%?

50% is a big reduction in downforce, will they do something to get back some lap time, do you think? GP2 will be faster now. Anyone have an idea how much lap time halving downforce would add?

Answering my own question, I think this has to mean the long-awaited return of

SLICKS !

No need for grooves now.

[BDunnell]

Agreed. I'm all for giving drivers more tools and introducing more variables for drivers to differentiate themselves.

The sceptics among us however wonder about two things: if/how you can monitor that it has been chaged only twice a lap, and if this will even more complicate the whole movable aerodynamic debate, and make it even harder to determine what is a movable aero device and what is not.

I agree, especially with the first point. I would extend this to fuel strategies. Anything that could be done to somehow make not stopping for fuel a viable option would be fine by me.

[fandango]

.............probably because different cars would lose different amounts of downforce when following another car. Then, of course, the exact distance behind the car in front would have to be accurate to 1 mm. Otherwise, there would be a difference in the resultant loss of downforce.


Yes, that's all true, but there must be a way for them to make a standard test in a wind tunnel, that would apply to all cars. Some would be better than others, but that's the whole point, isn't it?

[Sleeper]

The fact that downforce is reduced by "exactly" 50% makes it look like that was a target. I wonder if having reduced the rear wing and removed the winglets, the diffuser was adjusted to get that 50%?

50% is a big reduction in downforce, will they do something to get back some lap time, do you think? GP2 will be faster now. Anyone have an idea how much lap time halving downforce would add?
Dont believe the 50% thing, everytime theres a vhange in the aero rules we here of majore ruductions in DF and dont get it.

My point was that its not the total downforce that matters but the balance beteween upper body and floor created downforce that matters. For instance, the reduction in front wing height will increase downforce, but it will reduce the sensitivity of the front wing so cars "should" be able to race closer to the car infront.

[passmeatissue]

Dont believe the 50% thing, everytime theres a vhange in the aero rules we here of majore ruductions in DF and dont get it.

My point was that its not the total downforce that matters but the balance beteween upper body and floor created downforce that matters. For instance, the reduction in front wing height will increase downforce, but it will reduce the sensitivity of the front wing so cars "should" be able to race closer to the car infront.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I am just a messenger (see post #3) :dozey: , but feel free to disagree with Paddy Lowe, Rory Byrne, Pat Symmonds, and their wind tunnel :) .

Though if they halve downforce and go to slicks for more mechanical grip then we will get our wish, for sure.

[Sleeper]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I am just a messenger (see post #3) :dozey: , but feel free to disagree with Paddy Lowe, Rory Byrne, Pat Symmonds, and their wind tunnel :) .

Though if they halve downforce and go to slicks for more mechanical grip then we will get our wish, for sure.
I'm only disagreing with them because theres always some bright sparks in the teams that claw back a lot of that loss before the season has even started. Its happened every year that they try to reducce downforce, but this years cars still have moer efficient DF than ever before.

[Donney]

Sounds very good and I really hope it becomes real, but I won't believe untill I see it.

[wedge]

What cought my attention was the adjustment to the diffuser. I'm not sure, but I think its going to result in a big decrease in downforce produced by the cars floor. Not a good idea IMO as downforce created by the cars floor creates proportionally less drag than the upper bodywork for the same amount of DF.I've often stated here that the proportion of upper bodywork DF to floor created DF should be adjusted to favour the latter and hopefully reduce the sensitivity of the wings and such and make for better racing. This seems to do the opposit, but I could be very wrong on this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the angle of attack/increasing the height of the rear diffuser creates more downforce?

Also, although they're reducing the size of the rear wing they've also increased the height which aids downforce.

What that says to me is there doesn't appear to be a major reduction of downforce from wing and diffuser, but how the wake and vortices are created from the rear of the car.

Someone correct if I'm wrong because I've based my opinions from reading bits and pieces in Racecar Engineering magazine!

[passmeatissue]

I'm only disagreing with them because theres always some bright sparks in the teams that claw back a lot of that loss before the season has even started. Its happened every year that they try to reducce downforce, but this years cars still have moer efficient DF than ever before.

See what you mean. They would have been moving the existing aero along, though, so maybe they can achieve 50% of what would have been.

The source article was dated 24th October and not repeated anywhere, amazingly. We probably ought to worry about that.