Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[DaveKillens]

The difference between CART and Formula One crash protection is minor. Both have carbon fiber chassis, HANS, high cockpit sills, fuel retained in bladders, and both are capable of keeping the driver alive in a survivable crash.

I pointed out the similarities between Moore and Kubica. Both lost control at high speed, came off the ground, and impacted the hard barrier at a sharp angle. If, and that's a big IF, Kubica's car had rotated the wrong way, the first impact may have been similar to Moore's. But when you mix the words "safety" and "if", then you are down to nothing but pure chance.

Yup, even if it's us old guys keeping the levels of performance down and using "safety" as a rationale, maybe it's because us old guys are sick and tired of watching drivers die. I sure am. Formula One is safe, but even then we have had a lot of close calls.

[wesley123]

Ah common 'sick and tired of watching the drivers die'. How can you ever be sick en tired of something that hasnt happened in almost 20 years and didnt happen a while before that.

Great that you show Massa's photo, since I have recalled twice already that that is pretty much the only danger for F1 drivers in the car. And slowing down the cars is going to help? Very little is that going to help. Instead of slowing the cars down they might take more time looking into these 'windshield' thingies.

And seriously, sick and tired of watching drivers die, that just goes a bit too far in my book, the last time a real injury happened in f1 was 2004 if i recall. That is almost 10 years from now. Isnt it clear how safe it is? Like said, danger is part of lots of sport, and they took the danger out of f1 in the last 15 years, now they are doing nothing more than reducing this excitement to increase safety of things that could happen, therefore I am all for bulletproof cars, since a sniper could happen, also terrorism could happen, just like a crash of a plane full of f1 personell, the likelyhood of these things happening are magnitued higher than a driver dieyng in a f1 crash, why arent these things protected then?

This all comes from a fan who is sick and tired of these old tards doing nothing more than fill their pockets and making the sport unnecesarily slow, all to protect the drivers from a risk that isnt there.

[Just_a_fan]

Yeah, F1 is safe. Would you prefer F1 to be like this:


Or like this:


There is still a lot of motorsport out there that kills and injures. Bikes are a great way to watch people get injured or even killed:


And just in case F1 is "too safe" for you, there is still the risk that this could happen to brighten up your Sunday viewing pleasure:

although in fairness to the "old farts" they have tried to prevent it by fitting wheel tethers. Maybe you'll still get lucky though...

Me? I've watched drivers die and I didn't really enjoy it very much. Certainly didn't seem to add anything positive to motorsport but then maybe I'm an old fart too.

Someone, Strad I think, mentioned the IoM TT a little while ago. A good point was made about the riders accepting the risks and thus should be allowed to do it. Fair enough, good point, no argument from me there. The thing is that F1's drivers have said that they don't accept that level of risk on several occasions and thus F1 has reduced the risks. Now, if you want more risk, go and watch people who accept that risk; don't expect those who don't accept it to be forced to in order to stop you feeling that F1 is "too safe".

[wesley123]

Please at leadt try to read my post fully.

First of all, I never said I like to see drivers die, I said it is too safe. In sports people get hurt sometimes, that is what defines sport. Perez' crash is probably the biggest crash we had in almost 10 years, look with what he came out of it, with only a concussion. Then in 2004 Ralf Schumacher crashed in Indianapolis, that was the biggest crash we recently had in F1, and that was 8 years ago.

I am not saying drivers should die, if you still think that, please stop posting, I am saying the danger defines what is a sport, and certainly in autosport. I am not saying drivers should die, I am just saying the posibility of a driver breaking his leg should still have a slight possibility.

Then you show the Henry Surtees crash, In my last 3 posts I have at least said 5 times that that, and a marshall on track are possibly the only 2 dangers in f1 racing. And please explain me how making F1 cars slower, is going to protect you wen a tire hits you in the head? That was only F2, those cars are slower, way slower and the tire is probably lighter too. I guess we can all see that it doesnt matter when that happens in F1 at 250kph or 300kph.

I will say it again, and I hope it now is understood; F1 is taking safety a bit too far and are now actually cutting the excitement from it just to make that 0.00000001 chance even smaller. That is a bit too far imo.

[richard_leeds]

There's already a lively topic discussing safety viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13258&view=unread

Please can we focuss on the regs for 2009 -15? Further posts on safety will be found in the relevant thread, thank you!

[godlameroso]

Does anyone here care to speculate towards the possibility of using the recovery systems as a means of traction control coupled with active suspension in the future regulations? Do you think that such devices would make up for(in terms of lap time) any reduced aerodynamic performance due to design restrictions built into the regulations?

edit in parenthesis

[DaveKillens]

I would have to believe that traction control and active suspensions aren't in the FIA's Formula One plans for the near future. Both are promising technologies, and raise serious questions since they are both quite common on road cars. For that reason alone they should be considered.

I think I understand the traction control issue in racing, it would take away the driver's foot from the equation, and it flies in the face of having drivers showcase their skills in competition. I guess you could include anti-lock brakes in that picture too.

In the past active suspension was basically used in Formula One to achieve the optimal ride height and attitude to maximize aero downforce, which has nothing in common with road cars. Road cars use active suspension for such things as eliminating road harshness and maintaining a comfortable ride.

But I like the direction energy recovery systems are going, they are becoming more and more relevant, and power levels and usage is going up. The FIA has to keep up with the ACO and LeMans, they are showing the way.

I have no trouble believing that soon energy recovery systems will mature even more, and start to have a powerful impact on Formula One cars and their designs. Fuel mileage has to go up, and with that the need to have smaller fuel cells. And having a powerful electric motor in the drive train will augment the engine, allow it to run with a narrower efficiency band, but still pull well out of corners because of the ERS boost. You won't need an engine with a strong mid-range torque, because that electric motor and ERS will fill that gap.

[WilliamsF1]

I had a crazy idea for cost cutting.

Teams are always in the quest for more down force with current regulations which seems to be one of the major differentiation between front of the grid and back. While it is certainly an attraction, it is quiet pointless.

If current cars down force at max speed is about 2500 kgs, Does it make sense for F1 to limit all cars to 2400 kgs peak down force measured at the straights with a wheel load sensor?

[Dragonfly]

I am afraid it is such crazy ideas which ruin the excitement and castrate F1. The road to hell is covered with good intents, you know.

[AnthonyG]

I had a crazy idea for cost cutting.

Teams are always in the quest for more down force with current regulations which seems to be one of the major differentiation between front of the grid and back. While it is certainly an attraction, it is quiet pointless.

If current cars down force at max speed is about 2500 kgs, Does it make sense for F1 to limit all cars to 2400 kgs peak down force measured at the straights with a wheel load sensor?

No

They'll just spend more money in other areas and still make a difference. (for example the corrolation between drag and downforce or sideways downforce)

[Forza]

Not sure how credible the soource is, but it seems that teams have agreed to put 'modesty panel' on top of nose structure that will cover the step.

Formula 1 teams have agreed an amendment to the 2013 regulations, yet to be finalised, which will see the stepped noses disappear next season.

The majority of the cars on the grid, bar McLaren's MP4-27 and Marussia's MR01, feature a stepped nose which came as the result of new regulations for 2012 to reduce the risk of a car launching into the air should the nose make contact with the rear of another car - much like Mark Webber and Heikki Kovalainen at the 2010 European Grand Prix.

The new-look received mainly negative feedback from fans who branded the noses 'ugly'. The new regulations give a team the option to cover the step with a 'modesty panel', which simply hides the step according to McLaren's technical director Paddy Lowe.

"We have agreed a rule that allows a 'modesty panel', which in effect means you can take the existing cars and existing structures that have a step and put a cover there," said Lowe.

"The way it's managed is that the laminate and size of that panel is limited so that you can't create an aero [advantage] out of it and also so that it plays no part in the forward impact."

All 12 teams have agreed to the alteration, therefore it's almost guaranteed to be included in the next issue of the technical regulations.

Source

[adriannewey9864]

i would like to see less use of wings e.g tests on individual front and rear aero elements for kg of downforce at high speed, and introduction of the allowance to have ground effect sidepods with skirts. This would do three things, 1. force the teams to direct all of their wing development for greater efficency and less drag because of the downforce limit on wings, 2. make the car stabler (because of the greater spread of downforce in the mid section of the car) thus resulting in less incidents and crashes, 3. allow the teams to have higher top speeds of their car as a result of the better downforce to drag ratio (making for more overtaking which the fia 'desperately' want).

[Lorenzo_Bandini]

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulati ... nship.aspx

New technical regulation for 2013

[gray41]

Forgive my naivety but does this mean 2011 style noses or will they be lower?

[turbof1]

Forgive my naivety but does this mean 2011 style noses or will they be lower?

It will be 2011 style noses. The main difference is that compared to 2011 the noses are much weaker due that the described panel is none-structural. This would also probably also mean the panel breaks up the slightest impact. The 2012 noses did proved though they are sufficient to get through the crash test.

The rule hasn't been fully completed btw. The 2013 technical regulations appendix has not been released yet.