Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[modbaraban]

Are airbox fins (or horns) legal under 2009 regs? Also are you allowed (now and then) to put any fins of the end of the shark fin to create more pressure above the rear wing? Or even extend the shark fin very close to the rear wing and join them?

Also are complex front wings allowed by 2009 regs? I mean bridges, cascades (like R25-26, F1.06-07), upper planes (TF107, F2008) 'underchins' (F2005, R28)? Any limit to the number of horizontal planes?

[D'Leh]

I do have very limited knowledge in descriptive geometry do "longitudinal, vertical cross section" and "longitudinal cross section" the same?

In the context of this rule? I would think so, but i have no idea why they aren't as precise here to be honest.

I wonder, if you're right about beam wing being between 175mm+ and 200mm+ then does that means a third element maybe placed here?

That would make a Three elements rear wing isn't it?

According to the rules it sorta looks like that. I believe the teams will use a beam wing in any case. I don't know exactly if its hight is crucial for its effectiveness and so i just assume the teams might put it in the "blank" area. The middle airfoil is optional by intention i think. No one needs it at Monza or Montreal.

But i wonder why they would allow a 3 elements rear wing suddenly. Considering aero balance and the pretty firm regulations to the front wing i doubt there's a need for massive downforce in the back of the car. Or is the cleaning of the area between front and rear wheels really mostly lowering rear downforce maybe? I'm a little lost about this issue.

Indeed their definitions are not clear to me.

Yeah, some rules seem to be kind of odd. They'll probably only add up in the hole picture or something.

[D'Leh]

@modbaraban: Ogami and me already discussed the stuff you're asking. But i'll give you the short answers.

Are airbox fins (or horns) legal under 2009 regs? Also are you allowed (now and then) to put any fins of the end of the shark fin to create more pressure above the rear wing? Or even extend the shark fin very close to the rear wing and join them?

Fins to a certain extend will be allowed relatively close behind the cockpit. Fins at the end of the shark fin would be allowed but they had to be really tiny and thus mostly useless. Joining the shark fin to the rear wing is not allowed today and neither next year.

Also are complex front wings allowed by 2009 regs? I mean bridges, cascades (like R25-26, F1.06-07), upper planes (TF107, F2008) 'underchins' (F2005, R28)? Any limit to the number of horizontal planes?

Except for the R25-like cascades all of those are not allowed. Anything connecting to the nose cone is illegal except for the pillars holding the front wing and cameras respectively their dummies.
The 'under chin' is illegal because in this area of the front wing only a FIA standard part is allowed.

[WhiteBlue]

So can someone of the guys good at rendering and photoshopping give us an impression how the 2009 Ferrari will look like?

[modbaraban]

Thanks for the answers, D'Leh.

....because in this area of the front wing only a FIA standard part is allowed.

What is this world coming to

[Ogami musashi]

Taken form autosport forums, i suppose from a german website

Meanwhile the scale model of the F2009 (which Di Montezemolo has already seen a number of weeks ago) is being run at the new windtunnel of Dallara at Varano de' Melegari. Ferrari's own windtunnel is being used for the development of the F2008.

A car in 2009 aerodynamic configurations should soon debut at Vairano. The team obviously wants to know about the heavily reduced aerodynamics, but is eager to find out more about the very different weight distribution (because of KERS) and some synthetic fibers they're working on.

Honda is also supposed to run a 2009 specs car in the near future (maybe at next week tests in jerez, the last one with slicks before official 2009 tests).

[Ogami musashi]

I've been told that this month (august) issue of F1 racing has some drawings of probable 2009 cars plus a CFD picture.

Is there any possbility for someone to post a scan from it?

Thanks!

[Ogami musashi]

By the way found on autosport forums (don't know if it's from f1 racing mag or not)




The sums confirm what we though

A Slicks will come to replace grooved tyres.

B KERS will be introduced and will be attached to the engine in Ferrari's case.

C The aerodynamics will be drastically restrained, fins, flip ups and other devices of the sort will all be done away with.

D The frontwing will be wider, closer to the ground and the central area under the nose will comprise of one single element. Only towards the sides two elements will be allowed. The endplates won't be as complicated.

E The rearwing will be 150 mm higher and will be narrower.

F Like the aerodynamics on the sidepods, the diffuser will be a lot 'cleaner'. It will start at the rearaxle and will be 350 mm long. The final bit of it will be more raised

[donskar]

With all due respect to conceptual and others, IMHO the 2009 (if like the drawing in the previous post) will be "cleaner" and more attractive then the current iteration.

My grasp of aerodynamics is less than tenuous, so a question for those several of you who exhibit some knowledge in that arcane art: are we likely (or is it even possible/legal) that we might see some designers attempting to gain aero effect through the actual shape/profile of the body? An example, ONLY to try to illustrate what I mean: might the bodywork forward of the cockpit be concave in order to gain downforce.

It seems to me that MORE money might be poured into aero development precisely because any gains will be harder to achieve, but at the same time might gain a relatively larger advantage. Any thoughts on that?

I like the move to make the cars more like automobiles and less like experimental aircraft. I do NOT like any standardized parts, aero or otherwise.

[donskar]

Having read several recent posts, THANKS to all for the intelligence and passion you're applying to your effort to translate the rules into human terms.

AND, since the rules are obviously extremely complex, confusing and open to interpretation, I'll go on record as predicting that Adrian Newey will lead the way in "interpreting" the rules to maximum advantage. I rate him the master at walking the razor's edge of legality (and I do not mean that as critical of him). We could see Red Bull making a big gain next year, McLaren, too. At the other end of the scale, I'll bet that Toyota, Williams and Ferrari will not be as successful at exploiting loopholes (but Ferrari will catch up quickly!) I wonder if Brawn can get Honda fired up into creating a leading edge design. He has an awful big, slow elephant to get turned around.

[WhiteBlue]

Nice pic of the Ferrari btw. I like the look very much. I hope that aero will cut back in terms of downforce and in terms of actual application and cost spend. Future development should focus on drag reduction and energy regen.

[Scotracer]

I have a question about the 2009 regulations -- how will the rear wing sit on the longitudinal axis? Will it sit at the same point as the pre-2005 cars or in the current position?

[Ogami musashi]

Do you mean its position relative to the rear wheels?

If so then the same as now, from 50mm forward of the rear wheel center to 350mm behind it.

[Ogami musashi]

Actually nobody could get a hold on F1 racing of this month?

[Scotracer]

Do you mean its position relative to the rear wheels?

If so then the same as now, from 50mm forward of the rear wheel center to 350mm behind it.

UGH. I hate the current position of the rear-wing, it makes the cars look very squated and very off balance.

Oh and the current issue of F1 Racing is July (August isn't out yet).