Ogami musashi wrote:So all in one, i'm also surprised about the non anouncement but the two arguments above make me think that this could be totaly true.
FIA WMSC, on October 24th wrote:A number of amendments were adopted for the 2008 Sporting Regulations and the 2008 and 2009 Technical Regulations. For full details please refer to http://www.fia.com.
Perhaps they're among
the amendments, then. In that case publications like Autosport would've missed them all but completely. I'm also wondering whether the OWG has actually presented the WMSC with anything yet? They did wrap up part of their work earlier (was it wind tunnel, CFD or both, I can't remember) but whether they've managed to write their reports is another matter. On the other hand I think it's pretty clear that the WMSC went against the proposals of the manufacturers on the engine issue, so why not handle the OWG just as arbitrarily ...
Of the alledged changes, the front wing width seems well founded enough, changing the dynamics in relation to the tyres (would be interesting to whether steering angle can be incorporated in the design flow wise ...). But I'm doubtful whether the spec mid section is needed to reduce turbulence etc. The front wing traditionally has an advantageous L/D ratio as it is (if I've understood it correctly) and the flow will meet further objects thereafter anyway. And do I even need to go into why driver adjusted flaps are a terrible idea (compared to almost any other reactive/autonomous variable aero system)? I didn't think so ...
Slightly higher but narrower rear wing? The same could've been achieved by a longer chord and a lower AoA and propably would've looked nicer, too ... Which brings me to the diffuser, for which the suggestion seems to be both shorter and steeper; hardly the recipe for a uniform and predictable wake, unless I'm missing something about how this would work with the lower front wing. Seems counterintuitive for me, when the diffuser is set to be fed less air anyway, with the removal of barge boards and winglets. Drivers would propably find the rear "lively" to say the least as the flow would be more, not less prone to detach in lower speeds.
Somehow all these published suggestions seem like a guess, based on things that have been in the public domain for ages now (certainly the front wing width and banning of overlapping surfaces at least). I expect the OWG to come out with suitably flashy graphics when publishing their findings, to excite fans. I also expect them to change some of the fundamentals of the design in some way. As we've seen with the emergence of many new formulae recently, producing conceptual designs to a certain degree of accuracy isn't such a monumental task, after all. Indeed, they could've even come up with a couple of alternatives.
I hope the OWG will make their work public. I can't think what would stop them, as they will have to distribute it freely and equally to every team anyway?