First technical rule changes under Liberty Media

[jjn9128]

The first rule changes stemming from Liberty's involvement in F1's technical working group are coming in 2019. A minimum driver + seat weight of 80kg and a change to the bargeboards and rear wing endplates for sponsor visibility.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... lo-997615/
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/team ... 19-997827/

The driver weight seems eminently sensible to me, and something I've personally wanted for many years. Even though the total car weight will increase at the same time, so the penalty for driver weight is ever reducing. Hopefully this will benefit the heavier drivers like Hulkenburg and Grosjean (maybe Eriksson), who despite being as fit and healthy as the rest are disadvantaged by nothing else but their genetics.

The second one I'm not sure has any significant benefit/detriment beyond sponsor exposure, but the barge boards will be lowered for better visibility of the cockpit sides, and the louvres will be removed from the rear wing endplates to achieve an unbroken surface.

[Vyssion]

The seat + driver weight, I am all for -- makes sense to not penalize people for being taller and prevents the issues of becoming unhealthily thin because of the desire to shrink down to the minimum weight.

What I do have a problem with is introducing an aero "penalty" for the sake of sponsorship... This is the beginning of what I am worried will turn into NASCAR or Aussie V8 Supercars racing where the entire car is covered in nothing but sponsorship and the only way to tell the cars apart from one another is to either memorize the sponsorship paintwork or to look at the TV readout.

Louvers are used to try and bleed off some of the high pressure air from on top of the rear wing to the lower freesteam pressure air outside of the endplate. What this does is weaken the wingtip vortex and in doing so, reduces the induced drag on the wing. They reduce downforce by a small amount, but most of the loss in pressure occurs near the endplates themselves, rather than the entire main plane element for example. There is also an extra effect that is at play with the louvers and that is that the underwing vortex which forms through the little corner cut outs is strengthened. This is a good thing because you are able to achieve a larger pressure drop delta between the pressure and suction sides by strengthening this vortex than you would be able to achieve by not having the louvers there and using the higher pressure on top.

How much of an effect will all this have on racing? I dunno... I suppose its a bit of a step towards making the cars "less aero dependent"? Either way, I am not happy... Aero devices like these are what, to me at least, makes these cars beautiful. The 2007/8 cars were some of my favorite cars ever because of all these fins and panels super engineered for aero peak performance. I mean, look at this!!

[jjn9128]

Finally something we disagree on though I prefer the 2008 cars to 2017 cars - to me an F1 car looks like a 93-94 Williams. The car doesn't have to have lots of surfaces for there to be a lot of optimization going on under the surface, in fact the fewer surfaces means more has to be done to condition the flow field.

I wonder if they've seen something like I suggested in the wake data they've been collecting from the teams - using the rear wing up-draft to displace the wakes from the rear wheels and floor, for which stronger tip vorticity is key. I can't imagine it makes more than a few points difference in downforce and drag - at most.

It's also nothing new in F1, and the same reason we no longer have the sidepod cooling louvres (the R75 volume) as in you picture, and the triangular engine cover (reg 3.5.1) and endplates with oversized surface area.

I think teams are distinguishable because both cars have to have the same livery, unlike Indycar or V8's, where the livery is tied to the driver.

[wesley123]

Why change the rules to give sponsorship space when;

1. Half the field hardly fill their cars with sponsorship to begin with, how is adding more space going to help? This will only help teams that have their cars stuffed with sponsorship, which is only Ferrari.

2. You want more sponsorship area but then kill the shark fin, which gave a crapload of area?

So to achieve something pointless, they once more do a 180 turn, departing from what they did. Again. All those ideas are great, but are completely pointless if you then don't stick to it and change it again at the first possible attempt.

[ENGINE TUNER]

These rule changes have nothing to do with Liberty, they were proposed and approved by the teams. Brawn of Liberty proposed a simplification of the front wings and was shot down.

The teams make the rules, not Liberty media, as it should be.

[Vyssion]

These rule changes have nothing to do with Liberty, they were proposed and approved by the teams. Brawn of Liberty proposed a simplification of the front wings and was shot down.

The teams make the rules, not Liberty media, as it should be.

Its more a case that Liberty will put forward a suggested change to the regulations, and then the teams (usually) have to unanimously agree to it before it is implemented. Hence why when there are concerns over aero performance, the teams vote against the front wing simplification and that isn't carried forward.

Liberty is still driving these changes.

[jjn9128]

These rules came out of technical working group discussions, which includes teams and the liberty media working groups (aerodynamics, suspension, engine). Liberty has been present at a sporting or TWG meeting before, I think Brawn himself was at the halo discussions, whereas this was new business and I think this meeting was actually held at Liberties new offices in London. Vyssion is correct Brawn and co wanted to simplify the front wings (remove the cascades and turning vanes) which was shot down by teams because it represented too much of an influence to the performance, also a team (I think Red Bull, maybe Ferrari) requested the shark fin be re-appraised.

I agree a lot of teams aren't inundated by stickers, but only Sauber had virtually no sponsor coverage (the Alfa tie up will see to that). The Red Bull teams are different because the title sponsor is also the owner, but even they had something on the bargeboards - the team owners obviously feel that area should fit a bigger logo.

[ENGINE TUNER]

These rule changes have nothing to do with Liberty, they were proposed and approved by the teams. Brawn of Liberty proposed a simplification of the front wings and was shot down.

The teams make the rules, not Liberty media, as it should be.

Its more a case that Liberty will put forward a suggested change to the regulations, and then the teams (usually) have to unanimously agree to it before it is implemented. Hence why when there are concerns over aero performance, the teams vote against the front wing simplification and that isn't carried forward.

Liberty is still driving these changes.

Liberty is driving nothing. 5 different teams put forward 5 different rules changes for 2019 (more than a year away so they do not need to be unanimously approved) 2 of which were approved. Brawn made a (good) suggestion and was shot down. Brawn & Liberty have no say in technical or sporting rules making other than suggestions, to say otherwise is false.

[Vyssion]

These rule changes have nothing to do with Liberty, they were proposed and approved by the teams. Brawn of Liberty proposed a simplification of the front wings and was shot down.

The teams make the rules, not Liberty media, as it should be.

Its more a case that Liberty will put forward a suggested change to the regulations, and then the teams (usually) have to unanimously agree to it before it is implemented. Hence why when there are concerns over aero performance, the teams vote against the front wing simplification and that isn't carried forward.

Liberty is still driving these changes.

Liberty is driving nothing. 5 different teams put forward 5 different rules changes for 2019 (more than a year away so they do not need to be unanimously approved) 2 of which were approved. Brawn made a (good) suggestion and was shot down. Brawn & Liberty have no say in technical or sporting rules making other than suggestions, to say otherwise is false.

These decisions are made by the F1 Strategy Group. Only rule changes and other ideas agreed by the Strategy Group can proceed to the F1 Commission, where all teams and other parties such as race promoters also have a say. The current top six F1 teams have one vote each in the Strategy Group, with the FIA and the commercial rights-holder have six votes each. Since Liberty took over, the other four teams - Renault, Toro Rosso, Haas and Sauber - have been invited to observe Strategy Group meetings but cannot vote. Bernie Ecclestone traditionally tended to add his six votes to those of the teams, and over-ride the FIA.

There were issues raised due to 2017 payments from the F1 organisation. As a result of extra expenditure since Liberty took over control, the Formula One Group is expecting a drop in profits - meaning the share of revenues that goes to the teams will fall. Something to the tune of £1-2 million pounds per team - and when teams budget on an "ever-increasing" amount year to year, this hurts them.

Liberties response was to "fix" the issue by changing the cars in such a way so as to allow for more sponsorship, instead of them themselves footing this additional cost due to their own advertising campaigns etc. They turned to this strategy group and asked the teams within it to put forward ideas for changes to the technical regulations which would allow for additional sponsorship to be placed on the car in order to offset this reduction in the F1G's profits expected for 2018.

So I still stand by my original point that these changes are still being driven by Liberty.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Liberties response was to "fix" the issue by changing the cars in such a way so as to allow for more sponsorship, instead of them themselves footing this additional cost due to their own advertising campaigns etc. They turned to this strategy group and asked the teams within it to put forward ideas for changes to the technical regulations which would allow for additional sponsorship to be placed on the car in order to offset this reduction in the F1G's profits expected for 2018.

So I still stand by my original point that these changes are still being driven by Liberty.

Your original point is false and misleading. The teams put forward proposals, 2 of the 5, were accepted. Brawn put forward a proposal and it was rejected. The teams(on the SG) made these rules changes. If LM were running things as you claim, then the FIA could have overruled the teams by joining LM because their 12 votes outnumber the teams, but Ferrari hold the veto power over any technical changes and therefore rule the roost. The teams(led by Ferrari) make the (technical) rules, saying otherwise is nothing but a falsehood.

Also, what source do you have that LM "asked" the teams to propose technical changes for the possible benefit of increased sponsorship? And even if they did, they would only have to do so because the Teams themselves make the rules.

[godlameroso]

The new rule doesn't ban slots near the main plane of the rear wing, it bans McLaren style cheese graters.

The lowering of the bargeboards won't have much negative effect as they'll still be pretty tall, and long, and more importantly there is no change to the other bargeboard regulations. This means that they can still go full gt3 and stack elements.

[jjn9128]

Direct quote from the article.

Secondly, a flat space at the top of rear wing endplates, with no louvres impacting logo placement, will be mandated.