2011 technical changes ....who gains , who loses ?

[Formula None]

All this button pushing when KERS could be attached to the stop/go pedals, active aero automatically adjusting to airspeed. Will the drivers have to write application letters to max before approval of using the adjustable wing? How many carrier pigeons can fit in the cockpit?

[Intego]

Very interesting interview with Patrick Head about 2011 changes:
German
Google translation

[scotty86]

Who gains? In terms of aero, Red Bull, because they seemed able to create ridiculous downforce levels without relying so much on the diffusers. They also have the pullrod suspension integrated already, a move seemingly made in the first place to optimise the intended 2009 spec rear ends (which they are supposedly going to be racing with next season - unless more loopholes are found).

The other big change is obviously KERS. We know McLaren/Mercedes have a slight advantage in this department, but is it enough to put them ahead of everyone else on ultimate pace? I can't see it.

Of course, all of this is only theory, and more importantly, any advantages in absolute downforce levels could easily be offset by the new tyres - for me, they are the main key to next season - and we won't be absolutely sure where everyone stands with regard to them until after the first race.

[Donuts]

i disagree on the f-duct statement...all the top teams had one by the end of the year...if mclaren had any advantage...it was only a very small one at that point...as martin whitmarsh said himself.

mclaren's was the only f-duct that was designed around the whole concept of the car, everybody else did it as an after thought. as such it, it was the best f-duct there was.

Ofcourse the first part is true, but if it was the best(false), then why did they change it(to a lower blown wing element version)?;) Renault set the benchmark with the f-duct, no doubt.

[Tamburello]

i disagree on the f-duct statement...all the top teams had one by the end of the year...if mclaren had any advantage...it was only a very small one at that point...as martin whitmarsh said himself.

mclaren's was the only f-duct that was designed around the whole concept of the car, everybody else did it as an after thought. as such it, it was the best f-duct there was.

Ofcourse the first part is true, but if it was the best(false), then why did they change it(to a lower blown wing element version)?;) Renault set the benchmark with the f-duct, no doubt.

I haven't heard any engineer who has commented to the effect that McLaren's f-duct was not the most effective one on the grid. I don't know where you get the idea that Renault had the best system from, I hope it's not all based around their performance in Abu Dhabi? Remember that Hamilton couldn't get past Sutil in Malaysia, either, and had a hard time keeping Petrov off his tail on the straights when the Renault didn't even have an f-duct!

[Intego]

Ofcourse the first part is true, but if it was the best(false), then why did they change it(to a lower blown wing element version)?;) Renault set the benchmark with the f-duct, no doubt.

I read somewhere that blowing the flap creates more stall, but is very abrupt, blowing the main plane is smoother in handling.

I'd like to know the wording of the f-duct ban. I'm quite sure, that a passive system will not be banned, as Mclaren seemed to have tested it again this year and the teams' concern was rather about security than cost cutting. Hence it could be interesting which team can fit p-duct and movable flap best.

I don't think the Pirelli tyres are that crucial. In Bridgestone/Michelin/Goodyear times it was about "who makes his tyres work best", too. This time the teams have less data, and that changes in February 2011.

[Intego]

Double post, removed.

[marcush.]

I haven't heard any engineer who has commented to the effect that McLaren's f-duct was not the most effective one on the grid. I don't know where you get the idea that Renault had the best system from, I hope it's not all based around their performance in Abu Dhabi? Remember that Hamilton couldn't get past Sutil in Malaysia, either, and had a hard time keeping Petrov off his tail on the straights when the Renault didn't even have an f-duct!

and this with the miserable renault engine.... the renault was also famous for its simplistic Aero all optimised for drag reduction..

[xpensive]

...
and this with the miserable renault engine.... the renault was also famous for its simplistic Aero all optimised for drag reduction..

With that ghoulish looking nosejob, you figure that Renault had power to throw away this season, but on topic;

New rules and limitations on this and that usually benefit a minnow or two, when at least one of them are likely to get things right by sheer luck, until the big dogs gets the hang of it, catch up and pass by.

In that context, my money will be on Gascoyne springing a surprise early on, if it hadn't been for that slow engine.

[gridwalker]

Error in post : removed.

[Donuts]

I haven't heard any engineer who has commented to the effect that McLaren's f-duct was not the most effective one on the grid. I don't know where you get the idea that Renault had the best system from, I hope it's not all based around their performance in Abu Dhabi? Remember that Hamilton couldn't get past Sutil in Malaysia, either, and had a hard time keeping Petrov off his tail on the straights when the Renault didn't even have an f-duct!

No(don't assume things), the simple fact that they changed(Abu Dhabi) their f-duct to a version(Renault F1's)that blows the lower element, obviously beacuse they deemed it more effective.

In Malaysia, Petrov was right up Hamilton rear after the takeover, he did'nt have to close any gap, I does'nt say anything about the effectivness of the f-duct!

Anyway, Lotus Renault GP will have a lot of downforce to put on the car. I would say that they are the biggest losers(of the top teams) beacuse of the ban on f-duct.

[marcush.]

tbh Renault had a lot of df producing things attached to their car and certainly the biggest ddd ducts.as they had as well the most compact car it seems more than likely they had quite a bit of drag to carry...endplatecount..was it five in T O T A L ? -one for each letter ...

[Tamburello]

I haven't heard any engineer who has commented to the effect that McLaren's f-duct was not the most effective one on the grid. I don't know where you get the idea that Renault had the best system from, I hope it's not all based around their performance in Abu Dhabi? Remember that Hamilton couldn't get past Sutil in Malaysia, either, and had a hard time keeping Petrov off his tail on the straights when the Renault didn't even have an f-duct!

No(don't assume things), the simple fact that they changed(Abu Dhabi) their f-duct to a version(Renault F1's)that blows the lower element, obviously beacuse they deemed it more effective

You should practice what you preach. Don't assume that that only performance gaining part of the system is related to the part of the wing the f-ducted is directing air at. It could be that the Force India idea, copied later by Renault and others, of attaching the f-duct to the lower element, is optimal for that end of the f-duct but the rest of the system is more efficient in the MP4-25.

[Blackout]

It could be that the Force India idea...of attaching the f-duct to the lower element...

Sauber 'had that idea' and applied it first.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

For me the winners are Mclaren, Ferrari and Mercedes.

They will know what makes the Red Bull tick after a year of picking the bones, and they can incorporate its design ideas into their own concepts.
Things like the exhaust blown diffuser, the pull rod suspension.... everything.

On top of this Red Bulls achilles heel will be KERS. One poster alluded to their tight packaging, and KERS will be detrimental to them in this area.
The engine situation wont be a bonus to Red Bull, but I dont think the gap is that great anyway.

All will rest on tyres and KERS, as I think Red Bulls aero advantage should(but may not) have been eradicated.