Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[boci]

Why are sharkfins allowed? They are the complete opposite of a clean design....
also i recall Mr. Domenicali saying that the nosecone hole will be banned for next year.

[Scotracer]

Why are sharkfins allowed? They are the complete opposite of a clean design....
also i recall Mr. Domenicali saying that the nosecone hole will be banned for next year.

The reason the appendages were banned is because they increase turbulence but the Sharkfins do not -- they actually clean up the air somewhat.

But I agree -- I do not like them at all and want them banned.

[Conceptual]

Why are sharkfins allowed? They are the complete opposite of a clean design....
also i recall Mr. Domenicali saying that the nosecone hole will be banned for next year.

The reason the appendages were banned is because they increase turbulence but the Sharkfins do not -- they actually clean up the air somewhat.

But I agree -- I do not like them at all and want them banned.

WOW!

The arrogance and vague approximation of coherent thought almost made me faint.

People that say things like this are not real fans. They are control freaks looking to parasitically attach to something that, unlike themselves, have a pulse.

Can you PLEASE stop stomping your feet like a little child, saying that YOU hate them and you want them banned? As if your opinion matters... Oh wait, it is easy to say now that you know that they will be gone next year. I forgot, the easy concocted victories of loser mentality.

God, I cannot tell you how much your statement disgusts me.

Chris

[Scotracer]

Why are sharkfins allowed? They are the complete opposite of a clean design....
also i recall Mr. Domenicali saying that the nosecone hole will be banned for next year.

The reason the appendages were banned is because they increase turbulence but the Sharkfins do not -- they actually clean up the air somewhat.

But I agree -- I do not like them at all and want them banned.

WOW!

The arrogance and vague approximation of coherent thought almost made me faint.

People that say things like this are not real fans. They are control freaks looking to parasitically attach to something that, unlike themselves, have a pulse.

Can you PLEASE stop stomping your feet like a little child, saying that YOU hate them and you want them banned? As if your opinion matters... Oh wait, it is easy to say now that you know that they will be gone next year. I forgot, the easy concocted victories of loser mentality.

God, I cannot tell you how much your statement disgusts me.

Chris

This is a forum, is it not? Isn't giving your opinion the whole point of it?

If you want me to reason it, sure:

THIS:



looks much better than:



or



If you like it because it's innovative, that's fine but I do not like them because the cars don't look like beautiful sleek racers that they used to. Many people agree with me because the general approval of the removal of the appendages is high

[Ogami musashi]

Taste and colors...

However i'm quite happy F1 is not (yet..) regulated by fans...Not only the cars would look like nothing but they would severely suck in each department..

All those persons who want to ban aeros and "get back the mechanical grip" if allowed would make cuts that would result in cars having no grip at all..

All those who want V12 3.5liter back into cars would not understand why their car handle so bad and why their engine produce finally less power...

That's why i do really hope teams will finally reach a milestone by providing tech rules.


I'm so fed up with internet boys revamping the rules each day with their "lengthen the braking zones!", "bring back steel brakes", "We don't want push to pass buttons!" not understanding a 10th of physics and technology involved...

I'm not saying that for you whiteblue cause you reckon your dislike towards appendices is aesthetic..but i see so many people not happy with F1, full of ideas and no knowledge at all..

Sometimes you wonder if they'll be happy one day.


That said, as you probably know, the teams will meet at maranello july the 29th to discuss and maybe draft some rules for 2011 in order to answer FIA'S inquiry.

The first challenge will be to gather unity among team's vision of F1...and that's far from it.

The "funny" thing is that all those teams meetings occur with bernie being there.

Last news is that Bernie did send teams a draft of the new concord agreement were some full closes are missing, those closes concerning money income etc..
The meaning of that is that bernie offers teams to negociate money income directly with CVC and without approval of FIA...no need to say the battle still rages.

[Scotracer]

I agree with you Ogami. My problems with the current/next years cars is purely aesthetic. I love the technology involved. It's mainly because the early '00 cars to me, look far better (I think the Ferrari F2003-GA is the best looking F1 car ever).

Moving on I have a question about future regulations -- do you think in order to reduce drag that the FIA will allow wheel covers/fenders? I know it pollutes the open-wheel status of the series but times are changing and that would help a lot.

[alvinkhorfire]

Sorry, off topic a bit. I want to ask about centerless rear wing. This wing was created a few years ago based on collaboration between FIA and AMD to encourage overtaking if I am not mistaken. Instead of a central rear wing, the wing is splited into two elements, one on top of each rear wheel. Has the plan to include this centerless wing in the design of all F1 cars been cancelled?

[Ogami musashi]

I agree with you Ogami. My problems with the current/next years cars is purely aesthetic. I love the technology involved. It's mainly because the early '00 cars to me, look far better (I think the Ferrari F2003-GA is the best looking F1 car ever).

Moving on I have a question about future regulations -- do you think in order to reduce drag that the FIA will allow wheel covers/fenders? I know it pollutes the open-wheel status of the series but times are changing and that would help a lot.

As far as my taste are concerned my favorite F1 were the 1990-92 ones.
I also think they had a very good balance of aerodynamics (basically they had less drag than now), tyre grip and engine power.

The only problem is that allowing those kind of design now would result in cars going hell too fast imho.

Already next year the FIA takes a risk allowing slicks to come back without knowing really how much of downforce is cut.

As far as cover fenders are concerned i don't know. As you say it would go directly against the concept of open wheeler.

It would also decrease the handling qualities.

I think maybe one relevant area is the management of drag by front wings/ramp wings.
Unfortunately next year end plates will have to be simpler and ramp wings are banned.

but let's foresee to 2011 and maybe some kind of MHD could be used to help it.

That would road relevant cause even in sports car, there's air that strikes tyres (the air is everywhere).

So to answer i don't think about covering the wheels, but managing air around them, yes.

Sorry, off topic a bit. I want to ask about centerless rear wing. This wing was created a few years ago based on collaboration between FIA and AMD to encourage overtaking if I am not mistaken. Instead of a central rear wing, the wing is splited into two elements, one on top of each rear wheel. Has the plan to include this centerless wing in the design of all F1 cars been cancelled?

The project has been postponed because it was too radical to be implemented in a two year time frame.

A lot of uncertainties were there including the wheel/rear wing lower element interaction, the state of the flow fields that the rear wing's elements encounter (they were on each side, typically a zone were a lot of turbulence are present) and some other things.

However teams were interested, because it allowed a bit of the ideal case as in theory it helped the following car not to loose downforce on its front wing while allowing for some slipstream on the side of the car.


The OWG will continue its works and updates are expected in 2011 and 2013 on the aerodynamics rules.
Maybe we'll see a comeback, but if 2009 shows good results, i doubt it.

[Ciro Pabón]

Welcome, alvinkhorfire. I think the plans were cancelled, as you say. What I heard is that the tests of this wings did not prove that it was beneficial, even if modelling in computers showed it was effective. I heard no comments on its "radicalness", but if Ogami says so, he must have a reason or link, I know him a little and I trust his criteria.

Conceptual, we hope you don't faint... but if you do, we'll try to revive you. Among tastes there are no distastes, we say in spanish.

I think stethics is important. Perhaps taste is more important that technique. There is an old engineer saying that I translate the best I can: "if the design is technically sound, the design is beautiful".

That's why you'll see many people that argue about ugly designs: they are sure that those designs have to have some hidden problem. After all, nature follows the same rules as we do. Our minds are used to call beauty the end results of nature. That's why many engineers and technicians I know see ugliness as a flag that tells them that the desing behind it is not entirely sound.

I respectfully think that you do not need to know physics to understand that, Ogami. I repeat what I hold to be true: a good engineer does not accept authority. Anything can be explained, we're not dealing with religion here. If there is a reason why an aerodynamic design has to have a lot of appendages, I want to hear it.

Steel brakes and clean body designs are used in Champcar and the lap times they get are awfully similar, don't they? They also have a lot more overtaking than F1, btw. This shows me that a design can be achieved easier by allowing engineers to work, instead of having the "Bernie comittees" you describe, ehem. We all have lived through that kind of "political comittees" and let me tell you they produce mediocre results.

[Ogami musashi]

Welcome, alvinkhorfire. I think the plans were cancelled, as you say. What I heard is that the tests of this wings did not prove that it was beneficial, even if modelling in computers showed it was effective. I heard no comments on its "radicalness", but if Ogami says so, he must have a reason or link, I know him a little and I trust his criteria.

Teams labeled it as radical in 2006 when presented, and indeed the radical bit is that the wings elements were to run directly above the wheels.

I think stethics is important. Perhaps taste is more important that technique. There is an old engineer saying that I translate the best I can: "if the design is technically sound, the design is beautiful".

That's why you'll see many people that argue about ugly designs: they are sure that those designs have to have some hidden problem. After all, nature follows the same rules as we do. Our minds are used to call beauty the end results of nature. That's why many engineers and technicians I know see ugliness as a flag that tells them that the desing behind it is not entirely sound.

I do know that proverb. But imho its only scientific background was from the 20's when aerodynamics progressed by streamlining.

From a pure technical point of view, in many cases it doesn't hold true, even in nature.

See a bumblebee? that little thing is not a prettiest animal on earth, neither the one that by the looks seems to be an aerodynamic beauty compared to many other flying animals.....yet, that little insect can fly at 30km/h whatever the load of pollen it has with him...why? because of the vortex lift, and the incredible use they make of it.

This led me to the leather of a bird...which is not the sleekest surface of the world at all, yet it is one of the most incredible flow management surface.

Flapping wings don't seem to be the most intuitive way to fly with low drag yet the dynamics of flapping provide very high aerodynamics efficiency.

Have you ever seen the structure of a shark skin? it is not even homogeneous! yet it is highly efficient.

The fact is that nature doesn't care at all with regularity, symmetry, sleekness of whatever..nature is all about efficiency.

back in the middle of the 20th century the aerodynamic knowledge was much more towards laminar flow aka "smooth flow" thus the thought that " a beautiful (I.E:sleek) design is an efficient design" arose.

But now, i can point you that an F-22 raptor is more efficient than a F104 at the same speed while having much more efficiency in angle of attack.

Just like a nissan GTR is about the same efficiency (if not more..) than a prosche 911.

I respectfully think that you do not need to know physics to understand that, Ogami.

This is where we disagree. How can you judge the scientific value of a thing without knowing the science behind?

How can you, without having the knowledge, be sure the "beauty is best"?

If there is a reason why an aerodynamic design has to have a lot of appendages, I want to hear it.

Part of the appendages on current F1 cars are there by aberration, that is, are a result of the rules, but some of them, like front wings, ramp wings flip ups and chimney,diffuser edges allow for higher efficiency.

Steel brakes and clean body designs are used in Champcar and the lap times they get are awfully similar, don't they?

Not really, i means, let's not fall into the number battle, but a champ car was 4 to 5 seconds off the pace of an F1 car.

The main reason was weight, but top speed, downforce curve etc entered in line for the final differences.
In addition, it is easy to come let's say 2 seconds off F1 pace, but to really come at the same time it is another thing.

The aerodynamics in F1 are far from being "let's create downforce!" only. A lot of work is done in stability for example and believe it or not, a venturi car like the DP01 loses a lot of downforce when following another car and can't give the same stability as current F1 cars.
Not only that but the dynamic response curve of the car was not as good as an F1, okay down to the weight but also aerodynamics stability and their effect on balance.

So yes, you can come with a design not the product of restrictive regulations that will be sleeker, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

They also have a lot more overtaking than F1, btw. This shows me that a design can be achieved easier by allowing engineers to work,

Hearing that since some times i decided to watch races from the DP01 area...the overtakings almost all occured in straight line either thanks to push to pass, either in braking (which by the way is not THAT longer than in F1 since they don't reach the same top speeds)...which made the races dull.
In corners, they would follow each other but the cars has not so much spare grip, their transient performance was not as good (for example they were kind of understeery) so...nobody did nothing..

In F1 watch the overtakings, they mostly happen mid corners, sometimes in the most difficult conditions.

There's no magic here, lot of grip in all conditions=more possibilities.

So i'm not as enthusiast as you on the champ car DP01 era.
I think the era were there were a lot of manufacturers (90's) was much more interesting.

instead of having the "Bernie comittees" you describe, ehem. We all have lived through that kind of "political comittees" and let me tell you they produce mediocre results.

I think that's a bit early to judge since they did nothing for the moment.
For the moment the FIA makes the rules, teams try to bend them...just like in every series.

[ESPImperium]

Could this be what a car will look like from above for 2009???

Sorry for the crappy MS paint attempt.

[Scotracer]

Yeah, you could be right. From what I remember though, the bargeboards might be a bit smaller? Also, the rear-wing will be further forward (that's a F2002), in the current position.

[WhiteBlue]

Why am I not surprised that Bernie orchestrates the "Teams Rule Making".

Funny "peace". Well, in the next days we should know if Newscorp/NotW will have to pay punitive damages. Perhaps then another chapter in the story will unfold. It was certainly unexpected that before the trial suddenly CVC pacified Max. If Bernie is still lobbying the teams the peace will not be long lasting.

This Maranello talks will be a big ballyhoo with very little result, I suspect. I would be big time surprised if the teams would even agree to some principles let alone an agenda.

[modbaraban]

As I suspected, these wings proportions make the car look so rediculous

[Ogami musashi]

ESPimperium:

The front wing is a bit too large (the 180cm width includes the endplates), there're no ramp wings autorized, as said by scotracer, the rear wing is further forward.

Other than that this sum up a bit, i'm curious to see the wing proportions indeed..