F1technical.net

I have yet to fully understand what testing slicks during this season will achieve. Since as Ogami has poined out, the specifications of the '09 wheel/tire combo will be different from the current spec. So is Bridgestone mainly testing the compound and 'slick' surface for now in order to clarify how they will 'work' in track conditions?

Since the diameter and width of the wheel/tire will be different, which obviously translates as a difference in performance figures all around.

What do you guys think the teams and Bridgestone are aiming at by testing 'slick' tires with the current specifications when the specifications for '09 will be [very?] different

Is it mainly for 'simulation' purposes, similar to what the teams have done with the aero devices

Thanks in advance. And thank you Ogami for responding to my previous question.

Ogami musashi wrote:The middle section is 40cm wide. It is not stupid it is a part where the effects of turbulences are the most important so the OWG have designed a center part that is less sensitive to turbulences.

Teams will have 140cm left (which is equivalent to the actual width of front wings) to make what they want since appendices ban is only between front wing and rear wheels.

What IS stupid is believing that by standardizing the leading edge of an F1 car is going to do anything but remove variation, thus innovation, by the teams. I think that the standard center section will give ALL TEAMS the same beginning air flow characteristics to work with, leading many to the same conclusion.

Remember, if the leading edge is standard, there is ONLY ONE PERFECT SOLUTION to the airflow problem post-wing. Someone will find it, and then be copied by everyone else to be competitive.

It might as well BE A1-GP at that point.

But hey, if the teams all want cost cutting, maybe they can sub-contract the actual manufacturing of their components to the same manufacturer, and get bulk discounts!

Chris

You just mis read, nobody talked about "leading edge", it is a 40cm wide section of the wing.

Teams work to be competitive, not to alleviate effects of vortices.

A standard part there is a good thing for the moment, it will be surely be freed up later for 2011.

mx_tifosi wrote:I have yet to fully understand what testing slicks during this season will achieve. Since as Ogami has poined out, the specifications of the '09 wheel/tire combo will be different from the current spec. So is Bridgestone mainly testing the compound and 'slick' surface for now in order to clarify how they will 'work' in track conditions?

Since the diameter and width of the wheel/tire will be different, which obviously translates as a difference in performance figures all around.

What do you guys think the teams and Bridgestone are aiming at by testing 'slick' tires with the current specifications when the specifications for '09 will be [very?] different

Is it mainly for 'simulation' purposes, similar to what the teams have done with the aero devices

Thanks in advance. And thank you Ogami for responding to my previous question.

The teams will want to create a base line of comparison for their 2009 spec. they will run the 2008 cars with 50% reduced down force and slicks to study the effects that low downforce high grip has on track performance. from that baseline they will make adjustments for the different tyre dimensions, drag ratio and weight distribution that they are going to use in the simulation of design alternatives.

Are RBR/Renault-ish engine cover fins legal under 2009 regs?
Also do 2008 or 2009 regs allow joining that part to the rear wing in any way?

I was confused by the new regulations: I had an old version for 2008 that was published in March, 2007 and the tyres had the same dimensions as in the 2009 regulations I have. Then I discovered that the new 2008 regulations, published this year, in February, do not increase the size they had in 2007. My conclusion: tyres were to be larger in 2008, but that change was delayed to 2009.

The maximum sizes are:

Rear: In 2009, 46 cm wide by 71 cm high (right now is 38 x 66, that is, they will be 8 cm wider and 5 cm taller)

Front: In 2009, 36,5 cm wide by 67 cm high (right now is 35,5 x 66, that is 1 cm wider and 1 cm taller, not much. Actually you can use 1 cm wider wet tyres, in 2009 wet tyres are the same size, so the 2009 tyres are as wide as wet tyres).

The wheel bead is also taller, it goes from 33,2 cm right now to 35,8 cm in 2009, that is, the rim should be 2.6 cm taller.

About the body, well, I tried to read quickly section 3.

The car is wider: it goes from 1,8 meters to 2 meters. That's a 20 cm wider car for lateral stability and mechanical grip. As I read it, this maximum dimension applies to the wheels, not for the entire bodywork, which has its own maximum width.

The bodywork behind the rear wheel center line (I'd say the engine cover and diffusser assembly) goes from 1 meter wide to 2 meters. That's huge.

The car is slightly taller: from 95 to 97 cm tall. This applies (I imagine) to the rear wing and maybe the air intake.

The bodywork forward of the front wheel center line (well, "a point lying 33.5 cm behind the front wheel center line"), that is, the front wing, can be as low as 10 cm, while right now you cannot go lower than 15 cm, so the front wing is 5 cm lower. The "depth" of the wing is increased only in 5 cm, because the maximum height of it goes from 35 cm in 2008 to 30 in 2009, so the wing "rides lower".

The back of the engine cover is "raised", I think. The regulations are too confuse for me to dillucidate this without a drawing, but you can have an engine cover that is 20 cm taller than this year.

From 1.3 m forward of the rear wheel centerline (most of the bodywork, I think) you have to have "continuous lines". I think this is the part that forbids ailerons and aero-gadgets, but I'm not sure if this applies to the entire car, I'm not sure about bargeboards, for example.

I throw up my arms in despair when I tried to compare regulations for the rear wing bodywork. It seems you cannot make wings wider than 1.4 meters, but beyond that I did not get the wording. Can someone help me here?

Just in case, here you have the link to 2008 and 2009 regulations.

EDIT: The 2009 regulations are the ones published in December 2006, the PDF hasn't changed since then.

Those regulations are outdated.

For instance, the front wing is lowered to 7,5cm above the ground (this year they are 15cm yes).

We'll have to wait because the new regulations are not finished yet.

Ogami musashi wrote:We'll have to wait because the new regulations are not finished yet.

Considering the teams have already started their 2009 effort, this seems like epic failure on FIA's part.

FIA???? Again...Rules and adopted and the unanimity by teams and FIA.

So the rules are at one state and teams work on them, and it has still some grey areas that all, but FIA's state of failure or not have nothing to do with that.

the FIA should update the rules section when the commissions agree new rules or they send the teams new mandatory interpretations. I would have thought that after the OWG decision the 2009 rules would have been updated. there are interested parts of the public who want to follow the tech rules!

FIA fax +33 1 43 12 44 66 no email

Something I came up with a year or so ago. The idea was to show a concave hull rule as a way to cut all the aero nonsene. I think I went too far wishing for a flat bottom all the way to the nose. And I'd see standard venturies under the side pod as a good idea.

There is a bad area around the air box, it shouldn't bend in like that.



And the modelling is really quick and dirty ,as it is easy to see.

rjsa wrote:And the modelling is really quick and dirty ,as it is easy to see.

Hey, it's a small price

to pay if the alternative is never getting anything substantial on paper. Quick and dirty is definitely underappreciated. And anyway, I quite like the idea and the design, there's a nice balance to it. I just wish the OWG had seen this - fortunately they will yet convene to discuss design steps beyond the 2009 model.

checkered wrote:Quick and dirty is definitely underappreciated.

This is precious

Are those ugly wheel covers to be removed in 2009?