F1technical.net

In the 2009 regs, in an under-bridge wing similar to this crude model legal?

And if not, what reg is it breaking? I am having trouble visualizing the restrictions in this area, so any help is appreciated!




http://picasaweb.google.com/CKnopp/Conc ... 1649658466

Thanks!

PS: If only I could get this to work with Google... ((

It doesn't comply with rule 3.7.2 any horizontal slice within 250mm of the car centre line may have only two elements (i.e the front wing supports)...

It also doesn't comply with rule 3.7.3 -only a single section in the area less than 250mm from the car centre lie (i.e the centre bit of the front wing)

It also doesn't comply with rule 3.7.6 which requires a flat area no less than 28,000mm^2 outside the wing end plates... (altho I admit you could just add these on!)

You're also losing out because you don't have any driver adjustable areas.....

Scotracer wrote:

Nat wrote:Ogami musashi, thanks very much for the pictire and the explanations! Do you by chance have also a side view of the wake?

http://www.fia.com/resources/images/130 ... raphic.jpg

Upper image.

On this picture which one represents the 2008 aero config?

The "conventional" wing is the 08 spec?

Is the "centerline" wing the 09 spec?

TRICKLE69 wrote:

Scotracer wrote:

Nat wrote:Ogami musashi, thanks very much for the pictire and the explanations! Do you by chance have also a side view of the wake?

http://www.fia.com/resources/images/130 ... raphic.jpg

Upper image.

On this picture which one represents the 2008 aero config?

The "conventional" wing is the 08 spec?

Is the "centerline" wing the 09 spec?

The conventional wing is one which conforms to either 2007 or 2008 specifications and the "centerline downwash wing" (CDG for short) is the infamous split rear-wing which was deemed ineffecient by the Overtaking Working Group. So no, it is not the 2009 spec wing, and as far as I know we don't have any official image of the airflow on a fully 2009 spec car yet.

wesley123 wrote: Just think about it

Why should BMW develop those parts for their 2008 car? All this has to be redevelopped again to fit on the 2009 tub, that would take the double amount of time thus the idea becomes useless.

Believe me, it is an 'Alpha' F1.09, it wouldnt be sufficient to build parts for the 2009 car when they have to change it all over again to fit the 2009 car.

The nose on the car is totally different and im 100% sure that it wouldnt fit on their 2008 tub, as then you wil get a weird shape on the bottom as the 2008 nose is significantly lower.

If you want to know why BMW spent all this time and money to make such a sophisticated hybrid test car, you can only know by asking them.

The fact remains though, that Kubica himself pretty much confirmed this is NOT an F1.09 chassis being tested. NONE of the teams have yet tested their 2009 chassis. They may have tested bits and pieces of their 2009 cars, but not full 2009 spec cars. That will not happen until January for some teams, and February for others.

In an interview I read somewhere, they called it the "F1.08B" - and stated that it's just a test-car, and that the 2009 winter-testing chassis will be the "F1.09A"..

vasia wrote:

wesley123 wrote: Just think about it

Why should BMW develop those parts for their 2008 car? All this has to be redevelopped again to fit on the 2009 tub, that would take the double amount of time thus the idea becomes useless.

Believe me, it is an 'Alpha' F1.09, it wouldnt be sufficient to build parts for the 2009 car when they have to change it all over again to fit the 2009 car.

The nose on the car is totally different and im 100% sure that it wouldnt fit on their 2008 tub, as then you wil get a weird shape on the bottom as the 2008 nose is significantly lower.

If you want to know why BMW spent all this time and money to make such a sophisticated hybrid test car, you can only know by asking them.

The fact remains though, that Kubica himself pretty much confirmed this is NOT an F1.09 chassis being tested. NONE of the teams have yet tested their 2009 chassis. They may have tested bits and pieces of their 2009 cars, but not full 2009 spec cars. That will not happen until January for some teams, and February for others.

it is a standard development strategy in R&D to use a stage gate process. in the first steps or stages you confirm the viability of a number of options thus narrowing down your design options and solidifying the whole project. Every design makes assumptions and if they are crucial you do not want to rely on simulation but want to confirm it in the tunnel and on the track. The 2009 cars will have new aero all over, new weight distribution, new suspension, new gearboxes, new heat balance, new KERS , new tyres, new high power electronics and a bunch of other new systems like movable front wings. The sooner you confirm some of this stuff the more likely it is that you avoid fundamental flaws like the 2008 Williams front wing desaster. the money for the BMW test mule is well spend I guess.

WhiteBlue wrote:

vasia wrote:

wesley123 wrote: Just think about it

Why should BMW develop those parts for their 2008 car? All this has to be redevelopped again to fit on the 2009 tub, that would take the double amount of time thus the idea becomes useless.

Believe me, it is an 'Alpha' F1.09, it wouldnt be sufficient to build parts for the 2009 car when they have to change it all over again to fit the 2009 car.

The nose on the car is totally different and im 100% sure that it wouldnt fit on their 2008 tub, as then you wil get a weird shape on the bottom as the 2008 nose is significantly lower.

If you want to know why BMW spent all this time and money to make such a sophisticated hybrid test car, you can only know by asking them.

The fact remains though, that Kubica himself pretty much confirmed this is NOT an F1.09 chassis being tested. NONE of the teams have yet tested their 2009 chassis. They may have tested bits and pieces of their 2009 cars, but not full 2009 spec cars. That will not happen until January for some teams, and February for others.

it is a standard development strategy in R&D to use a stage gate process. in the first steps or stages you confirm the viability of a number of options thus narrowing down your design options and solidifying the whole project. Every design makes assumptions and if they are crucial you do not want to rely on simulation but want to confirm it in the tunnel and on the track. The 2009 cars will have new aero all over, new weight distribution, new suspension, new gearboxes, new heat balance, new KERS , new tyres, new high power electronics and a bunch of other new systems like movable front wings. The sooner you confirm some of this stuff the more likely it is that you avoid fundamental flaws like the 2008 Williams front wing desaster. the money for the BMW test mule is well spend I guess.

Exactly. The regulation changes for 2009 are huge, and I fully agree that having an interim hybrid test car is a good idea. That will allow a team to confirm and gain data on some of these changes early and possibly allow for an advantage or leg up on other teams. Williams and BMW seem to be the best-prepared for the 2009 season. Of course, that does not mean they will be the most competitive, it simply means they've focused on the 2009 season earlier than the others. Williams in September tested a new gearbox and rear suspension and more recently the 2009 wings along with parts of their KERS system, so they're about as far along in preparing for 2009 as BMW.

Another advantage of using new parts on an old chassis is you already have base-line data for that chassis, thus allowing you to quantify the data of the changed part.
Yeah, it costs more, but as WhiteBlue stated, this can avoid fundamental design flaws
which may not be easily fixed with an update.
I've read that other teams (believe) they are as advanced as BMW or Williams but have chosen to test other areas before aero, ie. slicks, KERS, etc.

Bacchulum wrote:Another advantage of using new parts on an old chassis is you already have base-line data for that chassis, thus allowing you to quantify the data of the changed part.
Yeah, it costs more, but as WhiteBlue stated, this can avoid fundamental design flaws
which may not be easily fixed with an update.
I've read that other teams (believe) they are as advanced as BMW or Williams but have chosen to test other areas before aero, ie. slicks, KERS, etc.

We will see soon enough who has been better prepared, and whether early preparation will give an advantage to any team. For example Toyota did not test with everyone else in November, so it will be interesting to see what they are up to and if they are behind.

There is no need to guess at the Toyota schedule. Howett has already said that they will be late and possibly not using KERS before the June or July.

WhiteBlue wrote:There is no need to guess at the Toyota schedule. Howett has already said that they will be late and possibly not using KERS before the June or July.

Teams often say things like this, it's call sandbagging!

I'd believe it this time. They also complained that other teams "take risks" with KERS, while Toyota "can't allow any safety-risks" because of PR-damage.

WhiteBlue wrote:There is no need to guess at the Toyota schedule. Howett has already said that they will be late and possibly not using KERS before the June or July.

They have confirmed they will race KERS late, but that is not actually what I meant. I meant it should be interesting to see if they are behind in terms of overall development of their 2009 car, or if they have something up their sleeve with Frank Dernie and Mark Gillan overseeing major aspects of the car's development. The overall benefit of KERS remains to be seen as we have not seen it in race action yet.

from one of our colleages forums

could this be acurate?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_62uoM4_hVlY/S ... orblog.jpg