F1technical.net

Alas the blade is banned, to be replaced with a traditional roll hoop, though this is not to say that the airbox inlets still can't be moved away from the conventional position like they did for 2010, freeing up the flow through the hoop to the rear wing.

I hope the fact that Merc showed some innovation in this area means that other teams will think outside of the box for their packaging.

It is hardly as if this kind of approach is anything new : who else remembers the B189?

raymondu999 wrote:Is it true the sharkfin is also not allowed to connect to the rear wing anymore next year?

Looking at the tracked changes in the FIA doc, I can't see any changes that would ban shark fins touching the wing.

Then again I can't see any changes about driver adjustment for the F-duct either!

Would the private FOTA agreements even appear in the FIA documents? The KERS regs were never removed, despite the fact that the teams got together and decided not to bother.

It is getting harder and harder to work out who is actually in control of the sport.

A shark fin must not touch a wing
and a blade must be a hoop
too flexible a tea tray
will cause the nose to droop.

From 2011 FIA Formula One Regulations, by Lewis Carroll

Ok, I think you have hit on something there : spice up the racing by writing the regulations in rhyming verse!

That'll open up a few loopholes and make wading through those epic documents a bit more tolerable

Perhaps we could write different sections in various styles :
One section in rhyming couplets
Another in Haiku
Maybe finish it off with Nostradamus style quatraines?

gridwalker wrote: That'll open up a few loopholes and make wading through those epic documents a bit more tolerable

I agree.

A floor with two decks
Hand over rushing wind hole
These are illegal

gridwalker wrote:Would the private FOTA agreements even appear in the FIA documents?

The fduct ban was a WMSC action, see the press release I quoted. That release says the ban will be added to the regs.

I've not seen any mention of a shark fin ban other than on here.

I agree about FOTA needing more transparency. Personally, I welcome their input, it is better than the bickering we had before. They just need to publish their agreements, although their nature based on honour probably means they might not be as technical as we think!

gridwalker wrote:Alas the blade is banned, to be replaced with a traditional roll hoop, though this is not to say that the airbox inlets still can't be moved away from the conventional position like they did for 2010, freeing up the flow through the hoop to the rear wing.

I hope the fact that Merc showed some innovation in this area means that other teams will think outside of the box for their packaging.

It is hardly as if this kind of approach is anything new : who else remembers the B189?

Well I remember our fellow member manchild coming up with an similair idea, making the headrest have some use apart from screwing up aerodynamics and protection.

richard_leeds wrote: Looking at the tracked changes in the FIA doc, I can't see any changes that would ban shark fins touching the wing.

Have you guys found the 2011 F1 Tech rules? I can only find the 2010 rules (updated in June of this year) on the FIA website????!

machin wrote:

richard_leeds wrote: Looking at the tracked changes in the FIA doc, I can't see any changes that would ban shark fins touching the wing.

Have you guys found the 2011 F1 Tech rules? I can only find the 2010 rules (updated in June of this year) on the FIA website????!

I looked as well, yesterday, and found nothing but what you did, and this:

Full details plus information on further amendments to the 2011 and 2012 Sporting and Technical Regulations will be available shortly on http://www.fia.com.

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/ ... 10935.html

Published 23 Jun 2010

Also, take note of the copyright date of the FIA website next time you visit it...

Someone mentioned this in another thread, but the FIA's e-mail address-less Contact page is also pretty funny.

still cant believe they havent filled dampers with ferrofluid or other magnetic particles that can be either polarised or fed an electrical current from the kers.. Imagine doing kers at a lower than legal ride hight but the second the engine is cut off the kers uses a very small current to power the dampeners to lift there ridehight. I said this in 2008, and it would be even more important now with full tanks at the start of the race. Esecially if you could program the system to realise the fuel burn off per lap in the race and lower the ride high acordingly untill the last lap when it lifts it to a legal hight.

Because filling the dampers with a ferric fluid or what ever would do nothing to the ride height. Not to mention it would make it an active system which is prohibited.

Megnetorehologial dampers are quite common in high end sports cars. The magnetic reaction in the dampers only changes the damping rate. It cant do anything to the preload and therefore the ride height

Tim

Richied76 wrote:still cant believe they havent filled dampers with ferrofluid or other magnetic particles that can be either polarised or fed an electrical current

Strangely when researching on what McLarens "damper with a spinning mass" was, I found a toyota patent for a damper, filled with rheomagnetic fluid, that was engergised by a spinning mass inside the damper acting as a dynamo. I was subsequently told that any electrical input into the dampe,r even if generated internally was a no no. Sad really as this might have worked around the regulations.

Haha, very cool. Technically it not active either because its not adding any energy to the system. They could have disguised it as an inerta too. Or not.

Tim

My prediction for 'innovation' (using the term loosely in place of 'bending the rules') will be exploiting the moveable rear wing. As this is restricted to opening the slot by 40mm, I doubt a full stall or similar drag loss compared to an F-duct will be achieved. So perhaps the movement can uncover or align a slot in the leading edge of the wing to allow a stalling slot on the rear to fully stall the wing.
Equally the lack of the slot gap seperator may lead team to exploit more flexibility in the rear wign to close the slot gap at other times.