Ferrari F2009 Image

[658]

Thanks Scotracer, I was getting a bit sick of editing that image! It looks great

Are you going to post more hypothetical 2009 F1 cars spec images , such as Mc Laren MP4/24 , BMW F1.08 , Renault R29 etc

To be honest bar555, probably not anytime soon. If I had the time i'd probably edit the BMW, but at this stage I just wanted to get an idea of the basic 09 design.

Judging by the image, I can't say i'm a fan of how the cars will look. Surely there's a more aesthetically pleasing way of minimizing turbulence (MAD). Clearing the bodywork of winglets is acceptable (I do like look of them though), but the front and rear wings are right out of proportion. I guess this is what you get when you combine current tech with mid nineties idealism Let's hope there's some innovative people working in the aero departments.

[Steven]

I think I´m gonna quit watching F1 if these rules are implemented

Actually I think the rules are going in the right direction, but are pushing it slightly too far with the aero regulations.

The rear wing flipups for example are to me a very interesting design and creates advertising space. Knowing that the FIA demanded a minimum size of engine cover for advertising, it is very contradictory to see these new regulations being implemented.

Another thing is the front wing that must only consist of one element in the middle. I'm not really sure what's the point of that, but just limiting the number of panels to 2 would do already I think (maybe they could even limit the frontal surface of it too, just an idea).

As for not going to see F1 anymore, a lot more will have to happen before I hook off, but I personally don't like simplification, at least not to the level it is going now.

[Belatti]

It was only an expression
Of course I will continue watching F1, but that car looks really really ugly to me. Aero regulations do not bother me, but transforming the car into that do.

After all, it´s only about my personal taste, as I prefer little front wings, bigger and wider rear than front slicks and almost 0 aero gizmos (80´s to early 90´s cars)

I know I know! my taste is contradictory with aero efficience and good engineering practices

[timbo]

With only one plane allowed in the middle and the wing being so wide, maybe we would see front-wing alike Tyrrell 019? Is such shape permitted?

[PNSD]

Is the middle part of the front allowed to be lower then the sides again???

If so why are they limited it to one plane when it is the most efficient part of the front wing??

timbo - i dont think its possible the middle section is FIA standard so i guess every team will have to use it.

[timbo]

timbo - i dont think its possible the middle section is FIA standard so i guess every team will have to use it.

Oops. Forgoy anout that. However, you seem to have answered your question. Since it is standart part, which also happens to be most efficient it is logical to restrict it.

[Ogami musashi]

Is the middle part of the front allowed to be lower then the sides again???

Yes and no.

The central part will be fixed in position so 7,5cm above the ground.
The others section can be higher but this time the regulations are in the opposite way: there's a maximum height.
No part of the front wing leading edge can be higher than 10cm above the ground.

So the whole lower part will be between 7,5 and 10cm.

The reason is that by having a central part really close to the ground and having sides higher you decrease downforce in those parts and thus you decrease induced drag.

It will still be allowed but limited. However don't think the induced drag will be higher this time, the fact the front wing is very wide decreases induced drag by itself.
In addition since the total downforce is lower the induced drag is even decreased further.

If so why are they limited it to one plane when it is the most efficient part of the front wing??

This part of the wing essentially conditions the underfloor aerodynamics.
By having one simple part of fixed profile, incidence and position and with one simple plane you're sure to control it.

But effectively it decreases the efficiency of that part, to make up for that the front wing is widened.

[PNSD]

Oh, ok thanks for clearing that all up for me.

About the fw also being wider... Weve seen a few teams this and last year not use the full allowed width of the front wing, instead extending the endplates, it was said this is because the front tyres interfear too much, so if this is the case could we see the same next year?

[Ogami musashi]

mmm quite hard to tell...

The rules do not specify explicitly a minimum width but since the central part is standard and endplates are simpler it wouldn't be wise to cut the width of the wing.

That said maybe with time we could see some things.

[Scotracer]

Well looking today, the RBR runs a thinner front-wing than the Toyota but has more pronounced end-plate configuration. Maybe we might see some differences next year? I hope the wings don't go the full 180cm as they will look quite silly.

[ESPImperium]

Well looking today, the RBR runs a thinner front-wing than the Toyota but has more pronounced end-plate configuration. Maybe we might see some differences next year? I hope the wings don't go the full 180cm as they will look quite silly.

I aggree. Id like to see the 2009 regs for the whole car, but with the regs for the 2008 front wing retained, i think that i like the current front wing shapes and the bridge wing. But id make all front wings a total of 3 planes and have to have a maximum of 50 degrees inclination, a 10 degree reduction of oth 2008 season regs.

I personally think that would look better, dont know about perform better.

[Scotracer]

To be honest, I wouldn't like that. That infers much tighter regulations. I'm not too against the new regulations but I think the width of the rear-wing will be the biggest aesthetic complaint of mine next year. Just so thin!

[ESPImperium]

I think it will be many peoples complaints as well. Im a big fan of the Ferarri and Toyota rear wings that i call "the Scoop" at the moment, but id like to see a rear wing thats thin, but still with a bit of meat on the bones, maybes a sort of medium to low downforce profile as the Monza profile, im thinking more Montreal profile as its nicer to look at imo.

The big front wing will be my main complaint as i think they could have kept the current regs for it, maybes making it a bout 50mm lower to the ground and increasing the size from 1600mm to 1680mm would keep the aesthetic better.