Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[Ogami musashi]

The rear wing they are going to use is a CDG (Central Doownwash Generating)wing. It will have the same sizes as williams show but it will have 2 of it and behind the rear wings. I havent heard of a downforce limit, ive only heard of lowering the front wing removing sidepod wings and the cdg wing.

No they're not using a CDG wing.

They'll use the exact same rear wing type that the williams one, and if you look at the pics you can also see a 2009 diffuser.

[wesley123]

The rear wing they are going to use is a CDG (Central Doownwash Generating)wing. It will have the same sizes as williams show but it will have 2 of it and behind the rear wings. I havent heard of a downforce limit, ive only heard of lowering the front wing removing sidepod wings and the cdg wing.

No they're not using a CDG wing.

They'll use the exact same rear wing type that the williams one, and if you look at the pics you can also see a 2009 diffuser.

I dont understand a thing about the rules now. First they said the CDG wing will be used in 2007, then it became 2008 and now 2009, i dont know what the rules are now.

[Ogami musashi]

You can have access to the rules at the fia site.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 7-2008.pdf

Those are the updated rules.

The CDG wing has been put in stand by.

[wesley123]

You can have access to the rules at the fia site.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 7-2008.pdf

Those are the updated rules.

The CDG wing has been put in stand by.

I know that, but i dont understand a thing of what they are saying.

[Ogami musashi]

Basically what they say in relevance with what we discuss right now is that the maximum width at the rear of the car for complete airfoils assemblies (that is rear wing) is 750mm, so considering the width of the car is 1800mm you see that any CDG wing is not possible at all.

If you browse that topic back you'll see that long time before it was even published on the FIA site we knew that the rear wing was of the format you can see on the picture with the williams car.

You will also read a lot of posts where we discuss regulations in details.

[WhiteBlue]

You cannot understand the rules debate if you have not followed it for some years. The safety issue, the downforce issue, the cost issue, the customer car issue and the engine issue have all been discussed for a long time with very controversial standpoints. Many of the rules drafts by the FIA which were very important to the debate are not available any more to the public. The discussions of FOM and the Manufacturers and teams were never public and so you simply can't understand it and document it to guys who start looking into it.

The CDG wing with 1.2 ton downforce limit was a proposal by the FIA consultants after they made some CFD analysis of the overtaking issue. The 2009 wings and diffuser without downforce limit is what Ferrari, McLaren and Renault (the OWG) counter proposed and was accepted by all parties finally. I think that it adresses part of the problem but eliminating the downforce limit is a fundamental flaw that will perpetuate the ever more complicate rules that finally nobody will be able to understand.

[wesley123]

You cannot understand the rules debate if you have not followed it for some years. The safety issue, the downforce issue, the cost issue, the customer car issue and the engine issue have all been discussed for a long time with very controversial standpoints. Many of the rules drafts by the FIA which were very important to the debate are not available any more to the public. The discussions of FOM and the Manufacturers and teams were never public and so you simply can't understand it and document it to guys who start looking into it.

The CDG wing with 1.2 ton downforce limit was a proposal by the FIA consultants after they made some CFD analysis of the overtaking issue. The 2009 wings and diffuser without downforce limit is what Ferrari, McLaren and Renault (the OWG) counter proposed and was accepted by all parties finally. I think that it adresses part of the problem but eliminating the downforce limit is a fundamental flaw that will perpetuate the ever more complicate rules that finally nobody will be able to understand.

I follow the F1 very close for like 3 years now, and i watch the F1 for like 8 years.
But the rulechange makes it all so weird, i know most rules, but not the dimensions. From the rules on the fia site i dot understand what you are allowed and what you arent, the only thing i could understand from all is that there aint bodywork allowed between 33cm ahead from the front whell and 33cm in front of the rear wheel and that the front wing can be dropped by 7.5cm So i guess this all means that the indy fins still are allowed but that the sidepod shields aint allowed anymore.

[WhiteBlue]

My point is the responsibility for the complication of the rules. The rich, leading manufacturer backed teams seem to shoot down all simple proposals and write in loop holes that will help them to cement their superiority. It happened with the engine freeze and it is happening with the 2009 aero rules as well.

[wesley123]

My point is the responsibility for the complication of the rules. The rich, leading manufacturer backed teams seem to shoot down all simple proposals and write in loop holes that will help them to cement their superiority. It happened with the engine freeze and it is happening with the 2009 aero rules as well.

True, it has allways been and it will stay like that. But if someone finds an 0.5 second i am sure they wont show it until the australian grand prix.

[pgj]

You can have access to the rules at the fia site.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 7-2008.pdf

Those are the updated rules.

The CDG wing has been put in stand by.

I know that, but i dont understand a thing of what they are saying.

Yes, just take a slow read through the thread from the point where the new regulations are published. There are some excellent posts from Ogami and co, these are posters with an excellent insight and understanding of 2009's regulations. They are worth a million articles from 'motor sports mag's'. It is well worth the effort.

[donskar]

My point is the responsibility for the complication of the rules. The rich, leading manufacturer backed teams seem to shoot down all simple proposals and write in loop holes that will help them to cement their superiority. It happened with the engine freeze and it is happening with the 2009 aero rules as well.

If you're blaming the "rich" teams for complicated rules, I think you're going way too easy on Mosley/the FIA. And the argument just does not make sense from another perspective -- the large majority of all F1 teams are wealthy enough to be "rich" and are either manufacturers or are manufacturer-supported.

So who would you rate a "poor" F1 team? Certainly not McL, Ferrari, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Renault, RBR/STR.

So the down-trodden are Williams and F1 India? So be it.

Let's remember, the goal of future regulations should NOT be to enforce a 20-car dead heat. F1 has winners and losers. That's sport. The idea of equality in, for example, engines, is an abomination IMHO. How much farther do we need to go before F1 is an open-wheel NASCAR?

[mx_tifoso]

Good point 'Donskar', the more financially 'healthy' teams have all the rights to advance the sport as they seem fit. Otherwise, what would be the logical point of having the bottom teams contributing to the major advancement? They most certainly wouldn't get as far as the top teams.

Equality is for losers IMO, for those who can't get up themselves but feel that dragging or keeping others down at the their level is correct. If equality among all is what anyone prefers, you'd fit in very well in a country like Cuba, they're just great aren't they. No offense to Cuba, it is simply an example of a communist nation which employs 'equality' in order to control the population.

To be a better person you must have better people [than you] around you, same goes for teams in the case of Formula One.

...Rant over.

[pgj]

There is a balance to be struck here. I also hanker for the days when F1 seemed to be less regulated and the funding for development seemed to be endless. It is easy to see regulation changes as being a vehicle for the down-trodden poorer teams like STR, Williams and F1FI to get a bigger slice of the WCC pie. However, it is the manufacturers who are now calling for a reduction in costs. I support the view that a 'stock F1' is not and could never be an acceptable format for F1 to continue. A 'stock F1' would be a dilution of technical opportunity.

I like some of the ideas put forward by Mario, like reducing the rev limit on engines and making engines and gearboxes last for more races. I am curious to find out whether a CVT gearbox would help in this respect. An engine that is not over-revved by using a CVT gearbox should, theoretically, be capable of lasting longer. Wear and durability issues with CVT gearboxes would appear to be the sticking point. But as Mario has alluded to, F1 developments while never being a one to one map onto road cars, should at least advance development in technologies that are relevant to road cars. CVT seems to be an area that could be investigated in that respect.

Manufacturer's shareholders are beginning to question derived benefits from the amount of F1 investment that they are making and when shareholders have their say, most organisations listen.

[Metar]

I think it's rather the shareholders in the more failing manufacturer teams that question that investment. Ferrari is, to all my non-F1 following friends, "World champions" - they're not sure champions of what exactly, but they know that they won: To them, Ferrari now means "fast". Also don't forget that, according to Ferrari's crew, they don't receive funding from the roadcar division.


I don't see, though, how CVTs would ever be allowed. Sure, I (and probably a few others) will like the idea for the innovation and genius that it really is - a gearbox with the ultimate ratios, at all times - but the sounds it would make will be unacceptable to many.

[WhiteBlue]

... Also don't forget that, according to Ferrari's crew, they don't receive funding from the roadcar division..

objections to that. Ferrari definetly subsidises the gestione sportiva by the road car department. they claim that they do not subsidise Ferrari by FIAT.