Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[Ogami musashi]

According to Amus, only one team (Renault) is favorable to the Standard engine for 2011. This engine would be a 1,4 liter turbo (V6 or V8).

Since FOTA needs unanimity to enforce a position it very unlikely that this proposal will see the day.

Teams however have some proposals:

-standard gearboxes from Xtrac
-engine life cycles of three to four races
-suspension components made of steel
-standard wheel trunks
-Standard brake systems
-one chassis every two years


The chassis bit really makes me sad, while the overall "let's turn F1 into less cutting edge technology" depresses me for now.

[bazanaius]

The chassis and steel suspension ideas are frankly devastating. I can see no reason why this would be a good thing. There must be hundreds of other ways these teams can save money rather than dumb down the technology on what is a sport almost solely based on being different and non-spec.
There are numerous other (admittedly very entertaining) one-spec series out there which are technically inferior to F1 - this is why I watch f1. It's DIFFERENT, and supposed to be CUTTING EDGE.
Both these proposed rules would defeat this object.

I'd say prohibit poncy motorhomes

[WhiteBlue]

If you put a price limit on motor homes you will have the teams build them by volunteers DIYS.

Steel or titanium uprights would save some money due to longer use. the composite uprights have to be fluxed each race and often scrapped after one race. very expensive. the rest of the stuff like seamless gear boxes is pretty much standard anyway. all teams are using them now and a propriatory design only costs money without gaining advantage.

to put the brakes to the frequency of chassis designs and make them last 2 years would make a big impact on design team sizes. some teams like McLaren or Toyota have 3 teams. they could go with 1 then. that slows down the progress slightly but not very markedly. after all Super Aguri embarassed Honda with a year old chassis.

they should put their money into HERS and KERS instead of technologies that do not help road car design or energy saving.

[Metar]

Super Aguri only embarrassed Honda's RA07 because the RA07 was such a monumental piece of failed engineering, for such a big company, and the RA06 was a rather decent car. Honda essentially went backwards. Chassis-freezes are going to be terrible, though. It's naive to think McLaren and the top teams are actually going to stop designing - they'll just introduce the exact same modifications, at longer intervals.

So, a team with an inferior chassis at the end of a freeze-cycle will be stuck with it for two years, while the top (at the time) teams will enjoy a great chassis that can't be challenged. Two years later, millions of dollars down the drain for the inferior team with no chance to move up, they'll have another "draw", and might lose out again. Everyone, meanwhile, will keep designing for those two years - it'll simply be a bigger leap each time.

Gearboxes and brakes are a field where gains can still be made, but they're very minimal nowadays: seamless boxes are universal, so shift-times are nearly equal throughout the field, while brake-manufacturers usually supply several teams. These are fields where the designs can be specced, because they really wouldn't make a difference.

[pgj]

According to Amus, only one team (Renault) is favorable to the Standard engine for 2011. This engine would be a 1,4 liter turbo (V6 or V8).

Since FOTA needs unanimity to enforce a position it very unlikely that this proposal will see the day.

Teams however have some proposals:

-standard gearboxes from Xtrac
-engine life cycles of three to four races
-suspension components made of steel
-standard wheel trunks
-Standard brake systems
-one chassis every two years


The chassis bit really makes me sad, while the overall "let's turn F1 into less cutting edge technology" depresses me for now.

Me too.

A point that is being missed here is that manufacturers will spend billions on R&D in trying to gain a competitive advantage in their road cars. What needs to happen is for F1 to align itself more closely to current R&D developments and tap into that funding by making itself more relavent. It will never be possible to develop anything for an F1 car that has a direct mapping onto a road car. However, there is scope to develop technologies in F1 that can then be adapted and then applied to road cars. In that respect, KERS is a good development, it will allow advanced KERS technologies to developed and taken into road car development. There must be other developments that can be developed too.

It is wrong to freeze F1 in a time-warp because it has been allowed to go and develop in a direction that is more closely related to the aerospace sector than it is to to the motor car sector. F1 needs to be realigned and set in a direction for the future. It does not need to frozen in the past.

[Metar]

And chassis, gearboxes, and brakes are the most relevant to modern cars. Volkswagen's (and now everyone else's, too) DSG boxes or the older regular sequentials, carbon brakes (admittedly, on top-of-the-line supercars) and advances in (monocoque) chassis construction are fields where F1's knowledge helped...

What F1 can promote is new technologies - I doubt an F1 team could really find a better way to implement steel wishbones than roadcar manufacturers. With KERS, or whatever new technologies some sleep-deprived engineer can imagine, F1 can really progress. Didn't Variable Valve Timing come from F1? ABS? Active whatnots? Half the Nissan GT-R (just as an example of a tech-loaded car) can probably be traced to F1 technology that isn't legal anymore.

[pgj]

And chassis, gearboxes, and brakes are the most relevant to modern cars. Volkswagen's (and now everyone else's, too) DSG boxes or the older regular sequentials, carbon brakes (admittedly, on top-of-the-line supercars) and advances in (monocoque) chassis construction are fields where F1's knowledge helped...

What F1 can promote is new technologies - I doubt an F1 team could really find a better way to implement steel wishbones than roadcar manufacturers. With KERS, or whatever new technologies some sleep-deprived engineer can imagine, F1 can really progress. Didn't Variable Valve Timing come from F1? ABS? Active whatnots? Half the Nissan GT-R (just as an example of a tech-loaded car) can probably be traced to F1 technology that isn't legal anymore.

You get my support.

[myurr]

ABS came from concorde, but yeah I agree with you.

[djos]

I'd like to see F1 move to 1.5ltr V6 twin Turbo motors running on E85 Biofuel (cellulose based, not food stealing version) with only an air-flow restricter and a return to the 1 engine per weekend rule (friday still excepted) and 1 gearbox per weekend.

Both the engine and GB should have a minimum weight & CG to prevent excessively expensive materials being used. KERS should be allowed to put out up to 100bhp with a simple unit weight limit (like '09 spec) to prevent really silly amounts of unobtanium etc being used.

Im quite pleased that all the stupid & ugly fips etc are banned for '09 and slicks are finally back but that rear wing does look pretty silly! Hopefully it will grow on me.

[Ciro Pabón]

I saw the news last year. Then I read this PDF, dated June 2007. Then, again a note on the subject a few days ago. Please, inform me if it has been already "threaded", I tried to read the whole thread but it is impossible for me.

Front and rear wings maybe electronically controlled within set limits defined from time to time by the FIA. This is to allow much reduced drag along the straights to improve fuel efficiency and yet retain the downforce required around corners, under braking and acceleration so as to retain overall lap times. Initial thinking is that the main planes of the wings are to be fixed, but the flaps allowed to move by electronic control, mimicking an aircraft wing as it changes configuration for take off and landing. The detail will be fixed by simulation and Formula One aerodynamicists with regard size and suitable range of movement.

Given that this is a new direction for Formula One, the range of movement will be controlled by the FIA. This allows the FIA to ‘trim’ the regulations to set appropriate top speed should these get too high or low. Fail safe design, as used on aircraft, will be mandated: Clearly the idea of variable aerodynamic surfaces raises safety questions. Active control is now well established in Formula One and is relatively straight-forward technology for the teams. In the event of failure there must be a mechanism that locks the surface in position with an independent system that warning the driver. The rate of response of the active wings elements is to be restrained to 0.5 Hz for the rear on safety grounds and 0.5 Hz for the front so it can respond just fast enough for a first order balance compensation (actual rate to be fixed by Technical Working Group).

Discussion Point: ... The FIA also view that the adoption of these adaptive wings and a prescribed under-tray will bring to a halt the problems recently experienced with aero-elasticity. Do the teams agree?

[donskar]

First, my technical education is too old (and so is my brain) for me to keep up with the regs and the discussion in this particular (excellent) thread -- and I just can't stand the pain of all the regs/proposals which almost universally dilute and demean the sport.

Can this possibly be true?:

-standard gearboxes from Xtrac
-engine life cycles of three to four races
-suspension components made of steel
-standard wheel trunks
-Standard brake systems
-one chassis every two years

I no longer follow FF, F3, and several other formulae that used to hold my interest, but I recall that even those "lower" classes were not so restrictive as the above proposals.

Steel suspension? MY 1998 NISSAN SH*T BOX 200SX uses a titanium crossmember and aluminum suspension components! (aftermarket)

Gentlemen, these proposals would reduce F1 to the level of IndyCar (or less)!

Someone tell me I am hallucinating. Seriously, is there any indication on the likelihood of any/all of these proposals actually being adopted?

[Scotracer]

First, my technical education is too old (and so is my brain) for me to keep up with the regs and the discussion in this particular (excellent) thread -- and I just can't stand the pain of all the regs/proposals which almost universally dilute and demean the sport.

Can this possibly be true?:

-standard gearboxes from Xtrac
-engine life cycles of three to four races
-suspension components made of steel
-standard wheel trunks
-Standard brake systems
-one chassis every two years

I no longer follow FF, F3, and several other formulae that used to hold my interest, but I recall that even those "lower" classes were not so restrictive as the above proposals.

Steel suspension? MY 1998 NISSAN SH*T BOX 200SX uses a titanium crossmember and aluminum suspension components! (aftermarket)

Gentlemen, these proposals would reduce F1 to the level of IndyCar (or less)!

Someone tell me I am hallucinating. Seriously, is there any indication on the likelihood of any/all of these proposals actually being adopted?

I'm not too scared to be honest. The FIA has had some seriously stupid proposals in the past and they've all been flushed down the toilet along with the rest of Mosley's bullshit.

As long as F1 remains fast, loud and technologically the most advanced I don't care what they do to it.

[djos]

I think the rear wing idea was dropped and it's front wing flaps only that can be adjusted on the fly.

[pgj]

I sympathise with Scotracer, I am pretty much in the same boat. With these proposals the world has gone mad. We are seeing the definition of new racing series here and it has nothing to do with F1.

Bernie's latest 'medal' proposal seems like the death knell for the WCC. Madness!

[pgj]

This is an interesting article on tests that were carried out for the new rear wing design. I was startled that the CFD model produced opposite results to wind tunnel tests.

Read