Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[matt21]

Jeeeez what babies..
Yes I was wrong..there have been movable wings..and they were dropped like hot potatoes. Because they were dangerous

Early experiments with movable wings and high mountings led to some spectacular accidents, and for the 1970 season regulations were introduced to limit the size and location of wings.

As far as I remember the wings were banned in 1969 due to the fact that they were mounted directly to the suspension and the struts were to fragile and broke several times.
They have been introduced again later in the season but regulated in size and had to be fixed rigid relative to the sprung part of the car. This is were the term "moveable areos are forbidden" (except frontwing this year) in the regs come from.

[aral]

[quote="matt21
As far as I remember the wings were banned in 1969 due to the fact that they were mounted directly to the suspension and the struts were to fragile and broke several times.
They have been introduced again later in the season but regulated in size and had to be fixed rigid relative to the sprung part of the car. This is were the term "moveable areos are forbidden" (except frontwing this year) in the regs come from.[/quote]

I suggest that you look at the photos of the 1970 Lotus 49 etc, and you will see that wings WERE adjustible and still on flimsy supports!

[matt21]

The high wings were banned at Monaco 1969:
http://www.f1technical.net/articles/24

Lotus 49 until Monaco


Monaco 1969:


Nürburgring 1969:

[WhiteBlue]

FOTA has published environmental objectives.
http://www.f1technical.net/news/15066
Particularly interesting are statements about the 2013 technical and sporting regulations.

Working closely with the FIA, FOTA has committed to working to develop new F1 engine and powertrain regulations that will require all entrants from 2013 onwards to fit their cars with engines and powertrains that incorporate technologies designed to enhance fuel efficiency.

It sounds as if the downsized, turbo charged engines with direct injection and KERS are really on their way.

At the same time, revisions to the sporting regulations will enhance and incentivise the competitive benefit of further reducing fuel consumption.

Considering that Gilles Simon mentioned it this reads very much like a confirmation that a fuel cap or max fuel tank capacity will also be introduced.

The BBC has some more concrete details: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_ ... 456984.stm?

One option the FIA and engine manufacturers are considering from 2013 is increasing engine efficiency through limiting the amount of fuel that each car can use. Currently, each car will burn about 160kg of petrol in an average race in its 2.4 litre normally-aspirated V8 engine.

Under this scenario, engines would be made much smaller - about 1.5 litres, in either a straight 4-cylinder or V6 configuration - and turbocharged. Then the amount of fuel allotted to each car would be progressively decreased over successive seasons, perhaps down to about 80kg within five years, with manufacturers aiming to hold power output at current levels - which would imply a virtual doubling of energy efficiency from today's standard.

That would be very good news indeed. It also seems that the cylinder config isn't determined yet or might be free to choose for manufacturers.

[wesley123]

Why not put up an consumption limit? Would love to see that and give team freedom in how to manage that.

[Scotracer]

I'm all for going to direct-injection engines and variable valve timing but they should keep them naturally aspirated just for the spectacle - the Turbos never sounded very good.

[WhiteBlue]

Why not put up an consumption limit? Would love to see that and give team freedom in how to manage that.

I understand that they do indeed plan to introduce a fuel cap or fuel budget per race.

[Scotracer]

Why not put up an consumption limit? Would love to see that and give team freedom in how to manage that.

Huge R&D costs to get performance gain.

[Just_a_fan]

The proposal in the BBC article referenced by WB is going to lead to massive spending in the engine R&D depts. This is probably seen as acceptable because of the possible road car links.

What is interesting is that running the cars themselves on track amounts to c.1% of the carbon emissions of the sport.

Running cars' engines in races and testing accounts for less than 1% of the sport's emissions, even though the cars run at less than five miles per gallon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_ ... 456984.stm

If Bernie could be persuaded to drop a long haul fly-away race e.g. Korea, they'd save as much carbon as they will after redesigning all of the engines.

Reducing wind tunnel and super computer use by 10% would also likely save more than the changed engines.

But doubling the efficiency of the engines is a nice headline; saving much more just by 'turning off the lights when not in use' is not so 'sexy' for the marketing men / politicians.

[Scotracer]

The proposal in the BBC article referenced by WB is going to lead to massive spending in the engine R&D depts. This is probably seen as acceptable because of the possible road car links.

What is interesting is that running the cars themselves on track amounts to c.1% of the carbon emissions of the sport.

Running cars' engines in races and testing accounts for less than 1% of the sport's emissions, even though the cars run at less than five miles per gallon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_ ... 456984.stm

If Bernie could be persuaded to drop a long haul fly-away race e.g. Korea, they'd save as much carbon as they will after redesigning all of the engines.

Reducing wind tunnel and super computer use by 10% would also likely save more than the changed engines.

But doubling the efficiency of the engines is a nice headline; saving much more just by 'turning off the lights when not in use' is not so 'sexy' for the marketing men / politicians.

And no more night races

[autogyro]

The projected changes in regulations are the most important and crucial issue in the history of F1.
Get it wrong and F1 has a limited shelf life.
Get it right and the sport could lead the way in global energy technology, the most important thing for a sustained and pleasant human future.

[WhiteBlue]

The proposal in the BBC article referenced by WB is going to lead to massive spending in the engine R&D depts. This is probably seen as acceptable because of the possible road car links.

F1 has always been about propulsion technology and I think that the manufacturers in F1 have a right to showcase their capabilities. They want to show the fuel efficient technology and it benefits the image of the sport with the public and the sponsors. If they manage the R&D without cost increase to their customers IMO the switch to the new formula would be great.

What is interesting is that running the cars themselves on track amounts to c.1% of the carbon emissions of the sport.

That is a point in the over all discussion of the carbon footprint which got a lot of publicity. Nevertheless, if F1 would continue to use power trains with twice the fuel consumption than feasible it would be doing a bad job.

If Bernie could be persuaded to drop a long haul fly-away race e.g. Korea, they'd save as much carbon as they will after redesigning all of the engines.

I don't think that is a valid point. If they would do no races they had no carbon emissions at all! So you have to see a race as a base quantity of the product and relate the carbon emission on a per race basis. More races means that the incremental carbon emissions would go down because a large part of the emissions are wind tunnel, factories, material for the cars and other fixed carbon emissions.

Reducing wind tunnel and super computer use by 10% would also likely save more than the changed engines.

The 15% savings in three years are largely based on the reductions in wind tunnel time and testing that FOTA have committed to for cost cutting reasons.. This is simply a PR whitewash to gain more milage for FOTA out of the already agreed resource restrictions.

And no more night races

I would also challenge this statement. If F1 reaches substantially more viewers with the product they can justify the minuscule carbon emissions from night races. You always have to see the emissions in relation to the produced result. If you increase viewing figures by 10% and increase the carbon footprint of that race by 0.1% you would be doing a very bad job to ban night racing.

[andrew]

The night races reminded me of some computer game. Not what should be in F1.

[strad]

Plans for adjustable rear wings next year are not set in stone, according to Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) chairman Martin Whitmarsh.

The idea, that gives chasing drivers the ability to reduce drag and therefore make overtaking easier, was championed by FOTA and recently rubber-stamped by the FIA. But there has been some opposition since the announcement; primarily by those who think it is an unnecessary and artificial ploy, and also those who are concerned about safety.

"We will see whether people are convinced by it or not," said Whitmarsh.

He admitted the moveable rear wing was developed due to "fan-based pressure" to improve the spectacle of overtaking, but said it is not certain the innovation will actually debut.

"I think we have got to do a little bit more work on deployment and the sporting regulations that accompany it, and if we get that right we'll give it a go," said Whitmarsh. "If detracts or isn't right, it's easy to take it off. But let's have a look at it; it's a bit of an experiment."

[strad]

I love racing under the lights