Nice video on 2009 F1 design

Here's a nice video with Sebastian Vettel explaining the 2009 changes. Even if you're already familiar with the rules the graphics here are really well done.
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2009/02/sebastian-vette.html

I have to admit the new designs are growing on me. The big front wing harks back to the gorgeous Jordan 191, and the clean bodies without shark gills and winglets are a welcome sight. I bet that prepping the models of these cars (assuming there are any affordable ones later) will be a lot quicker and easier than the 2008 Ferrari or McLaren. Having said that I notice that both Ferrari and Red Bull have stretched the point of no appendages with the wing mirrors - I wonder if the scrutineers will clear that after the first GP of the year?

I think the f1 cars look ugly with the new 09 rules... Ok, so they thrown in a few extra's like the slicks, and the boost thingy... Nice video btw :smile:

Thanks for the link!
The new cars remind me the F1 racers from the beginning of the 90's with nice flowing lines, without all those winglets that made the latest ones look like Christmas trees.

I like 'em.

But why didn't the FIA allow adjustable REAR wings? If KERS does what it's supposed to do, it's likely to induce power oversteer on mid-speed bends. Seems like a wider, adjustable rear wing is the solution.

That first turn at Melbourne should be something to watch.

Ddms

But why didn't the FIA allow adjustable REAR wings? If KERS does what it's supposed to do, it's likely to induce power oversteer on mid-speed bends. Seems like a wider, adjustable rear wing is the solution.

I remember adjustable rear wings were originally banned after some spectacular structural failures (Graham Hill at Monaco comes to mind). I suppose the smaller non-adjustable wings today are in line with the "clean air" overtaking initiative. Using driver controlled rear wings I could just picture Fernando giving Lewis a whiff of foul air through Rascasse!


That first turn at Melbourne should be something to watch.

Yes. I think it's the Nascar crowd who say "When the flag drops the B***S*** stops!"

Using driver controlled rear wings I could just picture Fernando giving Lewis a whiff of foul air through Rascasse!

Rather it be the other way around!

Actually, I think it was the '69 Spanish GP where both Hill's and Rindt's wings failed spectacularly.

I wasn't thinking of anything so elevated and hilariously flimsy as Michel May's Porsche '56 RSR:

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s28/DidymusThomas/mm-ring56.jpg

Car construction and materials have advanced a smidgen since then, and a driver-adjustable rear wing might be feasible. Worth testing, anyhow, especially if KERS-equipped cars prove prone to sudden spins.

Ddms

Car construction and materials have advanced a smidgen since then, and a driver-adjustable rear wing might be feasible. Worth testing, anyhow, especially if KERS-equipped cars prove prone to sudden spins.

Ddms




KERS will be allowed to be used only for some 7 seconds per lap and because cornering speed is usually largely inferior to the top speeds I bet they will use KERS on the straights and on the straights they could even go without a rear wing.

Also the new regulations are trying to reduce speeds during cornering and a smaller rear wing that gives less downforce is an efficient way to do just that, so aa driver adjustable rear wing would be contrary to what they were trying to achieve.

KERS will be allowed to be used only for some 7 seconds per lap and because cornering speed is usually largely inferior to the top speeds I bet they will use KERS on the straights and on the straights they could even go without a rear wing.

I'm not sure that cornering speed was a major issue with regard to either KERS or the narrow rear wing. The main idea behind the smaller wing and smaller diffusers is to reduce turbulence behind the car that prevents passing. Says Charlie Whiting, who is a member of the FIA's Overtaking Working Group, "We came up with a package that gave a following car less disturbance and would make overtaking less difficult."

As to cornering speeds, if they really wanted them to be reduced, they would have stayed with grooved tires. They've reduced complexity and costs (a major goal) by substituting mechanical grip for aero grip. (Wind tunnel testing is not cheap.)

KERS was initiated by the Overtaking Working Group. According to Whiting, the purposes of KERS are to enable more passing and to show off advanced technology - the hallmark of F1.

If KERS is only used on the straights, it's not serving its purpose, and will have no more effect than a simple increase in power. We'd be back to a simple horsepower-based race, with no more driver input than we had in 2008. If it's to do its job, KERS will be used most on turn exits, where nearly all passing takes place. But that's also where wheelspin-induced spins take place.

The most critical part of a race is the first turn; the leader coming out of the first turn is the most likely car to win the race. That's why the first turn at Melbourne should be so exciting, with every KERS-equipped driver hitting the KERS button in order to gain (or hold onto) position. Whoopee!

The cars are equipped with KERS charging on-off buttons, so I wouldn't be surprised if the FIA banned KERS charging on the warm-up lap in order to stave off first-turn mayhem. But unless something is done to offset KERS-related wheelspin on turn exits, the potential will be there for the remainder of the race.

Ddms

I'm not sure that cornering speed was a major issue with regard to either KERS or the narrow rear wing. The main idea behind the smaller wing and smaller diffusers is to reduce turbulence behind the car that prevents passing. Says Charlie Whiting, who is a member of the FIA's Overtaking Working Group, "We came up with a package that gave a following car less disturbance and would make overtaking less difficult."

As to cornering speeds, if they really wanted them to be reduced, they would have stayed with grooved tires. They've reduced complexity and costs (a major goal) by substituting mechanical grip for aero grip. (Wind tunnel testing is not cheap.)

KERS was initiated by the Overtaking Working Group. According to Whiting, the purposes of KERS are to enable more passing and to show off advanced technology - the hallmark of F1.

If KERS is only used on the straights, it's not serving its purpose, and will have no more effect than a simple increase in power. We'd be back to a simple horsepower-based race, with no more driver input than we had in 2008. If it's to do its job, KERS will be used most on turn exits, where nearly all passing takes place. But that's also where wheelspin-induced spins take place.

The most critical part of a race is the first turn; the leader coming out of the first turn is the most likely car to win the race. That's why the first turn at Melbourne should be so exciting, with every KERS-equipped driver hitting the KERS button in order to gain (or hold onto) position. Whoopee!

The cars are equipped with KERS charging on-off buttons, so I wouldn't be surprised if the FIA banned KERS charging on the warm-up lap in order to stave off first-turn mayhem. But unless something is done to offset KERS-related wheelspin on turn exits, the potential will be there for the remainder of the race.

Ddms

I stand by my opinion.
Using KERS while cornering is of no use at all (and given that it's use is very limited by the rules it would only rob them of any potential lap time gain) simply because in order to successfully go through a turn they need to break and not to accelerate.

Using KERS on a straight will help them get a better lap time, if they ever decide to use KERS during a race given that it is allowed but not compulsory.

Also a smaller rear wing does not necesarily mean you will get less dirty air in the wake of the car, which is why they mandated a much bigger front wing in order to allow the folowing car to have more front end grip than before. The fact that the rear wing is higher and that the difuser will be different is where the difference lies in my opinion, because the result is a lot less downforce produced at the rear of the car.

Using KERS while cornering is of no use at all (and given that it's use is very limited by the rules it would only rob them of any potential lap time gain) simply because in order to successfully go through a turn they need to break and not to accelerate.

Are you really saying that extra acceleration during turn exit would not be useful?

If races were won on the basis of terminal straight line speed, Ferrari could have hired Scott Speed and Nelson Piquet Jr. and won every race.

Using KERS on a straight will help them get a better lap time...Keep in mind that the additional power from KERS is linear - it provides the same "kick" regardless of RPM. It will have the greatest effect on lap times when it can be used to improve acceleration out of turns. The sooner it kicks in, the greater advantage it provides. A driver's ability to judge when he can push the KERS button will be crucial.

...if they ever decide to use KERS during a race given that it is allowed but not compulsory.I know some teams have lobbied against it, but there's not much doubt KERS will be used. The teams have invested significant time and money in development, and the cars testing in Jerez and Bahrein are equipped with it. Any team (ex-Honda?) that doesn't use it will be at a significant disadvantage.

Also a smaller rear wing does not necesarily mean you will get less dirty air in the wake of the car, which is why they mandated a much bigger front wing in order to allow the folowing car to have more front end grip than before. The fact that the rear wing is higher and that the difuser will be different is where the difference lies in my opinion, because the result is a lot less downforce produced at the rear of the car.I was unaware that front-end lift has been a limiting factor in passing. Or that a following car benefits from understeer.

I'll take Charlie Whiting's word (previous message) on why the Overtaking Working Group signed off on new aero package. Of all people, he ought to know.

Ddms

Are you really saying that extra acceleration during turn exit would not be useful?

Sure it will but only once the car is not turning anymore. I don't think they can use traction control of any kind, not even on KESR, so it would mean 60kW applied almost at once and that wouldn't help them much, on the contrary it would disturb the fragile equilibrium of the car.

If races were won on the basis of terminal straight line speed, Ferrari could have hired Scott Speed and Nelson Piquet Jr. and won every race.

I'm not sure what you base your assumptions on.

Keep in mind that the additional power from KERS is linear - it provides the same "kick" regardless of RPM. It will have the greatest effect on lap times when it can be used to improve acceleration out of turns. The sooner it kicks in, the greater advantage it provides. A driver's ability to judge when he can push the KERS button will be crucial.

An the drivers will not push that button before getting the wheels straight, otherwise the "kick" will send them spinning off.

I know some teams have lobbied against it, but there's not much doubt KERS will be used. The teams have invested significant time and money in development, and the cars testing in Jerez and Bahrein are equipped with it. Any team (ex-Honda?) that doesn't use it will be at a significant disadvantage.

In fact only one team was for it, BMW.
Toyota didn't even mount it on their cars for the Bahrain tests, and they are not planing to use it before the 2nd half of the season. And they are right because it's easier to get the cars sorted out and set-up perfectly by using that weight (30 to 35 kgs reported for now) as strategical ballast to balance the car.
Toyota were only 1 tenth of the pace of Ferrari in todays test session without using KERS and they didn't had any reliability problems with their car, while the Ferrari and BMW spent ours in the garage to mend the KERS.
And we are talking about 0.1 seconds over a lap, but it is reported that during long stint the Toyota is even closer to Ferrari, without needing KERS.


I was unaware that front-end lift has been a limiting factor in passing. Or that a following car benefits from understeer.

The drivers complained numerous times during the past years that once they get close enough in the wake of a leading car, the cars are very difficult to control and they also have to brake earlier, making overtaking almost impossible between cars with equal performance.

Sure it will but only once the car is not turning anymore. I don't think they can use traction control of any kind, not even on KESR, so it would mean 60kW applied almost at once and that wouldn't help them much, on the contrary it would disturb the fragile equilibrium of the car.

You're right that no traction control will be allowed (if you don't count launch control), and a too-sudden application of power will disturb equilibrium. That's exactly my point - the pressure to push the K-button as soon as possible after a turn - or just a little bit too soon! - will be very, very great.

Imagine an erstwhile contender like Kubica or Vettel neck-and-neck with Lewis coming out of Turn 1 on the first lap, tied for the lead, with the KERS fully charged. The first driver to hit the button will jump into first place, if he can use KERS and keep the back end from coming around. In that circumstance, who could bear to wait until there is zero lateral force on the car?

An the drivers will not push that button before getting the wheels straight... OH YES THEY WILL!!!! First of all, it's not necessary to wait that long. KERS or no KERS, power must be judiciously applied while the car is still turning. Unless the driver is prepared to fall behind, of course.

In the heat of battle, mistakes are made even by drivers like Hamilton and Massa - not to mention backmarkers like Adrian Sutil and Kazuki Nakajima. Time will tell, of course, but unless they change the rear wings - or narrow the fronts - I expect this to be the Year of the Safety Car.

A rear wing in proportion to the front would reduce oversteer and tend to keep the car in balance under exactly those conditions. I am not an aerodynamicist, but these new cars sure seem imbalanced to me, and KERS will only make matters worse.

You may not remember when Porsche introduced the Turbo Carrera - the first production turbo sports car, I believe. The turbo had a "power burst" effect that was similar to KERS - sudden, power-induced oversteer. As I recall, a lot of insurance companies wouldn't even write a policy on that car. It will be interesting to see if F1 drivers start complaining about oversteer. The hum-drum lap times we're seeing in testing may indeed be the first sign of tail-out problems.

Toyota didn't even mount it on their cars for the Bahrain tests...Well, Toyota is not a contender, and not representative of the teams. The guys who matter will all introduce it at some point early in the season. Betcha Ferrari, BMW Williams, McLaren and even Renault have it at Melbourne.

The drivers complained numerous times during the past years that once they get close enough in the wake of a leading car, the cars are very difficult to control and they also have to brake earlier, making overtaking almost impossible between cars with equal performance.True, but that was because of leading-car turbulence, not because prospective overtakers had insufficient downforce. According to their own statements, the OWG made rules to reduce turbulence, not to compensate for it with a wide front wing - which, AFAIK, would have virtually no effect on braking or lateral stability.

In fact, during heavy braking, rear ends get light and rear wheels tend to lock up. Motorcyclists are way too familiar with that phenomenon. That may be yet another problem made worse by the 2009 teeny tiny tailfeather rules.

There have been rumors that the old front wings were actually designed to split the airstream and create turbulence behind the car, but I don't know whether that's ever been confirmed. Perhaps you can point us to some data supporting the idea that the new front wing setup will enhance passing ability - and exactly how it will do that.

We probably should continue this enjoyable non-modeling discussion in the Formula-One Forum. That forum could use a steroid injection; the most recent post is from November!

Ddms

You're right that no traction control will be allowed (if you don't count launch control), and a too-sudden application of power will disturb equilibrium. That's exactly my point - the pressure to push the K-button as soon as possible after a turn - or just a little bit too soon! - will be very, very great.

Well TC was not allowed last season already, so it will certainly not be allowed this season either.

Imagine an erstwhile contender like Kubica or Vettel neck-and-neck with Lewis coming out of Turn 1 on the first lap, tied for the lead, with the KERS fully charged. The first driver to hit the button will jump into first place, if he can use KERS and keep the back end from coming around. In that circumstance, who could bear to wait until there is zero lateral force on the car?

Well, the one who has the optimum trajectory out of the corner will be first no matter if they use or don't use KERS.

OH YES THEY WILL!!!! First of all, it's not necessary to wait that long. KERS or no KERS, power must be judiciously applied while the car is still turning. Unless the driver is prepared to fall behind, of course.

TC is not allowed, so how do you judiciously apply power coming from KERS using a simple push button?


In the heat of battle, mistakes are made even by drivers like Hamilton and Massa - not to mention backmarkers like Adrian Sutil and Kazuki Nakajima. Time will tell, of course, but unless they change the rear wings - or narrow the fronts - I expect this to be the Year of the Safety Car.

I wouldn't use Hamilton or Massa as a benchmark for cool heads in F1, try going with Alonso or Heidfeld.


A rear wing in proportion to the front would reduce oversteer and tend to keep the car in balance under exactly those conditions. I am not an aerodynamicist, but these new cars sure seem imbalanced to me, and KERS will only make matters worse.

That's what I'm saying from the start they made the rules in order to have imbalanced cars in order to reduce cornering speed and increase the braking distance in order to improve safety during cornering nad also overtaking chances.


Well, Toyota is not a contender, and not representative of the teams. The guys who matter will all introduce it at some point early in the season. Betcha Ferrari, BMW Williams, McLaren and even Renault have it at Melbourne.

I wouldn't write Toyota off, not before the start of the first European based race.


True, but that was because of leading-car turbulence, not because prospective overtakers had insufficient downforce.

Well, as far as I know turbulence = less downforce, so I would say the two are very closely related.


According to their own statements, the OWG made rules to reduce turbulence, not to compensate for it with a wide front wing - which, AFAIK, would have virtually no effect on braking or lateral stability.

The OWG (or should I say CW) might say whatever they wish but most of the technical directors were skeptical about the results of the proposed changes.

Also the brakes bias on a F1 car is towards the front and more downforce on the front axle means better handling under braking.

There is also the point about the moveable front flaps that will be allowed from this season on (2 changes per lap are allowed). They were introduced in order to give the following car even more front end grip to allow it to come even closer to the leading car in order to attempt a pass.


In fact, during heavy braking, rear ends get light and rear wheels tend to lock up. Motorcyclists are way too familiar with that phenomenon. That may be yet another problem made worse by the 2009 teeny tiny tailfeather rules.

Agree with that, but the slicks are there to give them better control of the rear of the car together with better rear end grip.
Also it is the job of a good driver to control the car.
IMO the use of KERS, which is being charged under braking will upset the stability of the car even more than the smaller wing.


There have been rumors that the old front wings were actually designed to split the airstream and create turbulence behind the car, but I don't know whether that's ever been confirmed. Perhaps you can point us to some data supporting the idea that the new front wing setup will enhance passing ability - and exactly how it will do that.

I say that runors are just that, rumors.
The front wing should not create turbulences because the air that goes over the car has to have a laminar flow in order to give the best results in terms of downforce on the rear part of the car.
The air that goes under the car should also be laminar in order to get most downforce from the difuser.

IMO the rear wing and the difuser were the ones creating most turbulences, not the front wing.


We probably should continue this enjoyable non-modeling discussion in the Formula-One Forum. That forum could use a steroid injection; the most recent post is from November!

Ddms

I wasn't even aware there is such a forum around here.
Anyway I think it will not be very useful to continue to debate this as long as we are heading into almost opposed directions.

Let's rather wait for the season to start in order to have more data at hand. :)

Well, the one who has the optimum trajectory out of the corner will be first no matter if they use or don't use KERS.

So the rate of acceleration out of a corner doesn't matter?

TC is not allowed, so how do you judiciously apply power coming from KERS using a simple push button?The usual way, with the throttle.

...they made the rules in order to have imbalanced cars in order to reduce cornering speed and increase the braking distance in order to improve safety during cornering nad also overtaking chances.I can see how chassis imbalance reduces cornering speed, but nobody from the OWG has suggested that they intended to mandate unbalanced cars in order to slow them down on corners. Their main focus, as the name of the group suggests, was overtaking.

I had no idea that the OWG/FIA intended to increase braking distances. What's your source for that?

Even the FIA cannot possibly believe that there's anything safe about imbalanced cars with lousy braking. But I'm glad you (seem to ) agree that the combination of KERS and reduced rear downforce will result in imbalanced cars. That was my point from the beginning.

There is also the point about the moveable front flaps that will be allowed from this season on (2 changes per lap are allowed). They were introduced in order to give the following car even more front end grip to allow it to come even closer to the leading car in order to attempt a pass.The low placement might lessen the effects of upwash and make passing a bit easier. But at the cost of oversteer, a very dangerous handling characteristic.

IMO the use of KERS, which is being charged under braking will upset the stability of the car even more than the smaller wing.Under what conditions do you think KERS-charging will upset the stability of the car? And how?

IMO the rear wing and the difuser were the ones creating most turbulences, not the front wing.I fully agree.

Let's rather wait for the season to start in order to have more data at hand. :)But then we'd know the answers, and there'd be no point to the discussion, which is to reason through how the new KERS and aero rules will affect F1.

Ddms