Shane2

Fia Unveils Radical Plans For 2011

195 posts in this topic

The FIA is pushing ahead with plans to radically shake up Formula 1’s technical regulations from 2011, by publishing proposals that include the introduction of electronically-controlled moveable wings.

The governing body’s plans are designed to make F1 more road-relevant, environmentally friendly and cost-effective while at the same time improve the spectacle by encouraging overtaking.

Following a meeting of the World Motor Sport Council in Paris on Wednesday, the FIA published a framework document which has been put together to prompt discussion with the teams and manufacturers with the aim of producing a concrete proposal by September.

The most radical aspects of the document concern the chassis regulations.

The FIA proposes to introduce moveable or active aerodynamic devices that would reduce the amount of drag generated by the wings on the straights while maximising it during cornering.

Such plans would be used to reduce drag, thereby saving energy, as well as improve overtaking.

Significantly advanced aerodynamic devices such as plasma generation, MEMS turbulators and shape-morphing are all under consideration within the document that could spearhead a revolution in F1 technology.

The FIA expects to revise plans to introduce 2.2-litre 6-cylinder engines which in conjunction with these chassis reforms would lead to unacceptable straightline speeds.

It is now estimated that engine capacity will be reduced to around 1.3-1.5 litre 4-cylinder engines, though no RPM or boost limits would be set.

Energy consumption will be capped, however.

In the interests of the sport as well as cost cuts, the FIA also proposes to abandon flat-bottomed undertrays and introduce a standardised floor with underbody aerodynamics.

The undertrays would produce the majority of the car’s downforce, lessening the problem of turbulence which is currently the main obstacle to overtaking. Winglets, bargeboards and other appendages will also be banned.

Finally a number of standardised and homologated components are expected to be introduced, including chassis and fuel cells that last the season and standard wheels, brakes and uprights.

These proposals have been set out to prompt discussion between the teams, but the objective is to have a definitive set of 2011 technical regulations by the end this year.

Key proposals are:

Engine efficiency

Limit engine power by imposing a maximum energy flow rate. There will be few restrictions on the engine cycle, which can include turbo-charging and energy recovery. This could lead to a gain of at least 20% in thermal efficiency.

Drag

Allow moving aerodynamic devices, which will reduce drag by more than 50% and allow a 40% reduction in the power required to maintain current speeds.

Energy recovery

Energy will be recovered during braking and returned to both front and rear axles when accelerating. The amount of energy returned on each straight will be limited in order to prevent top speeds exceeding circuit safety criteria.

Fuel

The total amount of fuel energy to be consumed during a race will be regulated, encouraging further overall efficiency. The CO2 emitted will be further reduced by the introduction of gasoline which is partly derived from sustainable, non-food bio sources but complies fully with pump fuel legislation.

Overtaking

New aerodynamic rules will halve the downforce, and de-sensitise the car to the influence of the wake of the car ahead. It is also proposed to eliminate automatically the downforce deficit of the following car.

Regulations

The best estimates of what these measures will mean in terms of regulations are currently as follows:

• 1.3-1.5 litre, 4-cylinder engine;

• no RPM or boost limit;

• energy flow rate to generate 300kW, including energy recovery from the exhaust;

• 200kW brake energy recovery, front and rear axle;

• 400-600kJ energy return per straight;

• pump-legal bio-fuel;

• FIA specified and supplied undertray and possibly other aerodynamic components;

• 50% 2007 downforce;

• adjustable, regulated wings and cooling;

• automatic downforce adjustment when following another car;

• lap times and top speeds maintained at 2009 levels;

• over 50% reduction in fuel consumed.

Costs

A number of measures to constrain costs are proposed, including:

• standardisation of components (including wheels, brakes, brake ducts and uprights);

• homologation of components and assemblies;

• material restrictions;

• extended life of assemblies;

• restrictions on personnel and work at races;

• restrictions on the use of certain facilities (eg wind tunnels).

All these measures will be developed into detailed regulations in close collaboration with the teams and manufacturers, prior to a full proposal being produced in September.

You can read a detailed description and the full proposals for the future of Formula 1 on the FIA's official website by clicking here.

Source: ITV-F1.com

Edited by Shane2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be interesting!

Adjustable wings, brilliant! Far less setup compromise, good idea. Don't like the idea of 50% 2007 downforce, but like the engine rules.

Just my quick 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regulations

The best estimates of what these measures will mean in terms of regulations are currently as follows:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving aerodynamic components might be a bit unsafe but will reduce drag which is a good thing! I'm not sure about the 1.3 & 1.5 litre engines!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good:

- gripy tires

- movable wings

- less drag

- suposebly no turbulence = overtaking

The bad:

- less drag = less aero brake power

[ Why when we're using movable wings and can regulate between low drag on straights, downforce on corners and aero brake on braking like the McMerc SLR ?! ]

- more weight + 18 kg

The ugly:

- 50% less downforce :furious::furious::furious:

- 1.3/1.5 litre inline 3/4 engines producing ~620 PS :furious::furious: :furious:

- lots of standardised/spec parts

The absolute disastrous:

- possible introduction of an

4WD + TC + ESP/ESC formula = more weight + more costs + more complexity + (even) slower cars + less skills :furious::furious:

- potentially even more spec-ing = death of GP racing :furious::furious:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally agree with the general idea that F1 racing is about racing at the cutting edge of technology, which to me is what distinguishes itself from other racing disciplines. And I agree that moving more towards reduction in energy consumption is the correct thing to be doing, providing of course current speeds are maintained and the spectacle is not compromised. It sounds like the aerodynamic rules are intended to ensure this.

What I can't agree with is the obsession with cost cutting. If you want to see F1 racing forging the way in driving technology, you have to accept that it's an expensive business. It seems to me the FIA are trying to be all things to all men here, and I'm not sure how far that will take us. It's not like we have a shortage of teams at the moment- and no matter how much you cut costs someone has to be at the back.

I think it's a good starting opint for discussion though- I expect the final regulations will end up watered down somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposal offers a mix of changes, some of which we will like and dislike. All I can say is this: Everyone, savour this season and the next two or three to come, as F1 is about to change drastically from the formula we currently enjoy. 2011 isn't so far away... :icon2_flag:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an article from grandprix.com:

The inside story on the latest 2011 proposals

The World Motorsport Council has been hearing today about the latest ideas for the rules for the FIA Formula 1 World Championship from 2011 onwards. It is important to point out that everything that is included in these proposals is open to discussion and that the manufacturers are playing an important role in the development of the regulations. The thaw in relations between the parties involved appears to bearing fruit and there is a promise of some fascinating new concepts.

The initial ideas of turbo-diesel engines have been dropped - as we suggested they would be. This was because of lack of support amongst the manufacturers. The move is now towards much smaller 4-cylinder engines with between 1.3-litre and 1.5-litre displacement. These will be turbocharged. Back in the 1980s Formula 1 built 1.5-litre turbos that were capable of producing an astonishing 1500hp but the engines being discussed today would be much less powerful because of greater control on the electronics and, most importantly, on the fuels that will be used. Efficiency will be the key to the new engines with F1 path-finding and changing perceptions for the automotive industry.

That at least is the plan.

"Savings on fuel that will send out a super message," says Tony Purnell, the former boss of Jaguar Racing who is working on the new rules for the F1. "The engines will also have small electric-assist elements which we hope will make them sexy for the fans. There is no chance of the engines producing the same sort of horsepower because they will not have to push the cars down the straights with the downforce generating devices that we have today. We are going to be working with the fuel companies because no-one wants a fuel race of any kind. The engines we imagine in 2011 will be quite different because they will be designed for efficiency with the electrical-assist features built in."

Purnell says that the engines will probably only be producing around 400 horsepower but will feature push-to-pass buttons that will unleash regenerative energy created by the cars. This will produce "considerable" extra power.

"It would be a maximum of 250 extra horsepower," says Purnell. "But you won't get it for long. Or you can have a little extra power for a longer time. That will create new strategic elements in the racing."

The latest ideas on aerodynamics include active front and rear wings on the cars, so that they will change angle as they go down the straights, creating less drag and thus allowing the cars to go faster.

"Today all the cars contain multiple motion-control systems," says Purnell. "They are all safety-critical. Nowadays F1 teams know how to design safety critical systems and know how to look after fail-safe features. They are commonplace in F1 and are not fundamentally dangerous. The level of sophistocation is much more advanced than when F1 first tried movable wings in the 1960s and active suspension systems in the 1980s. That was pioneering stuff and the sophistocation was not there. I am quite relaxed about the idea in F1."

Another key element in the new proposals is that the FIA will produce its own underbodies which teams will have to bolt to their cars.

"The main downforce-generating element on an F1 car is the underside," says Purnell. "By removing that we will equalise the cars somewhat and it will mean that aero gains from the top surfaces would be only second order gains At the moment you might spend $5m to gain 4% more downforce, in the future if you spent the same amount the gains would be about of tenth of that.

"What we are reallly trying to is to put in rules that will improve the show. That means different things to different people but we get the impression that fans want to see closer racing and overtaking. Active aerodynamics and active balance control is the way to do that. At the moment the balance goes to pot when you are in the wake of another car. If we are able to change the aero balance of a car that is in turbulence behind another car, the drivers will be more confident to overtake."

To achieve this the FIA is proposing a system of turbulence sensors which will react when a car is in the wake of another vehicle and will lower the ride-height and changed the pitch of the car to give it downforce. It will then be able to get into the slipstream of the car in front.

"What we are trying to create is a formula to make good racing as well as very sophistocated cars that will have some benefit for production cars and not cost too much. In F1 money is spent if money is there but we can attempt to make the money spent less rewarding in terms of lap times."

The latest set of proposals are just that. There is much talking still to be done but the signs are that the FIA is moving towards creating a F1 that will be more spectacular than it is today, with more interesting technologies and more actual racing.

And that cannot be a bad thing.

"I don't mind people not agreeing with what we are doing," says Purnell, "but I find it difficult being criticised for what we are trying to do."

I'm going to go and vomit right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: I agree with their aims. For me the problem is that they don't go far enough: 'twould be better to just get rid of the teams, but given that that is not going to happen, this is a good solution. Frankly I'm slightly surprised the top teams would even consider these half-measures, but I guess improving the show is in their interests too - so long as the show doesn't improve too much! Also there is a drive to cut costs, which works in favour of these half-measures.

On a related matter, I'd like to know more about how this aerodynamic adjustment idea will increase overtaking. It seems that the crucial point is that the sensors will be set by the FIA to only operate when behind another car and in turbulence. Otherwise the car in front could just match downforce settings, which would surely negate much of the advantage, although probably not the whole advantage, of these systems on the car behind? Also they would have to watch for the team in front having a "defensive, turbulent-wake-generating" aero setting to switch to in the corners, if these adjustments were completely unregulated. This kind of artificial aid to overtaking is questionable imho, but not necessarily wrong, because it's the same for everyone, even if it is a little contrived.

Anyway on the whole I think these proposals take F1 in the right direction. If a standardised underbody reduces the downforce gained per pound spent by the teams by a whole order of magnitude then that's a huge improvement for me. We should see closer and fairer racing between the drivers. The standardised brakes, uprights etc should improve things even more. Customer chassis will also do the sport some good before then. All the extra restrictions, for example on wind tunnel use, personnel, engine operation, fuel used, energy recovery etc (though no longer on RPM limits, alas) will work wonders too.

There aren't many people who share my vision of F1. Fortunately for me, Max Mosley, Tony Purnell, and other people involved in F1, are some of those few!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: I agree with their aims. For me the problem is that they don't go far enough: 'twould be better to just get rid of the teams.

The day they do that will be the day I stop watching F1 forever. Interesting viewpoint though- maybe you will get your way!

I'm intrigued to know how it's going to pan out though. I've never been in the camp that believes overtaking is the be all and end all of motor racing, so I'd be hugely against any system which purposely favours the car behind just to artificially encourage overtaking. I'd rather see them prune some of the tracks which have no overtaking possiblities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is to give the car grip and downforce by changing the way the bottom of the car is presented to the ground, and if it gets more grip through that method it will be less vulnerable to the preceding car's turbulance when trying to follow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we're still losing a lot of power and downforce.

And while I can live with TC, due to the insane cornering speeds of today, AWD + ESP/ESC + TC is simply taking away both speed, skill and differentiation when it comes to cornering.

I rather have computers car with no drivers that corner differently than the proposed solution of AWD + ESP/ESC +TC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everythings changes, mates! And F1 should be no exception! The F1 was, is and should be the at the cutting edge of the technology, but useful technology with a direct stremline to everyday cars. So everyday cars packs a lot of electronic devices and F1 should not?

The key factor is racing: I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The F1 was, is and should be the at the cutting edge of the technology,

Agreed. But this proposed and unnecesary reduction in power and downforce

but useful technology with a direct stremline to everyday cars.

There are technologies that have streamlined to production cars and/or have been developed/improved in GP racing. But, big this is a formula series.

The formulaes introduced before WWI have led to the differentiations between production cars and "GP cars", till we ended up with the true custom GP cars (not modified production sport cars).

This is a formula series, so either we don't don't call it a "Formula 1" since it won't be a formulae serie, or we stop with the road relevance non-sense.

This is GP/F1 racing. It doesn't need any justification no be green and/or road relevant, because it simply wasn't meant to be the saviour of the planet or road relevant, or justifiable to some non-sense zealots.

I say leave it be what it is/meant ot be or kill it and be done, don't try to turn GP racing into please em all non-sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. But this proposed and unnecesary reduction in power and downforce

There are technologies that have streamlined to production cars and/or have been developed/improved in GP racing. But, big this is a formula series.

The formulaes introduced before WWI have led to the differentiations between production cars and "GP cars", till we ended up with the true custom GP cars (not modified production sport cars).

This is a formula series, so either we don't don't call it a "Formula 1" since it won't be a formulae serie, or we stop with the road relevance non-sense.

This is GP/F1 racing. It doesn't need any justification no be green and/or road relevant, because it simply wasn't meant to be the saviour of the planet or road relevant, or justifiable to some non-sense zealots.

I say leave it be what it is/meant ot be or kill it and be done, don't try to turn GP racing into please em all non-sense.

That

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not what I meant.

I'm all for movable aero parts, and active suspensions and whatever makes GP cars go faster and improves spectacle simultanious.

What I disagree with, is the major decrease of power/proposed engines, major loss of downforce and extra weight. And this is done in the name of road relevance, green-ness, fuel consumption reduction.

1.3/1.5 litre 3/4 cylinder cars producing 620 hp in an F1 car ?!

We have cars like the, Murcielago 640, Veyron and Co. witch produce more, a lot more.

And the essence of GP racing is about progress, the struggle to push/break the limits and thus defeat the competition.

If the technologies that push the limits are road relevant or not, is NOT important.

On Gilles, Andretti, lauda, Peterson, Stewart, and many outstanding and so outstanding drivers F1 cars had around 500 HP (485 cosworth, 510 Ferrari and 530 Alfa for a while) and despite of this was a better show than today. On the late

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all the people complaining about the engine performance restrictions being considered: what do you want to happen? If we don't keep tightening the rules, the cars will be far too fast for any human to drive. Shall we just put robots in the cars?

Also I see no one has been able to answer my question about how movable aero devices will ease overtaking, despite you all pretending that technical innovation is the main reason you watch F1...

(Thanks Shane for trying, and what you said was correct, but I specifically want to know about the new movable devices)

Edited by Murray Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is for them to reduce the amount of drag the car produces on the straights and generally increase its efficiency. I don't think they are really aimed at improving overtaking to be honest, it is generally to improve aero and fuel efficiency (yep, less drag means the engine doesn't have to work as hard to push the car through the air), as the mandate said, allowing all the Aero parts to flex would produce the same amount of speed, with a 40% reduction in engine power needed.

Due to these measures, the cars will still, IMO be very fast, with flexible aero parts, the cut in engine power will actually cause very little if any noticable speed loss, due to the massive increase in efficiency, and as there will be no RPM or Boost limits (and the engines will be turbo engines), the cars will actually be about as fast as they are now, so it is by no means a bad idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To all the people complaining about the engine performance restrictions being considered: what do you want to happen? If we don't keep tightening the rules, the cars will be far too fast for any human to drive. Shall we just put robots in the cars?

Also I see no one has been able to answer my question about how movable aero devices will ease overtaking, despite you all pretending that technical innovation is the main reason you watch F1...

(Thanks Shane for trying, and what you said was correct, but I specifically want to know about the new movable devices)

The other thing to consider are the tracks because many of them are not good for today cars by today safety standarts and for today car performance in order to allow racing as it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- 50% less downforce :furious::furious::furious:

Why do you want more downforce? So that we have even higher cornering speeds, with cars glued to the track and virtually straightlining what used to be high speed hair raising corners, and make tracks like silverstone a virtual no brake zone?

- 1.3/1.5 litre inline 3/4 engines producing ~620 PS :furious::furious: :furious:

Where did you get the 620PS figure? Did you miss the removal of restrictions on turbos? How much power did 1.5 litre turbos produce again? Oh, that's right, a lot more than today's engines.

- lots of standardised/spec parts

The absolute disastrous:

- possible introduction of an

4WD + TC + ESP/ESC formula = more weight + more costs + more complexity + (even) slower cars + less skills :furious: :furious:

Agree there, though less skills are the only relevant part of the latter.

Why do you favour TC? What is the point of keeping TC with standard ECUs?

I'm going to go and vomit right now.

I agree. And it is not just the fact that these proposed rules are ridiculous, it's the fact that they have turned this into a huge joke, coming up with ridiculous proposals all the time, changing proposals every year, trumpeting bulls##t buzzwords like green technology and cost saving. It is a relentless stream of abuse and an insult to the intelligence of fans of the sport, I don't think I can take much more.

On a related matter, I'd like to know more about how this aerodynamic adjustment idea will increase overtaking.

They won't. It's a red herring. The incredible thing is they have gone back on everything the proposed for the 2008 regulations that made a lot of sense. Now suddenly we have a completely different engine formula proposed, going back on the aero proposals, the plan to reintroduce slicks has been abandoned for no apparent reason.

It's like the proverbial infinite monkeys with typewriters, they'll eventually come up with something, good but I am not holding my breath.

And while I can live with TC, due to the insane cornering speeds of today,

What does TC have to do with cornering speeds and why do we want those crazy cornering speeds?

The idea is for them to reduce the amount of drag the car produces on the straights and generally increase its efficiency. I don't think they are really aimed at improving overtaking to be honest, it is generally to improve aero and fuel efficiency (yep, less drag means the engine doesn't have to work as hard to push the car through the air),

Fuel efficiency? The engine will do exactly the same amount of work, it's how fast the car goes. F1 drivers aren't going to lift off the throttle if you reduce drag with moveale aero. Or is drivers lifting off on the straights part of Max's proposals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuel efficiency? The engine will do exactly the same amount of work, it's how fast the car goes. F1 drivers aren't going to lift off the throttle if you reduce drag with moveale aero. Or is drivers lifting off on the straights part of Max's proposals?

Try reading the post properly. The idea is to INCREASE THE AERO EFFICIENCY and CUT THE ENGINE POWER enabling the car to go at the same speed, with a drastic reduction in engine output, which will make F1 cars a lot more environmentally friendly, and efficient

Edited by Shane2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we gonna need teams anymore? They're trying to make every car the same with more and more artificial rules. The only thing FIA should have a say on should be the size of the engine.

I know it's not possible. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone needs to blow up max mosely's office :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you want more downforce? So that we have even higher cornering speeds, with cars glued to the track and virtually straightlining what used to be high speed hair raising corners, and make tracks like silverstone a virtual no brake zone?

Agree. Mechanical grip should trump aero grip.

I agree. And it is not just the fact that these proposed rules are ridiculous, it's the fact that they have turned this into a huge joke, coming up with ridiculous proposals all the time, changing proposals every year, trumpeting bulls##t buzzwords like green technology and cost saving. It is a relentless stream of abuse and an insult to the intelligence of fans of the sport, I don't think I can take much more.

Yup. Also, the gagging part for me concerns the FIA banning flexible wings on the Ferrari then they go and propose the use of flexible wings! WTF??

They won't. It's a red herring. The incredible thing is they have gone back on everything the proposed for the 2008 regulations that made a lot of sense. Now suddenly we have a completely different engine formula proposed, going back on the aero proposals, the plan to reintroduce slicks has been abandoned for no apparent reason.

This strengthens my crazy belief that this is all a set-up to kill the value of Formula 1 so Bernie can buy it back from the banks at a profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now