Fia Unveils Radical Plans For 2011

[DOF_power 0]

Good! Then if these movable aero devices are responsive enough, maybe the car can "navigate" through the front car's turbulence like a plane would do and not lose as much downforce as today. Just an idea.

They also camed with other ideas to complete that.

The chassis-aero ideas are good to terrific, in theory, up some point.

Still 50% downforce would be lost (and considering ground effects this is unnecesary), and the engine ideas are quite idiotic.

[Max Mosley 2]

But I still don't understand how they will work! Only way I can see is if there is a standardised FIA system that adjusts the car behind's settings when in turbulent air.

[DOF_power 0]

n summary, the framework and its discussion points are as follows:

1. Aerodynamics:

Compared to today, the 2011 car regulations will aim for ~50% less maximum downforce and ~50% less maximum drag (i.e. that experienced at maximum speed). The precise figures, including centre of pressure requirements will be fixed through

1

. The aim will be

simulation work under the guidance of an FIA Aerodynamic Working Group

to make the 2011 cars marginally faster in terms of lap times than the 2009 / 2010 cars, but

with broadly similar top speeds. This is to be achieved by:

a. A prescribed downforce-generating under-tray and skid ‘plank’ extending to the very

rear of the car. This will have a forward centre of pressure to minimise the size of

the front wing. This component will generate the majority of aerodynamic downforce.

These parts will be supplied by the FIA along with fixing mechanisms which must be

rigidly incorporated into the main chassis and power-train components.

b. Front and rear wings being constrained to fit within defined ‘boxes’ and consist of a

fixed number of elements. The purpose of this is to constrain the designer from

producing overly complex assemblies. The rear wing will be the main mechanism by

which adaptive drag is achieved, while the relatively small (compared to today) front

wing serves as a trim to achieve balance. The front wing ‘box’ will be close to the

ground to minimise the affect of wake turbulence.

c. Front and rear wing settings maybe electronically controlled, but 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 under acceleration so as to retain overall lap times. Fail-

safe design, as used on aircraft, will be mandated.

Discussion Point: The FIA have considered supply of front and rear wings on the same basis

as the under-tray, i.e. fully prescribed and FIA supplied. However, while this will produce

further cost saving, it is thought that a variety in design solutions of such a highly visible part

will be attractive to the fans. The input of the teams is welcome.

2. Main Chassis and general body work:

a. The main chassis is to have fixing points for attachment of the FIA supplied under-

tray assembly. These must be rigid with respect to the engine mounts.

b. Space will be mandated for fitting power-train components within the chassis and

bodywork so their design is not unduly constrained by aerodynamic consideration.

c. The bodywork is to be ‘cleaned up’ compared to today’s cars by a regulation

preventing overlapping surfaces, while retaining a similar restriction to today with

regards both overall and side-pod height. (This bans barge-boards, X-wings, etc).

d. Cooling assemblies may incorporate adaptive devices. These may be electronically

controlled, but must be contained within fully-ducted configurations with the primary

objective of minimising drag.

Discussion Point: Freedom on the top side bodywork and chassis design will differentiate

between constructors, but lead to costs that could otherwise be avoided. Input is welcomed

as to the extent the FIA should go in this respect. Is the balance about right?

6. Improving the show:

A turbulence sensor complete with an aircraft type back up system (for

robustness) will be supplied by the FIA. When travelling in high turbulence levels such as

those generated by the close presence of a leading car, the ride height of the car, both front

and rear, must be altered in response to the output of this sensor (within a set range, at a set

rate, and with appropriate hysteresis, determined from time to time by the FIA) to

compensate for the degradation in performance. In free stream the car is to return to a

baseline ride height. The purpose is to allow for full compensation for downforce losses due

to being in the wake of another car.

[DOF_power 0]

Formula One engineers go to great lengths to minimise drag at high speed using ride height

control to set the car at the minimum drag attitude. Even using aero-elasticity will not have

escaped their consideration. Controlling these developments within the regulations is extremely

hard due to the need to scrutineer the car while moving to determine what is happening.

There are areas of activity within both automotive and aircraft development that are areas of

active research with regards to drag reduction. Pertinent to this paper is the renewed interest in

[Max Mosley 2]

Cheers. Point six is closest to what I was thinking, except that it's about ride height not active aero as far as I can see. They don't seem to include active aero in "improving the show" or mention it in connection with overtaking.

[DOF_power 0]

Although adaptive wings, front and rear, are not relevant to road cars, they do offer the potential

to overcome two of the problems with Formula One. Adaptive front wings, either controlled by the

driver, or automated with reference to a measurement of the free stream conditions the car is

experiencing, would allow the balance and some of the downforce of the car to be re-established

as it entered and passed through the wake of a car ahead, thus facilitating overtaking. The rear

wing could be linked to this system as well.

However, adaptive wings would also allow Formula One cars to be freed from one of the least

road relevant aspects of their design: The drag, and hence the fuel consumption is vastly

compromised by the need to generate downforce to achieve maximum speed through the

corners. The difference in drag coefficient of a Formula One car in maximum downforce

configuration and one in minimum drag configuration is around 2:1.

[DOF_power 0]

In summary adaptive wings offer:

A route to retain balance through an overtaking manoeuvre

repost: The front wing box will be close to the

ground to minimise the affect of wake turbulence.

The bodywork is to be cleaned up compared to today's cars by a regulation

preventing overlapping surfaces, while retaining a similar restriction to today with

regards both overall and side-pod height. (This bans barge-boards, X-wings, etc).

A route for a dramatic overall reduction in drag allowing an overall

reduction in fuel usage of over 50% when combined with a new

efficiency-led power train

A significant saving in primary power plant reproduction cost

A significant overall weight reduction probably negating the need for any

increase in minimum weight due to energy recovery devices from today

and perhaps even allowing a minimum weight reduction.

The use of Formula One to typecast small, higher revving (compared to

today’s road cars), boosted, gasoline-electric engines, with significant

energy recovery as ‘modern’, ‘fast’, and at the ‘forefront of technology’.

This is very much in line with future high and low performance vehicles

given the tough European CO2 proposals and the continuing swing in

public opinion across the globe with respect to this issue.

[DOF_power 0]

© Formula One: Technology or marketing based?

The FIA, supported by market research, believes that Formula One is fundamentally a

technology development-based formula.

NASCAR on the other hand, is enjoying considerable commercial success and yet is clearly a marketing-lead (marketing-led?) exercise, with technology and its development suppressed to an overwhelming extent.

Massive cost reduction for the participants is possible with a swing towards the NASCAR model by keeping Formula

One appearing as a high technology exercise, but making it so restricted it would be in reality

only a marketing lead formula that uses high technology. It would be like GP2, A1GP or even F3

in this respect.

One could go as far to make it have a technology fa

[Max Mosley 2]

Yeah cheers! I can see that active aero devices have many performance advantages overall. With regards to overtaking, I can imagine they might let you improve the balance of the car a bit when overtaking, but unless the car in front is prevented from adjusting it's settings, presumably the car behind won't gain any downforce, relatively speaking. The car in front would just do the same. So the benefit wrt overtaking is that you can improve the balance. I wonder how big a benefit this is, without doing anything about the loss of downforce? Anyone know? (Don't feel obliged to answer - only do so if you like the technical side of F1, obviously.) Another thing is that the improved balance might come at the expense of some of the available extra downforce, that the car in front will be exploiting by setting its wings accordingly.

Anyway, bed time for me! I'll let you finish posting. One other thing, where do these quotes come from exactly, DOF?

[YHR 0]

I like pizza.......... and beer. Beer is good too.

Lose the aero, increase HP, bring back slicks and let the drivers drive. Let engineers build bridges, airplanes and space shuttles.

[DOF_power 0]

Yeah cheers! I can see that active aero devices have many performance advantages overall. With regards to overtaking, I can imagine they might let you improve the balance of the car a bit when overtaking, but unless the car in front is prevented from adjusting it's settings, presumably the car behind won't gain any downforce, relatively speaking. The car in front would just do the same. So the benefit wrt overtaking is that you can improve the balance. I wonder how big a benefit this is, without doing anything about the loss of downforce? Anyone know? (Don't feel obliged to answer - only do so if you like the technical side of F1, obviously.) Another thing is that the improved balance might come at the expense of some of the available extra downforce, that the car in front will be exploiting by setting its wings accordingly.

Anyway, bed time for me! I'll let you finish posting. One other thing, where do these quotes come from exactly, DOF?

2011 proposal papers.

Also I agree with you on the loss of downforce issue.

But the worst part:

Discussion Point:

The homologation proposal is driven entirely by cost-reduction objectives. It

has the consequence that there are few avenues for an uncompetitive car to

be improved during the season? Homologation will produce significant cost

saving, but this proposal is being made to help the teams, input is welcomed

as to the most appropriate level of component homologation.

For:

The purpose of homologation is to constrain costs. It is effective. In order to

reduce costs by any substantial amount, avenues must be taken that are

proven to be sound. Moreover the FIA wish to direct the spending during the

season towards road-relevant technologies and have given enough freedom

with regards to the energy recovery systems to allow progression through

the season. There is also the consideration that the difference between best

and worst constructor is likely to narrowed in respect to the chassis and

bodywork, while still leaving undiminished scope for the best race team to

optimise the package presented.

NOW THE NASTY PART:

Against:

Freezing designs can mean that teams are unable to remedy a system of

their car which is uncompetitive, thus leaving them in a possibly hopeless

position. There is not enough freedom within these regulations to respond.

[DOF_power 0]

I like pizza.......... and beer. Beer is good too.

Lose the aero, increase HP, bring back slicks and let the drivers drive. Let engineers build bridges, airplanes and space shuttles.

Then you're in the wrong sport.

[YHR 0]

Then you're in the wrong sport.

Murray

Are you watching this, because this is just too easy.

I'm I in the wrong sport, or is the sport wrong? That is the question my friend. Something is wrong because they are constantly trying to fix it. I suggest technology and engineers have taken the passion out of this sport. That is the side of the coin I represent.

If enough people are "in the wrong sport" I suggest you have a problem, because you are not going to win us back with an "engineered"solution. The most successful theory in engineering is falling on deaf ears. "K.I.S.S."

F1 needs more KISS.

[DOF_power 0]

Murray

Are you watching this, because this is just too easy.

I'm I in the wrong sport, or is the sport wrong? That is the question my friend. Something is wrong because they are constantly trying to fix it. I suggest technology and engineers have taking the passion out of this sport. That is the side of the coin I represent.

If enough people are "in the wrong sport" I suggest you have a problem, because you are not going to win us back with an "engineered"solution. The most successful theory in engineering is falling on deaf ears. "K.I.S.S."

F1 needs more KISS.

Nope, for a simple reason.

GP racing was created with the manufacturers for the manufacturers in the name of satifing national ego.

Not by/with the fans for the fans in the name of passion.

These "solution" that FIA took since 1993 constantly made things worse.

[YHR 0]

Nope, for a simple reason.

GP racing was created with the manufacturers for the manufacturers in the name of satifing national ego.

Not by/with the fans for the fans in the name of passion.

I rest my case.

[Quiet One 15]

1) That's a whole load of information you flooded us with, DOF! Will take me a while to properly digest it

2) YHR: Discussing about extremes is of no use, as both negate the true nature of the sport. This was never about no engineers, innovation was always part of the charm about F1, contrary to spec series. That is precisely why you have both. This was never about not paying attention to the fans, either. As any sport, it was always conceived both as a challenge and a spectacle. You need both, you also need teams, drvers and regulations. The fact that you don't like the excessive influence of any of these factors over the others is comprehensible, but calling for it to be banned from F1 is simply negating the sport itself.

My complaint: not because of the lack of innovation, or the excessive focus on it, nor the drivers (lack of) personality, as true F1 personalities were always kind of sparse (go ahead, get a list of all the F1 drivers through history and tell me how many of them had any remarkable personality), teams and team strategy was always fun and brought a great deal of controversy, always welcome. My complaint is about regulations. Too many micromanagement from the FIA who is trying to make an hybrid between F1, a spec series and failing at both aspects. They should give back more freedom for teams. Yes, manufacturers will end up gulping smaller teams, but probably at some moment they will leave the sport and smaller teams will come back...they always do.

[pumpdoc 2]

I like pizza.......... and beer. Beer is good too.

Lose the aero, increase HP, bring back slicks and let the drivers drive. Let engineers build bridges, airplanes and space shuttles.

Can not argue with that...............

[YHR 0]

1) That's a whole load of information you flooded us with, DOF! Will take me a while to properly digest it

2) YHR: Discussing about extremes is of no use, as both negate the true nature of the sport. This was never about no engineers, innovation was always part of the charm about F1, contrary to spec series. That is precisely why you have both. This was never about not paying attention to the fans, either. As any sport, it was always conceived both as a challenge and a spectacle. You need both, you also need teams, drvers and regulations. The fact that you don't like the excessive influence of any of these factors over the others is comprehensible, but calling for it to be banned from F1 is simply negating the sport itself.

My complaint: not because of the lack of innovation, or the excessive focus on it, nor the drivers (lack of) personality, as true F1 personalities were always kind of sparse (go ahead, get a list of all the F1 drivers through history and tell me how many of them had any remarkable personality), teams and team strategy was always fun and brought a great deal of controversy, always welcome. My complaint is about regulations. Too many micromanagement from the FIA who is trying to make an hybrid between F1, a spec series and failing at both aspects. They should give back more freedom for teams. Yes, manufacturers will end up gulping smaller teams, but probably at some moment they will leave the sport and smaller teams will come back...they always do.

I am not saying take the engineers out of the game, am saying give them less to play with. I want a series where a great driver can wring the neck out of a decent car and beat a good driver in a great car. We don't have that any more, and that is what F1 is lacking. Less aero, more HP will leave you with a machine that gives a balsy driver a chance. This sport has been dancing to the tune the engineers have been playing for too long, and the product is starting to show that. I have nothing against engineers. They do their job very well, so well in fact they have eliminated driver skill(A hugh generalization, forgive me) from the equation. F1 needs to find a balance that allows the driver to contribute 33% to the equation

[Max Mosley 2]

I am not saying take the engineers out of the game, am saying give them less to play with. I want a series where a great driver can wring the neck out of a decent car and beat a good driver in a great car. We don't have that any more, and that is what F1 is lacking. Less aero, more HP will leave you with a machine that gives a balsy driver a chance. This sport has been dancing to the tune the engineers have been playing for too long, and the product is starting to show that. I have nothing against engineers. They do their job very well, so well in fact they have eliminated driver skill(A hugh generalization, forgive me) from the equation. F1 needs to find a balance that allows the driver to contribute 33% to the equation

Yeah but I am! Your views are pretty much the same as the FIA's: make the teams more equal so the drivers can play a larger role, we get more overtaking and we cut costs. Anyway, I think you're right. It would be much better with the drivers having more say.

[pabloh20 1]

The new proposed regulations allow for flexible rear wings (which were banned this year) which will flatten out on the straights (if I'm reading the regs correctly) reducing downforce but more importantly allowing air to flow more easily behind a car. This particular regulation will not increase overtaking moves as erroneously advertised by the FIA. The reason this will not increase overtaking is that when the leading car slows down for a slow corner (those that are most often used for overtaking) the flexible rear wing will flex back into it's high downforce position and the trailing car will lose all it's air over it's front wing right when it needs that air the most. Without that air over it's front wings, and with the current grooved tyres, there isn't going to be more mechanical or aero grip than we currently have.

The flexing wings are not a mechanical device as I think I'm understanding your post to say....

Hmm....I suppose you define 'best' in a more distilled way than I do. I define 'best' as playing all the variables of a competition (team politics, car set-up, qualy strategy, race strategy, actual driving [racecraft]) better than everybody else competing. When you say the best car wins, that is true as far as it goes, but what makes that car the best when the top three teams are separated by tenths of a second? Driver input on the set-up usually makes a difference. Strategy during the race can win or lose you the race, regardless of how 'best' your car is.

Jacques Villeneuve was the best in his championship year as I define 'best' because he landed a seat in the dominant team when the other drivers failed to do that, he bucked his team (who were favoring Frentzen) to ensure his car was set-up how he wanted it, went out and raced with a minimum of mistakes to land in the points enough to win the championship at the end of the season. All of that made him the 'best' in that year. Was he the best driver? Possibly not, but being the best at sawing the wheel has always been only one small part of being a WDC.

Even in a spec series, like GP2 or ChampCar, the best driver doesn't always win. The team or driver that sets up their car more efficiently for any given track has a huge advantage over the competition. I understand what you are wanting for the WDC; you want to know that the person with the best driving ability has won the race. The only way to ensure that is to have the FIA supply each team with identical cars, all set-up identically, and let the drivers race with them. No tyre changes, no pit stops. No team giving advice. Just the get in the pre-prepared car and drive. That would be a fun series to watch, but it wouldn't hold my attention for long. I like the complex, organic nature of Formula 1. I like to know the winner has juggled more variables than just driving the car.

I suppose it's all about effort. I like that the team who puts forth the most effort reaps the biggest rewards. Equalizing the field is a nice concept, but it eliminates a good part of the effort currently required. Instead of lowering the bar for everybody, I prefer to see the rest of the field put forth the effort required to leap that bar at it's current position.

You know, Mike, I have never really gone with the theory that any driver was lucky to win a WDC and I think you encapsulate the reasons why, quite nicely. There are many correlations with sports in the same situation. If I use our Premiership for my example, where they play 38 games in a season, 19 home and 19 away. You can be lucky in winning the odd game, here and there, but you can't be lucky the whole season. I think it's the same for a WDC.

The thing is, even if you had standard cars, set up exactly the same, etc, etc, then it still might not give you the best driver, well not straight away anyway - if the car ended up being an understeerer or oversteerer, it would favour the best exponent of that discipline. If it varied race to race depending on other influences, then yes that would be fine. However, if it was predominantly one or the other over a season, then I am not sure it would be any more 'meaningful', to quote Muzza, than the current system.

[Max Mosley 2]

You know, Mike, I have never really gone with the theory that any driver was lucky to win a WDC and I think you encapsulate the reasons why, quite nicely. There are many correlations with sports in the same situation. If I use our Premiership for my example, where they play 38 games in a season, 19 home and 19 away. You can be lucky in winning the odd game, here and there, but you can't be lucky the whole season. I think it's the same for a WDC.

I think F1 is currently very different to football. In football you can't be lucky for a whole season, I agree. But in F1 you can! One car will be the best one to have in any particular season. In some cases (like '97 say) the advantage could be more than 0.5s/lap. That's more than any driver can make up (as we saw!). The problem is that the drivers title is mainly decided by the teams!

The thing is, even if you had standard cars, set up exactly the same, etc, etc, then it still might not give you the best driver, well not straight away anyway - if the car ended up being an understeerer or oversteerer, it would favour the best exponent of that discipline. If it varied race to race depending on other influences, then yes that would be fine. However, if it was predominantly one or the other over a season, then I am not sure it would be any more 'meaningful', to quote Muzza, than the current system.

This is a good point. However, remember that we can design our car to have any characteristics we want. If you like we could ensure that they had a car that oversteered a little one weekend, understeered the next and was perfectly balanced the next weekend. This is the advantage of being in control of the equipment. Alternatively you could give the drivers a lot of flexibility in setting it up themselves. Or you could do both. Maybe you could even change the balance during each weekend, in a controlled manner!

I do agree, though, that it will never be perfect. But no sport ever is. I mean Nadal would be the best tennis player in the world if Wimbledon were played on clay, or a footballer may look great in the Italian league but fail completely in the Premiership. That's just the nature of sport. The differences in ability are so small that the fine details of the rules (ie the nature of the sport) matter enormously. But in all those cases, at least we know that the player(s) who win(s) are the best at that sport, given the current rules. In F1 that isn't the case, unless one's definition of "best" includes the "skill" of getting the best car, which is the main thing these days.

[DOF_power 0]

F1 is a formulae series, not a KISS series (think stock car racing; and I DON'T mean NASCAR), nor a spec series. Even more it's Formula 1, meaning the anti-KISS series par excellence.

This sport has been has been dancing to the tune the engineers since 1906, when the first GP took part. This doesn't mean it's just a team/engineering sport. It's actually a complex and weird combination/mixture between individual and team, even tough initially GP racing was born as a team/manufacturer competition.

[monza gorilla 1]

Remove car to pit telemetry (keep a feed to race control for data logging) and radios. Then you'll see a change.

[pumpdoc 2]

Remove car to pit telemetry (keep a feed to race control for data logging) and radios. Then you'll see a change.

You mean *gasp* go back to only using pit boards? *horror*

[monza gorilla 1]

Yup.