2009 technical regulations (for those interested)

Marbot · 22 Dec 2006, 13:01 (Ref:1797648)

Just found them today on FIA website.I've had a quick look through and one point of interest are the regulations (article 3) for reducing downforce to a maximum of 12500NM at any time.Also there is the Kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) that will be allowed to be introduced.I'm sure that there is other stuff of interest in there too.Happy reading.

http://www.fia.com/resources/documen...EGULATIONS.pdf

Marbot · 22 Dec 2006, 13:35 (Ref:1797677)

Sneaked out indeed.

More interesting changes.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns17890.html

Flat12-Aircool · 22 Dec 2006, 16:41 (Ref:1797803)

Back to 2000mm width, looks like Monaco will be even more of a procession than of recent years.

Plus how about the 460mm rear tires!!!

Those are going to be huge, even A1GP's are only about 395mm I think. This and all the other changes probably means the end to Traction control I would imagine.

**Adam43** · 22 Dec 2006, 18:07 (Ref:1797839)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Back to 2000mm width, looks like Monaco will be even more of a procession than of recent years.

You can't please all of the people...

luke · 22 Dec 2006, 18:21 (Ref:1797850)

Recent years? The Monaco Grand Prix has been exciting every year after 2001.

Marbot · 22 Dec 2006, 18:23 (Ref:1797851)

Quote:

Originally Posted by luke

Recent years? The Monaco Grand Prix has been exciting every year after 2001.

So it's nothing to do with the chassis width then.

luke · 22 Dec 2006, 18:34 (Ref:1797852)

The cars can't overtake other then Lowes harpin on lap 1 or the ocasional run going down to the chicane by the sea front out of the tunnel mainly as it is so....

The theory is anyway that the wider the car, the larger hole the car infront is creating for 'cleaner' air aka slip stream therefore more. Where as they kind of made the mistake for 1998 by reducusing the cars width as they thought, the smaller the width, the more chance of overtaking which turned out to work not as was planned.

Pingguest · 22 Dec 2006, 18:49 (Ref:1797867)

Hmm, I'm wondering how they think to police the maximum amount of downforce.

luke · 22 Dec 2006, 18:51 (Ref:1797873)

Max wing angles and height of the postion? with a calculation of how much downforce lbs are being created?

Pingguest · 22 Dec 2006, 20:00 (Ref:1797908)

Quote:

Originally Posted by luke

Max wing angles and height of the postion?

The current regulations already have this sort of restrictions.

Quote:

with a calculation of how much downforce lbs are being created?

They can only calculate that with the "known" package. But what if the aerodynamic package differs from packege that's in use?

Flat12-Aircool · 22 Dec 2006, 23:17 (Ref:1798005)

Quote:

Originally Posted by luke

The cars can't overtake other then Lowes harpin on lap 1 or the ocasional run going down to the chicane by the sea front out of the tunnel mainly as it is so....

Thats what I mean, and an extra 20cm of width is not going to help at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by luke

The theory is anyway that the wider the car, the larger hole the car infront is creating for 'cleaner' air aka slip stream therefore more. Where as they kind of made the mistake for 1998 by reducusing the cars width as they thought, the smaller the width, the more chance of overtaking which turned out to work not as was planned.

I thought another reason mentioned was to bring the wheels closer to the bodywork to stop wheel over wheel collisions etc.

Personally I think for a single seater car they're wide enough already, it's only 2 seater GT's and LMP's that need to be 2000mm wide. But I suppose it's probably got something to do with those huge 460mm rear tyre's they're planning on fitting to them.

stradlin21 · 23 Dec 2006, 00:20 (Ref:1798034)

could they bring in a rule that would allow the cars to actually overtake?

FPV GTHO · 23 Dec 2006, 04:11 (Ref:1798092)

Just as long as theres no CDG wing, i'll be happy.

Marbot · 23 Dec 2006, 17:24 (Ref:1798396)

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Just as long as theres no CDG wing, i'll be happy.

No wings at all and I would be ecstatic.

I think that they've shelved that idea.

Pingguest · 23 Dec 2006, 19:53 (Ref:1798443)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

No wings at all and I would be ecstatic.

I think that they've shelved that idea.

Hmm, a powerful open-wheel car without downforce. That sounds dangerous to me. Every bump or curbstone could cause a massive accident.

Marbot · 23 Dec 2006, 20:04 (Ref:1798448)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Hmm, a powerful open-wheel car without downforce. That sounds dangerous to me. Every bump or curbstone could cause a massive accident.

They seemed to be doing just fine without it for quite a few years.Oh,and the throttle works both ways.

So which is worse.Too much downforce or no downforce?

Do the cars have to have downforce to be safe?

Pingguest · 23 Dec 2006, 20:28 (Ref:1798455)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

They seemed to be doing just fine without it for quite a few years.Oh,and the throttle works both ways.

Well, you can't say Formula 1 was safe in those days. And it's not only about taking risks. The 1960's and early 1970's Formula 1 cars were well-know for their jumps. It went good mostly, but an accident was always possible. The driver was nothing more than a passenger.

Quote:

So which is worse.Too much downforce or no downforce?

I'm not against restricting downforce, but only for safety reasons. Downforce isn't inherently a restrain on close racing, as long as most of it is created by the undertray.

Quote:

Do the cars have to have downforce to be safe?

Downforce is quite useful if you want to keep them on the ground.

Sodemo · 24 Dec 2006, 00:31 (Ref:1798551)

Finally some sensible rule changes.

No doubt all these will get watered down or vetoed by the time it comes to the start of the 2009 season.

Hey, it only took them 9 years to realise they were wrong when introducing the 1998 technical regs...

WebberForWDC · 24 Dec 2006, 05:02 (Ref:1798598)

A F1 that doesn't use wing-grip to zoom round high-speed corners would be interesting. Presumably they would be so slow ( unless they have huge undertrays which ought to be good ) that they would struggle to be in the same ball park of speed as the new Panoz DP.

James North · 24 Dec 2006, 11:04 (Ref:1798706)

More mechanical grip, and return to ground effect is what we need.

Get rid of all these winglets, and have the front and rear wing there for setup balancing purposes as opposed to outright downforce generating purposes. Like in the early 80's.

Let the majority of the downforce be generated underneath the cars via ground effect.

FPV GTHO · 24 Dec 2006, 11:24 (Ref:1798715)

Quote:

Originally Posted by James North

Let the majority of the downforce be generated underneath the cars via ground effect.

Hopefully they can figure it out where 50%+ of the downforce could be from ground effects, whilst also ensuring the events of Imola '94 wont reoccur. CCWS are doing it, but its alot easier for them with a customer chassis

luke · 24 Dec 2006, 14:06 (Ref:1798755)

Quote:

Originally Posted by James North

More mechanical grip, and return to ground effect is what we need.

Get rid of all these winglets, and have the front and rear wing there for setup balancing purposes as opposed to outright downforce generating purposes. Like in the early 80's.

Let the majority of the downforce be generated underneath the cars via ground effect.

Didn't they ban ground effect because it was dangerous after 1982? I think that's what Champ Car still uses...and that makes them easier to pass. It was brought in by the Champ Car teams at Indy and then Colin Chapman brought it into Formula 1 in 1978 with the Lotus? Wern't the cars horrible to drive in 1982 and not a pleasure at all, and the under body ground effects were banned for 1983?

Marbot · 24 Dec 2006, 15:55 (Ref:1798781)

I think that there is quite a big difference between the "skirted" cars of the 70's and 80's and the "ground effect" cars that are used by Champcar and others.

The skirted cars really were dangerous.They could go from full downforce to zero downforce in the blink of an eye!

Pingguest · 24 Dec 2006, 16:27 (Ref:1798791)

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Hopefully they can figure it out where 50%+ of the downforce could be from ground effects, whilst also ensuring the events of Imola '94 wont reoccur. CCWS are doing it, but its alot easier for them with a customer chassis

Senna's fatal accident hadn't anything to do with ground effects really. The Williams-Renault FW16 had a flat bottom, as mandanted by the regulations. With a ground effect underbody, the driver won't downforce if the car touches the ground.

Pingguest · 24 Dec 2006, 16:33 (Ref:1798794)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

I think that there is quite a big difference between the "skirted" cars of the 70's and 80's and the "ground effect" cars that are used by Champcar and others.

The skirted cars really were dangerous.They could go from full downforce to zero downforce in the blink of an eye!

All cars with downforce could lose most of their downfroce within a second. The skirted F1-cars were unpleasurable, due the "porpoising". Teams tried to resolve the problem by using ultra-stiff springs, but it didn't really help.

Lotus had found the right solution, known as the 'twin-cassis'. The car was very pleasurable to drive, as the inner chassis had very soft springs.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
BTCC technical regulations	Kev_205	Touring Car Racing	6	15 Jun 2005 12:29
Technical Regulations	Peter Mallett	Racers Forum	23	31 May 2004 04:19
Thruxton 2009	racingdick	National & International Single Seaters	7	11 Jun 2003 07:28
BTC technical regulations	Sodemo	Touring Car Racing	2	2 Feb 2001 20:48