2009 Rule Changes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ardius
  • 152 comments
  • 9,195 views
i think those cars need to go back to basics with stick shift, less advanced aerodynamics, more power with turbo engines + they need to drive on more difficult tracks such as Laguna Seca, Nurnburgring Nordscheife etc. imagine F1 on Laguna Seca where drivers tackle "the cork screw" corners... damn!

I hope the FIA doesn't think like this.
 
I know its not really all that funny but I could see that being turned into some sort of GIF... feel teh BMWs force!!!111!
 
i think those cars need to go back to basics with stick shift, less advanced aerodynamics, more power with turbo engines + they need to drive on more difficult tracks such as Laguna Seca, Nurnburgring Nordscheife etc. imagine F1 on Laguna Seca where drivers tackle "the cork screw" corners... damn!

Stick shift? Where would you stick the gearstick? They already race on some very challenging tracks. Monaco, Spa, etc. As mentioned above, the old Nurburgring will never return, it's far too dangerous and I doubt it would reach safety standards of any high class motorsport series. I think these new rules will make technology in F1 even better, because people will find ways of countering restrictions.
 
That RBR mock-up looks much better than the one I posted on page 1! Although, I'd still be a lot happier with some winglets and fins!


EDIT: Is there anyone here who could possibly do some translating? :)
 
Last edited:
Here's yet another mockup rendering, which looks worse than the German RBR one. Interesting, though - the article mentions that Red Bull specifically removed the wing connectors from the render because "they wanted to keep it secret". I wonder what they'll have up their sleeves, since part of those connectors is regulated to spec anyway this season...


Some translation: The left page is mostly about this year's cars, but Newey mentions that a wider rear wing would actually make the airflow less turbulent, since the wheels cause so much of it - and a wing would clean that up a little. On the right, he talks about how unrestricted cars would have a single rear wing and nothing on the front, since all downforce would be generated using sculpted underbodies and full-body diffusors (porpoising FTW!) with very slippery bodies - and that 400+km/h would be a reasonable figure. He also mentions a bit about next year's front wing dimensions, and says that the lower wing would be less affected by dirty air, and that the wing's wideness in front of the wheels is a pain to test in the wind-tunnel: Because it's wider, it's affected more by yaw and spinning wheels, and because the tyres don't hold long enough (20 seconds until airflow stabilizes) in yaw to test airflow when they spin.
 
Last edited:
Some of the reasoning behind the new regs is getting lost here.

Racecar Engineering covered this is an article in detail a few issues ago. The changes will reduce the reliance on downforce, but only to a degree and that will soon be clawed back by natural design evolution. This is not exactly anything new at all, its been happening for decades in F1.

The main point behind the design changes to the front and rear wings is down to how the car in front effects the car behind. Current rear wing designs create a wash of 'dirty' air directly behind the car, reducing the downforce of the car behind. The narrower rear wings reduce this effect quite considerably, the changes to the front wings (which also now can be closer to the ground and will feature driver adjustable flaps) also reduce the effect of this 'dirty' air.

The brief that the working committe that produced the changes had was not to reduce downforce itself, but to increase overtaking. The cause of a lack of overtaking was mainly down to the 'dirty' air reducing the effect of slipstreaming, these changes have been made to directly target that.


Regards

Scaff
 
Last edited:
Some of the reasoning behind the new regs is getting lost here.

Racecar Engineering covered this is an article in detail a few issues ago. The changes will reduce the reliance on downforce, but only to a degree and that will soon be clawed back by natural design evolution. This is not exactly anything new at all, its been happening for decades in F1.

The main point behind the design changes to the front and rear wings is down to how the car in front effects the car behind. Current rear wing designs create a wash of 'dirty' air directly behind the car, reducing the downforce of the car behind. The narrower rear wings reduce this effect quite considerably, the changes to the front wings (which also now can be closer to the ground and will feature driver adjustable flaps) also reduce the effect of this 'dirty' air.

The brief that the working committe that produced the changes had was not to reduce downforce itself, but to increase overtaking. The cause of a lack of overtaking was mainly down to the 'dirty' air reducing the effect of slipstreaming, these changes have been made to directly target that.


Regards

Scaff

Then it's all okay.

I personally prefer watching ugly cars passing each other, over cool ones in a straight line.
 
Some of the reasoning behind the new regs is getting lost here.

Racecar Engineering covered this is an article in detail a few issues ago. The changes will reduce the reliance on downforce, but only to a degree and that will soon be clawed back by natural design evolution. This is not exactly anything new at all, its been happening for decades in F1.

The main point behind the design changes to the front and rear wings is down to how the car in front effects the car behind. Current rear wing designs create a wash of 'dirty' air directly behind the car, reducing the downforce of the car behind. The narrower rear wings reduce this effect quite considerably, the changes to the front wings (which also now can be closer to the ground and will feature driver adjustable flaps) also reduce the effect of this 'dirty' air.

The brief that the working committe that produced the changes had was not to reduce downforce itself, but to increase overtaking. The cause of a lack of overtaking was mainly down to the 'dirty' air reducing the effect of slipstreaming, these changes have been made to directly target that.


Regards

Scaff


OVER TAKING!!!:crazy::scared:

but didnt anyone tell these guys that this is F1? over taking isnt allowed. the highest paid drivers must always win.

but i do hope that there plans do work for adding more passes in the races. though you still got to convince a driver thats paid millions to take the risk of passing. i say we cut all there salary's and make them have to earn it back. im sure we would see alot more people willing to risk the pass then.
 
OVER TAKING!!!:crazy::scared:

but didnt anyone tell these guys that this is F1? over taking isnt allowed. the highest paid drivers must always win.

but i do hope that there plans do work for adding more passes in the races. though you still got to convince a driver thats paid millions to take the risk of passing. i say we cut all there salary's and make them have to earn it back. im sure we would see alot more people willing to risk the pass then.

I wonder how Kimi Raikkonen would feel about that. Give him a commission, a certain amount of money paid per point scored, with a bonus for the championship.:sly:
 
Some of the reasoning behind the new regs is getting lost here.

Racecar Engineering covered this is an article in detail a few issues ago. The changes will reduce the reliance on downforce, but only to a degree and that will soon be clawed back by natural design evolution. This is not exactly anything new at all, its been happening for decades in F1.

The main point behind the design changes to the front and rear wings is down to how the car in front effects the car behind. Current rear wing designs create a wash of 'dirty' air directly behind the car, reducing the downforce of the car behind. The narrower rear wings reduce this effect quite considerably, the changes to the front wings (which also now can be closer to the ground and will feature driver adjustable flaps) also reduce the effect of this 'dirty' air.

The brief that the working committe that produced the changes had was not to reduce downforce itself, but to increase overtaking. The cause of a lack of overtaking was mainly down to the 'dirty' air reducing the effect of slipstreaming, these changes have been made to directly target that.


Regards

Scaff

Thank you for clearing that up. 👍
 
I must admit, while the new cars do look a little silly, they are growing on me. The 2008-spec cars have so many attachments and add-ons that they look as if they were designed by Q-Branch ...
 
Couldn't find a thread about 2009 rule changes and regulations, so may as well start one.

I'll start off with:
Recently spotted at Jerez testing, we have some pictures of Williams' 2009-spec rear wings on the FW30:
djm0817se39.jpg

djm0817se57.jpg

Well, looks like I found the F1 equivelent of the Car of Tomarrow:grumpy:
 
An interesting article about the 2009 cars and aerodynamics:
http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2008/10/8472.html

F1.com
Analysis - top teams pass notes to improve overtaking

The 2009 Formula One season could see a lot more passing manoeuvres thanks to a unique collaboration between three of the sport’s leading teams. Backed by the FIA, top design engineers from Ferrari, McLaren and Renault worked together to help frame changes to the aerodynamic regulations that should make overtaking far less of a rarity.

Under current regulations, a driver typically needs to be as much as two seconds a lap faster than the car in front to have a realistic chance of passing. That should be cut to around a second next year thanks to a host of bodywork changes, including wider front wings that can be adjusted by the driver from the cockpit - a Formula One first.

Instigated by the FIA at the beginning of 2007, the Overtaking Working Group (OWG) - comprising Ferrari’s Rory Byrne, McLaren’s Paddy Lowe and Renault’s Pat Symonds - used McLaren’s advanced Formula One simulator to evaluate overtaking at Turn 1 of the old Barcelona circuit. Having established the existing ‘two seconds per lap’ requirement, they set about cutting that in half through aerodynamic changes.

They quickly learned that previous FIA proposals aimed at increasing overtaking, in particular the planned Centreline Downwash Generating (CDG) rear wing, had some major flaws. Utilising a conventional wind tunnel rather than computer-based Computational Fluid Dynamics, they instead came up with a series of new measures which should guarantee the desired effect.

The most obvious changes to the cars will be a taller and narrower rear wing, a shorter rear diffuser, and the loss of bodywork appendages such as deflectors, winglets and chimneys. Perhaps the most interesting revision, however, is to the front wing, which will become much wider. It will also be Formula One racing’s first (legal) moveable aerodynamic device, with the driver able to fine tune its settings from the cockpit.

“The flap will be controlled and monitored by the standard ECU,” explains OWG member Paddy Lowe. “The software in this unit is FIA-controlled, so it will only allow two adjustments per lap. The number of settings available to the driver will be up to the team, but the maximum flap angle range is +/- 3 degrees (i.e. 6 degrees total), so probably a team might provide one-degree steps.”

Having achieved their target of the ‘one second per lap’ requirement, it remains to be seen how the OWG’s measures will perform during an actual Grand Prix. Have they got the balance right? After all, many will rightly argue that overtaking in Formula One - the world’s premier motorsport series - should be difficult.

“In my view the reduction from two seconds to one is a very big and important step,” says Lowe. “We may indeed find that this is sufficient. Clearly a zero second per lap differential is nonsensical, so it is not as though we only made half the necessary progress! I also do not believe we want to make overtaking trivial if your car is at all faster - i.e. if we reduced that same number to 0.2sec/lap, say, then it would almost guarantee that any faster car could overtake any slower car without delay - a really quite boring prospect.”

It’s clear the changes should make for even more exciting racing, but that doesn’t mean they will make life any easier for the drivers. They already have a myriad of controls to deal with from the cockpit and next year will see the addition of not only adjustable wings but also KERS, the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (which could also boost overtaking).

As Lowe succinctly puts it, “Switch 'real estate' on the steering wheel is becoming as difficult to find as it is in the cockpit of a 747!”
 
I love seeing the whining about how bad the cars are going to be, every time the rules get tweaked for whatever reason.

The giant wings of the '70s got reduced, everybody hated it. The huge rear/tiny front tires of the same time changed into narrower rear and much larger fronts. Everybody hated the look. The turbo ground-effects cars put the driver way up front, so the car could carry enough fuel to run a race, everybody hated it. Refueling was introduced, everybody hated it. Tall air scoops of the '70s were eliminated, it was despised. They came back, it was despised. The bodywork was extended for billboard space, it was despised. The wings were reduced to near uselessness, everybody hated it. Displacement was reduced from 3.5 to 3 liters, everybody hated it. Then they dropped 2 cylinders and enough displacement to match the missing holes, everybody hated it.

If anybody out there in the world would like to give me something as "ruined" as Formula One has become in its nearly 60 years, please show me where to sign for acceptance!

As for how they look, consider how often "style" or "appearance" has been regulated by the rules.

It doesn't matter to anybody running them how they look. If they go fast, they like it. If they have to work a little harder to keep up, they don't like it. If they have the budget, it'll get done.

You want to whine about ugly cars, get out someday to a GrandAm race and watch Daytona Prototypes for a while. Then tell me F1 cars are getting ugly. :dopey:
 
Last edited:
I love seeing the whining about how bad the cars are going to be, every time the rules get tweaked for whatever reason.

The giant wings of the '70s got reduced, everybody hated it. The huge rear/tiny front tires of the same time changed into narrower rear and much larger fronts. Everybody hated the look. The turbo ground-effects cars put the driver way up front, so the car could carry enough fuel to run a race, everybody hated it. Refueling was introduced, everybody hated it. Tall air scoops of the '70s were eliminated, it was despised. They came back, it was despised. The bodywork was extended for billboard space, it was despised. The wings were reduced to near uselessness, everybody hated it. Displacement was reduced from 3.5 to 3 liters, everybody hated it. Then they dropped 2 cylinders and enough displacement to match the missing holes, everybody hated it.

If anybody out there in the world would like to give me something as "ruined" as Formula One has become in its nearly 60 years, please show me where to sign for acceptance!

Never gonna happen. Someone is always gonna hate something and its not gonna change so I don't know whats the big deal. Admittingly, I don't like it and there are not alot of F1 cars I don't like.

wfooshee
As for how they look, consider how often "style" or "appearance" has been regulated by the rules.

You want to whine about ugly cars, get out someday to a GrandAm race and watch Daytona Prototypes for a while. Then tell me F1 cars are getting ugly. :dopey:

Which ironically enough already have been cost effective and have a rules package that works and has been stable. While this is only my opinion, this is an ugly racecar that somehow surpasses the POS BMW design from a fews ago. This is the definition of ugly:

610x.jpg


Even worse is that its downright useless. If this new F1 specs actually does do what its promised to do, then I may actually have a reason to watch F1.
 
Last edited:
You want to whine about ugly cars, get out someday to a GrandAm race and watch Daytona Prototypes for a while. Then tell me F1 cars are getting ugly. :dopey:
But that's spec-ugly; it's fixed in the rules.

F1 cars are rarely beautiful things, to be honest, but they are quite disproportionately shaped with regards to style, even more so in the past few years. Part of it is the restrictive rules in the name of safety, aerodynamic downforce removal, eliminating "dirty air", and other so-called cost reduction measures.

However, it's not exclusive to F1; NASCAR's COT is ugly posing as a road-going car, and bears no resemblance to anything. IRL cars suffer from nearly as much from F1-ugly, since they're somewhat derived from some of the technology and lessons learned from other open-wheel cars.

I feel that sports-car prototypes are still the best-looking cars, an opinion I've had since day one of following motor sports.
 
I think it's important to note that the aesthetic beauty of these cars is "learned". They are function first, form...well, form comes from the eye of the beholder, but second nonetheless. I think they look great. Can't wait to see them in motion/multiple angles and the variation amongst different teams and really make an opinion.
 
That's a wrong point, though - in modern F1, the order is this: Regulations, Function, Form.

As was said by engineers long ago: Without any restrictions on aerodynamics, cars would be just one big streamlined blob, producing obscene amounts of downforce via sculpted underbodies and very low amounts of drag at the same time. That's the extreme, of course, and it's true that, until 2008, still many aspects of a car's design could be altered in a search for improved "function".

That, however, is over. The restrictions on bodywork are very tight, in fact, because of a simple rule - that the body must form a continuous tangent - which effectively forces the engineers to shape the sidepods without any winglets and flipups (so far so good, some would say), but also bans cooling-gills or any sort of creative sculpting. It puts sidepod design back into the '90s, and doesn't allow anything but slight variations in where exactly teams place their curve, and exactly how big the sidepod should be.

The front wing, which will be wider and lower next year, not only looks out of proportion (and it is, being as wide as the wheels, out of proportion), has two important parts regulated so much they're effectively spec-parts - the central section of the wing, which will have just one plane (can you say '70s?), and the connectors to the nosecone. The latter, of course, also got more restrictions - a minimum height, in this case, which prevents teams from trying radical solutions like this year's Renault R28 (a rather pretty solution, in my opinion).
 
If the wings are going to be adjusted with Hydraulics, or electrical wiring, what happens when someone loses a nosecone? All hydraulics gone? Electrics gone?
 
If the wings are going to be adjusted with Hydraulics, or electrical wiring, what happens when someone loses a nosecone? All hydraulics gone? Electrics gone?

I am sure there will be fuses to isolate that circuit in case of a short caused by an accident. If hydraulic it would be an isolated cylinder with electronic control.
 
That's a wrong point, though - in modern F1, the order is this: Regulations, Function, Form.

Not really wrong, you just added what was already obvious, that the regulations were causing changes to the form. Furthermore, regulations have been a part of F1 since day 1, not just in modern F1.
 
If the wings are going to be adjusted with Hydraulics, or electrical wiring, what happens when someone loses a nosecone? All hydraulics gone? Electrics gone?

It'll be electrically controlled (via the SECU). If you break the nosecone, the new one will work again just fine.
 
27262williamsf12009gb3.jpg


Well, the front wing is... interesting. Better than I thought it'd be, at least.
 
Those wings are too big. I'd rather they had old style Hockenheim wings when they had to deal with long straights.

Those wings were really small and flat single element devices. That would cut down on downforce and promote over taking.

Monaco would be very good fun to watch as well.
 
Back