Formula 1 2009: The Launch Season

  • Thread starter Metar
  • 601 comments
  • 40,932 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly my point. The manipulation of airflow is restricted, thus the development and technology on that front is somewhat limited. But hundreds of other factory are present in the equation. The fact remains that there is a new formula in town, and the challenges for coming out with the better engineered car is just as alive as ever. What about the time constraints on in-season testing or wind tunnel restrictions in comparison with last year? What about wing manipulation stategy per lap, new slick tire management, clean/dirty air differences, etc. And KERS, if it was "easy", why is Ferrari trying their system on the Peugeot 908? or surprised by the complexity and price of the undertaking itself? All these factors surely have to be taken into account when comparing the full scope technical undertaking from one year to the next. I feel people are being misled by the seemingly intuitive notion that a smoother car = a less progressive car, and a less progressive F1. Let go of the old aero cars, their time and relevance is done.
 
Last edited:
You mix up challenges with progress. The challenge to engineer the best car always was and will be, as long as F1 isn't completely spec'ed (and even then, wind-tunnels and testing-rigs will help teams understand their cars better, and thus find better setup solutions). This challenge is absolutely no different to last year's, or any year before it.

No in-season testing and staff, wind-tunnel and CFD restrictions aren't "progress", and aren't "better" than before. It slows the pace of progress, and these are just cut-cutting measures.

Tyre-management with slicks? Changing of a flap's angle? These aren't any bigger changes than the move to spec Bridgestones, the demise of the V10s, or any other change in rules. The flap-angle change is nearly negligible.

Different wake-signatures? Teams never worried about that, and never will. A team's only interest is to go fast - what the car leaves behind is the OWG's problem. Drivers will be the only ones concerned with the different wake.

But KERS? First of all, the KERS allowed in LMP cars differs greatly from the F1 KERS, and the requirements from the systems are different. Second, these were only rumors, and were strongly denied. Third, the price of KERS was always known to be high - it's just become more of an issue now. KERS' only real challenge is cooling: Regulations for cleaner bodywork also banned most of the devices used to improve cooling, which is a challenge even without hot batteries and an electric engine. Again, though, don't mix up progress with challenge: No cooling-gills is the opposite of progress. KERS is a new, and welcome, addition - but in this neutered form, it doesn't present half the challenge, and doesn't offer a quarter of the advantages it should.

In the end, it's a simple fact: If you ban an object, you delete a bit of progress. In this case, you delete essentially half of what designers were doing in the last years - and instead, force them into a small box of possible designs, which will soon merge into even fewer designs as teams realize which solution is works and which doesn't. Flipups and winglets are just half the story - what about the incredible works of art that were the 2008 main wings? Three- and four-plane front wings, sometimes with twin bridges above - all those simplified into a plain surface with two miniature flaps, one of them adjustable by just six degrees. Wide, low sculpted rear wings, perfectly harmonized with dozens of airflow-conditioners and designed to create a coupling-effect with the diffuser - now crammed into a narrow tower, essentially in the middle of nowhere.
 
It seems this seasons cars will be a love or hate 'em relationship for most. I have to say I love the look of this Ferrari, possibly the first Ferrari F1 car I've liked for over 10 years!
I think we'll get used to the look of the new F1 cars over time, at least the Ferrari looks vastly different from what BMW were testing a few months ago, so with some luck we may have some more noticable variation between the cars beyond liveries.

I really like the long nose of this car, and I love the more smooth design of the rest. I liked the 2008 cars, but I also love this more retro-styling more. Reminds of back to the early 90s, especially Ferrari's own cars from back then, with the odd looking circular sidepods.
 
My issue here isn't with liking or disliking - it's with the "progress" bit.


Personally, I like the car - compared to what I feared it could be. It's a sleek form, the wings still look slightly weird, but it's not an eyesore. But, like Blake, I will miss the fact that there's literally nothing to see here.
 
I disagree that this car represents a step backward, too... F1 will always have regulations, and teams will always have to innovate in order to push the limits of what they can do within the rules. Looking at both the new car and last year's car, I wouldn't say that the F2009 was too simple but rather that the previous car was too complicated... but as Ardius says, that's maybe down to personal taste.

F1 has plenty of challenges, not least the ridiculous costs involved, and also the fact that technology has to some extent lead the sport down the wrong road - driver assists etc. Nobody said that removing those was 'a step backwards'. Similarly, with the new regulations etc., the focus will hopefully shift even further back towards the ability of the drivers...

Obviously, there are limits, and nobody wants to see F1 cars, the supposed pinnacle of motorsport, reduced to homogenised parodies of what they used to be - but I think we're a long way from that.
 
Whether progressive means the same to you or not, the cars' development is not going to be simpler or anything like the development of years passed. To say F1 is taking a step backwards is a mistake.
 
Last edited:
At least a year. It's too late for them to change the 2009 regulations now, and they're set in stone - unless they can get a unanimous agreement from the teams. They won't get that.
 
At least a year. It's too late for them to change the 2009 regulations now, and they're set in stone - unless they can get a unanimous agreement from the teams. They won't get that.
Well, I'm not really sure where the barge boards fall in the new aero regs, but I'm gong to guess they're at least frowned-upon by the Powers That Be. And if Ferrari are the only team who have them, I can see the others banding together to lobby against it. I can't imagine that they could just do a pair of rear view mirrors up like that and bolt them on two days before launch. If testing time is restricted this season and the majority of aero aids have been removed, I can't see the teams being allowed to make a lot of aero upgrades throughout the season.
 
Bodywork, with the tangential curve radius rule, is effectively "locked in" and there's barely room to maneuver.

What does this mean, do all the cars have to have a universal upper bodywork size/shape?
 
Well, I'm not really sure where the barge boards fall in the new aero regs, but I'm gong to guess they're at least frowned-upon by the Powers That Be. And if Ferrari are the only team who have them, I can see the others banding together to lobby against it.

If they’re within the legal bodywork dimensions, and I’d have to assume they are, no one is in any position to complain. And anyone else who doesn’t do something similar has no reason to complain because they all have the same rule book.

I can’t believe everyone always has a go at Ferrari for cheating whenever they do something remotely innovative. Hell, this isn’t even innovative, people are just having a go at it because it’s Ferrari. It’s ridiculous. :rolleyes:
 
I can’t believe everyone always has a go at Ferrari for cheating whenever they do something remotely innovative. Hell, this isn’t even innovative, people are just having a go at it because it’s Ferrari. It’s ridiculous. :rolleyes:
No, I'm asking a question because all the aero aids have been removed from the cars as per this year's regulations (I'm pretty sure barge boards are counted under that), yet Ferrari have developed a car with wing mirrors styled after barge boards. It wouldn't matter if this were a Ferrari, a Force India or even an Andrea Moda: I'd still be asking. I'm not having a go at them in the slightest; if you actually go back and read some of my posts in the threads on individual races, I've been one of the few to defend Ferrari all through last season.
 
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to say you were having a go at Ferrari, it was more of a general comment because someone earlier in the thread said something about Ferrari cheating.

But read the technical regulations regarding bodywork and come back to me with a rule Ferrari have broken. Without even looking at the technical regulations (I’ve been pretty apathetic about F1 lately) I can guarantee that it’s legal and no one has any grounds to have these banned.
 
If the changes bring the teams closer, and not divide the field into 4 groups,as the previous decade has done, then all is good.
They look like they might bring out the driver in the car a bit more.(Which would be a good thing)
 
lol on that helmetcam vid when the F60 was first pulling out of the garage, you're like..... 'hmm, not bad' then it aims at the cameraman and you see the mega thin rear wing and I now feel ill.

I do love that helmetcam tho. Hope to see that used somehow in race coverage.
 
What does this mean, do all the cars have to have a universal upper bodywork size/shape?

It means that there's a minimum radius to every piece of bodywork. It's a fancy way of saying "No appendices, but also absolutely no sculpted bodywork" - it means essentially a single shape for all teams - round bubbly shapes. The only real difference will be size, and the exact locations of the curves, instead of smart sculpted surfaces.

3.8.4 Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes defined below must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not contain any radius less than 75mm.

If they’re within the legal bodywork dimensions, and I’d have to assume they are, no one is in any position to complain. And anyone else who doesn’t do something similar has no reason to complain because they all have the same rule book.

They are. There's an area just around these sidepod-shields where aerodynamic devices are allowed.

No, I'm asking a question because all the aero aids have been removed from the cars as per this year's regulations (I'm pretty sure barge boards are counted under that), yet Ferrari have developed a car with wing mirrors styled after barge boards. It wouldn't matter if this were a Ferrari, a Force India or even an Andrea Moda: I'd still be asking. I'm not having a go at them in the slightest; if you actually go back and read some of my posts in the threads on individual races, I've been one of the few to defend Ferrari all through last season.

Bargeboards are still allowed - you can most obviously see them on the Ferrari, they're the little bit of unpainted carbon fibre - they're simply far smaller. The shield-mirrors are also in a legal area, where the FIA explicitly allowed the placement of aerodynamic appendices.

I do love that helmetcam tho. Hope to see that used somehow in race coverage.

It's pretty epic. They actually introduced it this season at Interlagos - unfortunately, they picked DC's car for the job, and he only lasted two corners.
 
True, with DC's camera, the main object in view was the steering wheel... Provided for an interesting view of the crash, though.
 
I think DC's camera was more true to what the driver sees, although I do prefer the Massacam view.
 
Roo
I think DC's camera was more true to what the driver sees, although I do prefer the Massacam view.

No way, probably below the visor for DC, and above it for Massa. Neither of which is "true", but the ability to see the track is favorable as far as coverage is concerned.
 
If that sillouette has anything to do with the actual car, we're in for some spectacular rear view mirrors :dunce:
 
I’d say it doesn’t. The front and rear wings aren’t legal, for one thing.
 
I was thinking that same thing. Maybe they just taked on ferraris idea. I am pretty sure most teams debuting later will look into it, AKA BMW.
 
It means that there's a minimum radius to every piece of bodywork. It's a fancy way of saying "No appendices, but also absolutely no sculpted bodywork" - it means essentially a single shape for all teams - round bubbly shapes. The only real difference will be size, and the exact locations of the curves, instead of smart sculpted surfaces.

3.8.4 Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes defined below must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not contain any radius less than 75mm.

Nice one, cheers.

As for the F60 (any history on the etymology of that?) the most obvious complaint are still the rear wings. I guess I was naively hoping that people would see how ludicrous they look in proportion to the car and come up with another solution but these vids/pictures just cement the fact that they're here to stay for the season at least. Mirrors are just ugly and call me crazy but I miss the big bargeboards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back