[mikefertynnz]

http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2008/10/8472.html

I cannot believe this is true. Can it be? I mean, really true?



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!”

[kucheravka]

Mclaren deserves praise.

There was a time when McLaren used to veto every proposal put forward by the Technical Working Group on the grounds that going backwards would diminish F1 being the pinnacle. The aero regs for higher front wings were originally proposed during the off season of 2000 and weren't implemented till 2005.

[maxsobq]

Wait.... I've seen this thread before somewhere!

Serious head on. Does this not strike anybody as a load of gimmickry? Movable wings, which don't sit well with safety or cost-cutting agendas? Push-to-pass buttons thinly disguised as a green measure?

And how does having a standard ECU and stifling engine devopment help the speed difference between teams?

F1 has completely lost its way.

[mikefertynnz]

I'm not too sure about all of it but if it improves overtaking and the spectacle, I'm all for it.

Besides. adjusting a degree of wing is just the same as playing with the brake bias isn't it?

Plus, we get rid of all those stupid winglets like the pantyliners on the front of the Honda.

It's just wrong to have to have a 2 second advantage to effect a pass and 1 sec seems about the right amount to me. It means that the more aggressive drivers are more likely to be able to excel.

[kucheravka]

Wait.... I've seen this thread before somewhere!

Serious head on. Does this not strike anybody as a load of gimmickry? Movable wings, which don't sit well with safety or cost-cutting agendas? Push-to-pass buttons thinly disguised as a green measure?

And how does having a standard ECU and stifling engine devopment help the speed difference between teams?

F1 has completely lost its way.

I'd disagree. F1 has been screaming out at a new direction that doesn't involve great emphasis on aero and software/electronics/hydraulics.

[Retapleapse]

Wait.... I've seen this thread before somewhere!

Serious head on. Does this not strike anybody as a load of gimmickry? Movable wings, which don't sit well with safety or cost-cutting agendas? Push-to-pass buttons thinly disguised as a green measure?

And how does having a standard ECU and stifling engine devopment help the speed difference between teams?

F1 has completely lost its way.

Agreed.

[Retapleapse]

It's just wrong to have to have a 2 second advantage to effect a pass and 1 sec seems about the right amount to me. It means that the more aggressive drivers are more likely to be able to excel.

1 second is just as wrong as 2 seconds in required advantage to be able to overtake.

Given that top F1 cars are within a few tenths of each other the only thing that will improve is that the top teams will have less problems overtaking the lesser cars, but they will struggle to pass each other in normal conditions.

I would say that these 3 guys only worked in a direction that will give their teams an advantage over the slower cars, but will not endanger their own teams competitiveness.

[Kolokireo]

...Serious head on. Does this not strike anybody as a load of gimmickry? Movable wings, which don't sit well with safety or cost-cutting agendas? Push-to-pass buttons ...

That's exactly what went through my mind upon reading that
It would be much less gimmicky if an unlimited amount of adjustments were permitted.

[mikefertynnz]

1 second is just as wrong as 2 seconds in required advantage to be able to overtake.

Given that top F1 cars are within a few tenths of each other the only thing that will improve is that the top teams will have less problems overtaking the lesser cars, but they will struggle to pass each other in normal conditions.

I would say that these 3 guys only worked in a direction that will give their teams an advantage over the slower cars, but will not endanger their own teams competitiveness.

I disagree.

The problem we have is cars cann't follow close enough for drivers to outbrake and get a run.

By minimising the air disruption and allowing a driver with similar pace to be agressive, you are likely to see the better drivers shine.

If you couple this inititive with a restructuring of the points system to reward higher placed finishers more, then you will get more racing instead of just sitting on a good points finish.

Personally, I think it's crazy that a driver can contemplate defending a 7 point lead by finishing in second for 3 races.

[snislarne]

The problem is that we have heard lots of things about changes wich will improve overtaking, and not many of them have come forward.

Some because were totally wrong, some others because of politics, who knows. Reducing aero efficiency is a good start, but having engines frozen is a great step backwards because this way you´ll maybe save costs but at the same time you are dooming a team (for good or bad) to stay in their position some more years because they can´t improve their engine or the others can´t do the same with theirs.

I know engine freezing is not the point of this thread, but IMO this solution will not bring F1 to a new world unless they think seriously about their own rules.

[maonnjtip]

Get rid of winglets . That's good .
Reduce the size of the rear wing . That's good .
Less diffuser . That's good .

Increase the size of the front wing . That might give back some of the grip lost , and make a driver braver , so could be good , but more aero means less driver , so , bad move .
Make the wing moveable . That's a bad , bad idea . Sure , it might give a guy more grip if he needed it , or it might reduce drag if he needed , but to reverse those with a slight malfunction could mean the end for the one caught out . Bad , bad idea .

[ufUUZCnc]

The problem is that we have heard lots of things about changes wich will improve overtaking, and not many of them have come forward.

Some because were totally wrong, some others because of politics, who knows. Reducing aero efficiency is a good start, but having engines frozen is a great step backwards because this way you´ll maybe save costs but at the same time you are dooming a team (for good or bad) to stay in their position some more years because they can´t improve their engine or the others can´t do the same with theirs.

I know engine freezing is not the point of this thread, but IMO this solution will not bring F1 to a new world unless they think seriously about their own rules.

agreed

[Reftsheette]

Increase the size of the front wing . That might give back some of the grip lost , and make a driver braver , so could be good , but more aero means less driver , so , bad move .

You can't just increase the size of the front wing. The car has to have aero balance. You don't want a car which transitions to terminal oversteer at 180 mph on a sweeper! I think the concept behind the driver-adjustable front wing is that a driver can dial-in more downforce at the front when he is right up on the gearbox of a leading car. We will see how that works out, because it will lead to a car where if the driver doesn't take it out of that configuration when he drops a way back from the leading car, he's going for an unpleasant ride. Not exactly a confidence-builder!

[Kolokireo]

...I think the concept behind the driver-adjustable front wing is that a driver can dial-in more downforce at the front when he is right up on the gearbox of a leading car. ...

I didn't think that the turbulant air trailing the lead car would provide much downforce, even with a few extra degrees of wing?

[LypeReexy]

How will the larger front wing help increase overtaking at all?

[Reftsheette]

I didn't think that the turbulant air trailing the lead car would provide much downforce, even with a few extra degrees of wing?

Crank-in more wing and you'll get more downforce. They get downforce now even when they are right up on the gearbox of the car in front, it's just that the front end washes out because it has less than it needs.

The problem I would see is that, in the heat of battle, a driver forgets to dial out the added front downforce when he's back in clean air, pushes the car to the limit, then it goes around because the aero balance is all messed-up.

Maybe since they are at full throttle so much of the time, this would just mean the driver can't use as much throttle as he's used to at that point on the track and that reminds him to dial-out the added front wing, so the terminal loose condition is unlikely to occur.

[Dyerryjex]

With adjustable front wings we will get a new variant of excuses explaining crashes: "Wing didn't function after I had pressed the button, so I crashed as I didn't expect the car to behave that way."

[maonnjtip]

Adjustable twice a lap brings the protest : "He changed his wing three times ! He can't do that !"

"I'm sure I saw it flex while it was adjusting !" .

Will they have flexibility in the adjustments ?
Will they be able to adjust the flexibility ?

Will they be flexible enough to adjust ?

There's all kinds of room to breath with moving wings , and all kinds of room in the WMSC courts for moving suits to the forefront in the championship .

Gosh , wouldn't that be great ?

Bad , bad idea . Bad .
Really bad .

[Reftsheette]

Adjustable twice a lap brings the protest : "He changed his wing three times ! He can't do that !"

"I'm sure I saw it flex while it was adjusting !" .

Will they have flexibility in the adjustments ?
Will they be able to adjust the flexibility ?

Will they be flexible enough to adjust ?

There's all kinds of room to breath with moving wings , and all kinds of room in the WMSC courts for moving suits to the forefront in the championship .

Gosh , wouldn't that be great ?

Bad , bad idea . Bad .
Really bad .

Or, just eliminate the no movable aero devices ban completely. F1 did it because F1 did a bad job of copying what Hall & Co. were doing, so they had wing failures.

[kucheravka]

Go back to lower front wing. Ex-designer Gary Anderson is one person amongst many who support this because a lower wing is supposedly less susceptible to the turbulent wake.