Discussion
I'm not clear about what's changing for next year.
Several commentators have implied that the only difference will be the end of re-fuelling.
But I think I saw in a recent comment by Alonso that front tyres will be narrower.
And what about KERS? I get the impression that it will still be legal, but that all teams have agreed not to use it.
And the driver-operated front wing adjustment? Hardly got a mention this year. Was it used?, did it work?
Is it staying for '10?
Anybody know of a source that explains, in simple terms, what to expect?
Several commentators have implied that the only difference will be the end of re-fuelling.
But I think I saw in a recent comment by Alonso that front tyres will be narrower.
And what about KERS? I get the impression that it will still be legal, but that all teams have agreed not to use it.
And the driver-operated front wing adjustment? Hardly got a mention this year. Was it used?, did it work?
Is it staying for '10?
Anybody know of a source that explains, in simple terms, what to expect?
I think what you mention is about it - as you say, finding somewhere where it is spelt out simply is not straight forward!
As I understand it KERS will be legal but FOTA have agreed amongst themselves to not use it, however, Williams have hinted they might....
The front wing adjustments I think were not used universally this year, but there have been occasional mentions of it, so not sure how much difference it has made.
The tyres and especially refueling being binned are the big changes as you say; so other than the cars perhaps having to be a touch longer or fatter, not sure if there is anything significant in the aero changes from this year.
The bible of course is the FIA regs....but reading through paragraph by paragraph comparing 2009 to 2010.....
As I understand it KERS will be legal but FOTA have agreed amongst themselves to not use it, however, Williams have hinted they might....
The front wing adjustments I think were not used universally this year, but there have been occasional mentions of it, so not sure how much difference it has made.
The tyres and especially refueling being binned are the big changes as you say; so other than the cars perhaps having to be a touch longer or fatter, not sure if there is anything significant in the aero changes from this year.
The bible of course is the FIA regs....but reading through paragraph by paragraph comparing 2009 to 2010.....
forsure said:
I'm not clear about what's changing for next year.
Several commentators have implied that the only difference will be the end of re-fuelling.
But I think I saw in a recent comment by Alonso that front tyres will be narrower.
And what about KERS? I get the impression that it will still be legal, but that all teams have agreed not to use it.
And the driver-operated front wing adjustment? Hardly got a mention this year. Was it used?, did it work?
Is it staying for '10?
Anybody know of a source that explains, in simple terms, what to expect?
The front tyres are going to be narrower according to the bloke from Bridgestone who the Beeb always interview, think it was to 245 from 275. it is legal next year but I think even Williams have given up with it now! Most of the wings seemed to be fiddled with in the pit stop, it may just be down to preference and simplicity I think more than anythink.Several commentators have implied that the only difference will be the end of re-fuelling.
But I think I saw in a recent comment by Alonso that front tyres will be narrower.
And what about KERS? I get the impression that it will still be legal, but that all teams have agreed not to use it.
And the driver-operated front wing adjustment? Hardly got a mention this year. Was it used?, did it work?
Is it staying for '10?
Anybody know of a source that explains, in simple terms, what to expect?
Not sure who is in FOTA because Sauber is still called "BMW Sauber" and Toyota is still on there which suggests the website needs an update...
Main bits for 2010. Changes or things expected to change but didn't.
"The headline amendments are the removal of the highly contentious budget cap and two-tier elements, but it was also confirmed that Bernie Ecclestone has once again failed to have his 'medals' scoring system implemented.
'Q3' qualifying, meanwhile, will be contested with low-fuel, with the FIA confirming that refuelling "during a race is forbidden".
A mooted increase in testing for 2010 has not materialised, with only eight straight-line tests and limited running on "promotional" tyres excluded from the strict in-season testing ban.
Additionally, wind tunnel testing is limited to 60 per cent (or smaller) scale models, and tunnel speeds capped at 50 metres per second.
Tyre-warming blankets, however, have survived, and the eight-engines-per driver regulation remains in force despite speculation of a move to five engines.
Also remaining the same is the one-gearbox-per-four-races rule, but the car-plus-driver limit has increased to 620kg, with KERS to remain officially legal in 2010 despite the FOTA agreement to not use the energy-recovery systems."
"The headline amendments are the removal of the highly contentious budget cap and two-tier elements, but it was also confirmed that Bernie Ecclestone has once again failed to have his 'medals' scoring system implemented.
'Q3' qualifying, meanwhile, will be contested with low-fuel, with the FIA confirming that refuelling "during a race is forbidden".
A mooted increase in testing for 2010 has not materialised, with only eight straight-line tests and limited running on "promotional" tyres excluded from the strict in-season testing ban.
Additionally, wind tunnel testing is limited to 60 per cent (or smaller) scale models, and tunnel speeds capped at 50 metres per second.
Tyre-warming blankets, however, have survived, and the eight-engines-per driver regulation remains in force despite speculation of a move to five engines.
Also remaining the same is the one-gearbox-per-four-races rule, but the car-plus-driver limit has increased to 620kg, with KERS to remain officially legal in 2010 despite the FOTA agreement to not use the energy-recovery systems."
More in-depth here - http://www.f1technical.net/news/12314
Notice this bit - "Four wheel drive
On top of that, cost regulated teams will be allowed four wheel drive. For those teams, article 9.1 of the technical regulations that states "No transmission system may permit more than two wheels to be driven." has been scrapped from the rulebook."
Wonder if that might interest Audi?
Notice this bit - "Four wheel drive
On top of that, cost regulated teams will be allowed four wheel drive. For those teams, article 9.1 of the technical regulations that states "No transmission system may permit more than two wheels to be driven." has been scrapped from the rulebook."
Wonder if that might interest Audi?
If you have a little time to spare, all the regulations are available here - http://www.fia.com/EN-GB/SPORT/REGULATIONS/Pages/F...
[quote=FourWheelDrift]the car-plus-driver limit has increased to 620kg, with KERS to remain officially legal in 2010[quote]
This, I think, is going to throw up some interesting issues for the teams, and possibly throw up some safety concerns too.
Currently the non-KERS teams (and possibly even the KERS teams in the end) needed ballast to bring the cars up to weight, with an emphasis on moving it a long way forward to help with the balance of the car and to look after the rear tyres. In Autosport this week, Gary Anderson mentioned that Renault had been putting ballast in the front wing end-plates, which is technically within the regs but really quite dangerous if it were to hit another car and get broken off.
With the need for even more ballast to bring the cars up to the minimum weight, it begs the question as to where it's going to go. I hope common sense prevails (!!) and the FIA outlaw the practice of putting ballast in potentially dangerous places.
This, I think, is going to throw up some interesting issues for the teams, and possibly throw up some safety concerns too.
Currently the non-KERS teams (and possibly even the KERS teams in the end) needed ballast to bring the cars up to weight, with an emphasis on moving it a long way forward to help with the balance of the car and to look after the rear tyres. In Autosport this week, Gary Anderson mentioned that Renault had been putting ballast in the front wing end-plates, which is technically within the regs but really quite dangerous if it were to hit another car and get broken off.
With the need for even more ballast to bring the cars up to the minimum weight, it begs the question as to where it's going to go. I hope common sense prevails (!!) and the FIA outlaw the practice of putting ballast in potentially dangerous places.
Nick M said:
With the need for even more ballast to bring the cars up to the minimum weight, it begs the question as to where it's going to go. I hope common sense prevails (!!) and the FIA outlaw the practice of putting ballast in potentially dangerous places.
I thought the weight increase was (in part) to reduce the detriment of heavier drivers? although without KERS for next year perhaps you are right!Not just in potentially dangerous places, but also exotic materials: I know they are banned in the engines these days, but there are a few 'interesting' materials that could be introduced as balance weights if you wanted maximum mass in minimum volume!
llewop said:
Nick M said:
With the need for even more ballast to bring the cars up to the minimum weight, it begs the question as to where it's going to go. I hope common sense prevails (!!) and the FIA outlaw the practice of putting ballast in potentially dangerous places.
I thought the weight increase was (in part) to reduce the detriment of heavier drivers? although without KERS for next year perhaps you are right!Not just in potentially dangerous places, but also exotic materials: I know they are banned in the engines these days, but there are a few 'interesting' materials that could be introduced as balance weights if you wanted maximum mass in minimum volume!
Pre-KERS, all the cars needed ballast, but when it was introduced some of the teams, e.g. BMW, struggled to get the car + driver down to the minimum weight, hence that was increased.
But with no KERS in the car it's going to be necessary to ballast the cars to bring them up to the (higher) min weight limit.
I think KERS is mandatory for 2011, although I'm not sure if the regs are truly finalised for that season.
As for exotic materials, I'm not sure what they currently use but there were references to it being something more 'interesting' than just boring old lead.
Nick M said:
llewop said:
Nick M said:
With the need for even more ballast to bring the cars up to the minimum weight, it begs the question as to where it's going to go. I hope common sense prevails (!!) and the FIA outlaw the practice of putting ballast in potentially dangerous places.
I thought the weight increase was (in part) to reduce the detriment of heavier drivers? although without KERS for next year perhaps you are right!Not just in potentially dangerous places, but also exotic materials: I know they are banned in the engines these days, but there are a few 'interesting' materials that could be introduced as balance weights if you wanted maximum mass in minimum volume!
Pre-KERS, all the cars needed ballast, but when it was introduced some of the teams, e.g. BMW, struggled to get the car + driver down to the minimum weight, hence that was increased.
But with no KERS in the car it's going to be necessary to ballast the cars to bring them up to the (higher) min weight limit.
I think KERS is mandatory for 2011, although I'm not sure if the regs are truly finalised for that season.
As for exotic materials, I'm not sure what they currently use but there were references to it being something more 'interesting' than just boring old lead.
bobthemonkey said:
Nick M said:
As for exotic materials, I'm not sure what they currently use but there were references to it being something more 'interesting' than just boring old lead.
DU? Surely not. 
, but something which was a very dense substance, rather than just a metal. The techy page in this weeks Autosport alludes to that, but doesn't state what it actually is.dirty boy said:
llewop said:
bobthemonkey said:
DU? Surely not.
It is the 'classic' high density weight, but there are more sane options such as tungsten.I did a quick google for Osmium: ~$100/g so £100k/kg - even for an F1 team a bit much! DU is waste = cheap.....
I Thought the whole idea was to cut spending?
Narrower front tyres + increase in total weight + race fuel
To carry race fuel= probable increase in chassis length and/or increase in body width + different body design (areo implications) to accommodate bulkier fuel tank + variation in weight distribution
Narrower front tyres will have implications throughtout the chassis/areo package
Remember how the teams without a double diffuser had to design a B-spec car just to properly accommodate/fully realise this one aspect.
The successfull teams will be the ones that bin the '09 machine and design a new car from scratch. Well done mosley, you depart on yet another poorly conceived f
k up.
Narrower front tyres + increase in total weight + race fuel
To carry race fuel= probable increase in chassis length and/or increase in body width + different body design (areo implications) to accommodate bulkier fuel tank + variation in weight distribution
Narrower front tyres will have implications throughtout the chassis/areo package
Remember how the teams without a double diffuser had to design a B-spec car just to properly accommodate/fully realise this one aspect.
The successfull teams will be the ones that bin the '09 machine and design a new car from scratch. Well done mosley, you depart on yet another poorly conceived f
k up.Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff