F1 legislation question re: downforce

[205alive]

I've had a thought about how it might be possible to increase downforce in an F1 car.

Can anyone possibly point me in the right direction of the legislation, or perhaps advise me on what sort of aerodynamic mods and developments aren't allowed?

ie, The Brabham BT46 was very successful from what I remember and read on Wikipedia. The idea I'd like to explore relates to the use of a rotating element which creates a differential in air pressure.

I'm trying to find out if this would be a complete non starter. Does anyone have any pointers please?

[Gillett66]

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/F...

[LordGrover]

I seem to remember if it moves it aint allowed, so from your description I'd guess a non-starter.

[RealSquirrels]

movable aerodynamic devices are banned so that rules out, er... fans, bendy wings, apparently some elements of suspension and for the sake of logical consistency with the latter ruling also engines and tyres.

[EDLT]

LordGrover said:

I seem to remember if it moves it aint allowed, so from your description I'd guess a non-starter.

This, it'll either be banned already or get banned the moment another team sees it and demands "clarification".

[MrKipling43]

Certainly is...

FIA regs said:

With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

[KevinA4quattro]

MrKipling43 said:

Certainly is...

FIA regs said:

With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:

- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Hmmm, Red Bull bendy nose.....

[Munter]

KevinA4quattro said:

Hmmm, Red Bull bendy nose.....

Indeed. Technically outside the rules, but inside the tests. Because the rules are outside the laws of physics. Everything flexes. So if the rules say no flexing whatsoever, you cannot build the car. So wings etc are built to meet the tests, not the rules.

[MrKipling43]

Munter said:

KevinA4quattro said:

Hmmm, Red Bull bendy nose.....

Indeed. Technically outside the rules, but inside the tests. Because the rules are outside the laws of physics. Everything flexes. So if the rules say no flexing whatsoever, you cannot build the car. So wings etc are built to meet the tests, not the rules.

Hence the invention of some REALLY clever carbon fibre lay-ups...

[Nick1point9]

205alive said:

The idea I'd like to explore relates to the use of a rotating element which creates a differential in air pressure.

Fan cars were banned years ago.

[chevronb37]

205alive said:

I've had a thought about how it might be possible to increase downforce in an F1 car.

Can anyone possibly point me in the right direction of the legislation, or perhaps advise me on what sort of aerodynamic mods and developments aren't allowed?

ie, The Brabham BT46 was very successful from what I remember and read on Wikipedia. The idea I'd like to explore relates to the use of a rotating element which creates a differential in air pressure.

I'm trying to find out if this would be a complete non starter. Does anyone have any pointers please?

Just for clarity, the BT46 was a conventional car - the BT46B was the so-called 'fan car' which raced just once at Sweden in 1978.