Mada, slažem se da sledeća sezona obećava dosta uzbuđenja. Ko zna, možda se Ferariju posreći ono što Meklarenu nije...
Za ostale se ne brinem, pogotovu ne za Vetela i Hamiltona
F1 Tehnika
Started by
alpiner
, Oct 13 2008 11:30
294 replies to this topic
#46
DASUBO
-
- Members
- 3,855 posts
Posted 16 November 2009 - 15:20
Alonso nije trenutno najbolji vozač u F1, A Ferari nije trenutno najbolji tim u F1.
Mada, slažem se da sledeća sezona obećava dosta uzbuđenja. Ko zna, možda se Ferariju posreći ono što Meklarenu nije...
Za ostale se ne brinem, pogotovu ne za Vetela i Hamiltona
Mada, slažem se da sledeća sezona obećava dosta uzbuđenja. Ko zna, možda se Ferariju posreći ono što Meklarenu nije...
Za ostale se ne brinem, pogotovu ne za Vetela i Hamiltona
#47
alberto.ascari
-
- Members
- 28,756 posts
Posted 16 November 2009 - 16:19
Alonso nije trenutno najbolji vozač u F1, A Ferari nije trenutno najbolji tim u F1.
Slažem se, trenutno su najbolji Button i BrawnGP.
Ma koliko se to meni ne svidjalo ili svidjalo.
edit - erghh, Mercedes GP, hteo sam da napišem
Edited by alberto.ascari, 16 November 2009 - 16:24.
#48
Trofej
-
- Members
- 4,307 posts
Posted 16 November 2009 - 19:02
Alonso nije trenutno najbolji vozač u F1, A Ferari nije trenutno najbolji tim u F1.
Mada, slažem se da sledeća sezona obećava dosta uzbuđenja. Ko zna, možda se Ferariju posreći ono što Meklarenu nije...
Za ostale se ne brinem, pogotovu ne za Vetela i Hamiltona
Alonso JESTE trenutno najbolji vozac u F1, samo je trenutno vozio krs a ne bolid. Bas zato je i presao u Ferrari, koji trenutno nema dobar bolid, ali se nada da ce iduce godine biti, ako ne najbolji, a ono bar bolid dostojan renomea jednog Ferrarija. Ja kad kazem "najbolji Ferrari" ne mislim na trenutno nego, nego na istoriju F1. Mozda se mozemo sporiti ko je trenutno najbolji vozac (Baton naravno
), ali nikako ko je najbolji tim u F1. Zato se i plasim da ne bude dosadno...
Jer, zanimljivije je kad najbolji vozac vozi nesto slabiji bolid, ili nesto losiji vozac najbolji. Jer kad najbolji vozi najbolji, onda...
#49
nlavrnja
-
- Members
- 31,992 posts
Posted 16 November 2009 - 19:35
Ko o cemu ti o Sumaheru.............
Jer, zanimljivije je kad najbolji vozac vozi nesto slabiji bolid, ili nesto losiji vozac najbolji. Jer kad najbolji vozi najbolji, onda...
#50
alpiner
-
- Members
- 11,330 posts
Posted 26 November 2009 - 19:01
Analysis of F1 engine performance in 2009
Posted on | November 26, 2009 | by James Allen
There is a great piece of work on Auto Motor und Sport’s website with an analysis of the engines in this year’s world championship. The analysis is based on collating the information each engine builder has about each other.
I’ve checked it out with some of the F1 engineers and it seems that the data is a pretty accurate reflection of the numbers they are working with.
The result is that Mercedes comes out top, with Toyota at the bottom.
Throughout the year one kept hearing stories about how much the Renault in the back of the Red Bull car was down on power compared to the Mercedes in the Brawn, Force India and the McLaren. In fact Renault were allowed to improve their engine quite a lot from 2008 to 2009 and it ended up not far off the performance of the Mercedes.
Most teams reached the conclusion, based on acoustic analysis and GPS, that the spread of engine power from the best to the worst engines was less than 2.5% this year. This means that, if the Mercedes is believed to have had 755hp, the least powerful engine was 18hp down, which is worth just under 3/10ths of a second per lap.
The BMW and Mercedes were at the top, with the Ferrari just behind, then the Renault and the Toyota. On this basis, given how close the lap times were between teams this year, the Toyota and Williams chassis must have been pretty good to withstand losing 3/10ths of a second through engine performance alone. Both teams had the double diffuser from the start of the year, of course.
Responding to rumours in the paddock about the performance of the Mercedes, the FIA took a Mercedes’ engine apart and tested it after Monza, giving it a clean bill of health.
The Renault won out this year on fuel efficiency, however, which was pretty important this year and will be much more important next year with no refuellling. Compared to the Mercedes, the Renault would go four laps longer on a full tank of fuel, which is worth about 3/10ths of a second per lap next year. The Ferrari was less efficient than the Mercedes, as we saw on several occasions this year.
As for next year, Cosworth is believed to be quoting a figure of 770hp, which is up on the Mercedes, but the fuel efficiency is still an issue and the unit is well short of the reliability testing of its peers.
Mercedes was given clearance by the FIA to supply a fourth team next year, but is not able to do so, due to the terms of its agreement with McLaren. Mercedes now owns the Brawn team, while McLaren has a technology partnership with Force India. So it is not in McLaren’s interests to add another competitor.
Red Bull is in limbo at the moment, waiting to see whether Renault, on whose engine its 2010 car is designed, will continue in F1. A decision is expected at the end of the year.
Posted on | November 26, 2009 | by James Allen
There is a great piece of work on Auto Motor und Sport’s website with an analysis of the engines in this year’s world championship. The analysis is based on collating the information each engine builder has about each other.
I’ve checked it out with some of the F1 engineers and it seems that the data is a pretty accurate reflection of the numbers they are working with.
The result is that Mercedes comes out top, with Toyota at the bottom.
Throughout the year one kept hearing stories about how much the Renault in the back of the Red Bull car was down on power compared to the Mercedes in the Brawn, Force India and the McLaren. In fact Renault were allowed to improve their engine quite a lot from 2008 to 2009 and it ended up not far off the performance of the Mercedes.
Most teams reached the conclusion, based on acoustic analysis and GPS, that the spread of engine power from the best to the worst engines was less than 2.5% this year. This means that, if the Mercedes is believed to have had 755hp, the least powerful engine was 18hp down, which is worth just under 3/10ths of a second per lap.
The BMW and Mercedes were at the top, with the Ferrari just behind, then the Renault and the Toyota. On this basis, given how close the lap times were between teams this year, the Toyota and Williams chassis must have been pretty good to withstand losing 3/10ths of a second through engine performance alone. Both teams had the double diffuser from the start of the year, of course.
Responding to rumours in the paddock about the performance of the Mercedes, the FIA took a Mercedes’ engine apart and tested it after Monza, giving it a clean bill of health.
The Renault won out this year on fuel efficiency, however, which was pretty important this year and will be much more important next year with no refuellling. Compared to the Mercedes, the Renault would go four laps longer on a full tank of fuel, which is worth about 3/10ths of a second per lap next year. The Ferrari was less efficient than the Mercedes, as we saw on several occasions this year.
As for next year, Cosworth is believed to be quoting a figure of 770hp, which is up on the Mercedes, but the fuel efficiency is still an issue and the unit is well short of the reliability testing of its peers.
Mercedes was given clearance by the FIA to supply a fourth team next year, but is not able to do so, due to the terms of its agreement with McLaren. Mercedes now owns the Brawn team, while McLaren has a technology partnership with Force India. So it is not in McLaren’s interests to add another competitor.
Red Bull is in limbo at the moment, waiting to see whether Renault, on whose engine its 2010 car is designed, will continue in F1. A decision is expected at the end of the year.
#51
alpiner
-
- Members
- 11,330 posts
Posted 03 January 2010 - 12:21
F1 designers call for track changes
Sunday, 03 January 2010 01:52
Two of Formula 1’s leading car designers believe radical changes to circuit layouts are needed to spice up the show.
Red Bull technical chief Adrian Newey and his Williams counterpart Sam Michael agree that the major rule changes instituted in 2009 yielded disappointing results, but feel circuit rather than chassis design is the key to improving the spectacle.
“Fundamentally, I think the circuits are probably the biggest influence,” Newey told Racecar Engineering magazine.
“Everybody keeps conveniently forgetting about that, as it is deemed to be easier to change the cars than change the circuits.”
Michael reckons the switch to slick tyres and lower aerodynamic downforce in ’09 had some positive effects, and says the disparity in the amount of overtaking at different circuits highlighted the nature of the problem.
“One thing that hasn’t really been addressed at all so far is circuit design,” he said.
“You’ve got to ask yourself, why do you go to a race such as Barcelona where no one overtakes, and then take exactly the same cars to Monza, Montreal or Hockenheim and you get lots of overtaking.
“Those cars are exactly the same aerodynamically, yet on one circuit they overtake a lot and on another circuit they don’t overtake at all.
“It’s because of the circuit layout – it’s because when they lay out circuits they don’t look closely enough at the combination of slow-speed corners onto straights followed by slow-speed corners.
“This is something that the FIA are dealing with now and having a really strong look at.
“If you look at somewhere like Abu Dhabi, which was a brand new circuit, there are some very good aspects to that circuit, but because there were some pretty fundamental mistakes there, they need to change them before next year.
“There’s no point being sensitive about it – ultimately there wasn’t good enough racing in Abu Dhabi, and Formula 1 has to look at itself and ask why.
“You can’t keep putting all of it on the car design all of the time.
“Of course the car design has some responsibility for it, but if you went to every circuit and you never saw any overtaking, then you could blame it all on the car design.
“But clearly that’s not the case, because there are places where cars do overtake.
“So clearly this needs a pretty thorough look at. It’s something the FIA have taken charge of now, so hopefully we’ll see some good come out of it.”
McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh concurs that much more attention needs to be focused on circuit design.
“You only need to do simple statistical analysis and look at where the overtaking moves are,” he told F1 Racing.
“If, say, we race on 18 circuits with 350 corners, then 90 per cent of overtaking moves in a year would happen at just 10 corners.
“You also have to look at the preceding corner.
“The fact that overtaking is focused on such a small number of corners clearly demonstrates that it’s circuit-dependent.”
The FIA recently hosted a seminar to investigate how to increase overtaking in F1 – attended by the sport’s dominant circuit designer Hermann Tilke, seven-time world champion Michael Schumacher and veteran Penske and G-Force designer Nigel Bennett – but few major changes are expected to be implemented for the 2010 season.
Sunday, 03 January 2010 01:52
Two of Formula 1’s leading car designers believe radical changes to circuit layouts are needed to spice up the show.
Red Bull technical chief Adrian Newey and his Williams counterpart Sam Michael agree that the major rule changes instituted in 2009 yielded disappointing results, but feel circuit rather than chassis design is the key to improving the spectacle.
“Fundamentally, I think the circuits are probably the biggest influence,” Newey told Racecar Engineering magazine.
“Everybody keeps conveniently forgetting about that, as it is deemed to be easier to change the cars than change the circuits.”
Michael reckons the switch to slick tyres and lower aerodynamic downforce in ’09 had some positive effects, and says the disparity in the amount of overtaking at different circuits highlighted the nature of the problem.
“One thing that hasn’t really been addressed at all so far is circuit design,” he said.
“You’ve got to ask yourself, why do you go to a race such as Barcelona where no one overtakes, and then take exactly the same cars to Monza, Montreal or Hockenheim and you get lots of overtaking.
“Those cars are exactly the same aerodynamically, yet on one circuit they overtake a lot and on another circuit they don’t overtake at all.
“It’s because of the circuit layout – it’s because when they lay out circuits they don’t look closely enough at the combination of slow-speed corners onto straights followed by slow-speed corners.
“This is something that the FIA are dealing with now and having a really strong look at.
“If you look at somewhere like Abu Dhabi, which was a brand new circuit, there are some very good aspects to that circuit, but because there were some pretty fundamental mistakes there, they need to change them before next year.
“There’s no point being sensitive about it – ultimately there wasn’t good enough racing in Abu Dhabi, and Formula 1 has to look at itself and ask why.
“You can’t keep putting all of it on the car design all of the time.
“Of course the car design has some responsibility for it, but if you went to every circuit and you never saw any overtaking, then you could blame it all on the car design.
“But clearly that’s not the case, because there are places where cars do overtake.
“So clearly this needs a pretty thorough look at. It’s something the FIA have taken charge of now, so hopefully we’ll see some good come out of it.”
McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh concurs that much more attention needs to be focused on circuit design.
“You only need to do simple statistical analysis and look at where the overtaking moves are,” he told F1 Racing.
“If, say, we race on 18 circuits with 350 corners, then 90 per cent of overtaking moves in a year would happen at just 10 corners.
“You also have to look at the preceding corner.
“The fact that overtaking is focused on such a small number of corners clearly demonstrates that it’s circuit-dependent.”
The FIA recently hosted a seminar to investigate how to increase overtaking in F1 – attended by the sport’s dominant circuit designer Hermann Tilke, seven-time world champion Michael Schumacher and veteran Penske and G-Force designer Nigel Bennett – but few major changes are expected to be implemented for the 2010 season.
#52
spookysleeper
-
- Members
- 219 posts
Posted 03 January 2010 - 16:24
Nije moguce da su staze nemastovite! 
Mene stalno razocaraju cak i ove nove prelepe staze, kao ne znas sta a ono jedno lepo preticanje a sve ostalo box-preticanja i kolone...i onda nista...barem se lepo naspavam.
Da ne znam ko je Alonso, ko je Vettel, Kimmi i kakve sve zackoljice tu postoje...ne znam sta bi me nateralo da odgledam ijednu trku.
dopuna:
Sada sam tek procitao ovo:
I da, stvarno...sto je trka bila uzas...ma koga briga za tunel iz kojeg se izlazi na stazu iz pit-a. Mislim mene ne a ako nekog i zanima super!
Mene stalno razocaraju cak i ove nove prelepe staze, kao ne znas sta a ono jedno lepo preticanje a sve ostalo box-preticanja i kolone...i onda nista...barem se lepo naspavam.
Da ne znam ko je Alonso, ko je Vettel, Kimmi i kakve sve zackoljice tu postoje...ne znam sta bi me nateralo da odgledam ijednu trku.
dopuna:
Sada sam tek procitao ovo:
“If you look at somewhere like Abu Dhabi, which was a brand new circuit, there are some very good aspects to that circuit, but because there were some pretty fundamental mistakes there, they need to change them before next year.
I da, stvarno...sto je trka bila uzas...ma koga briga za tunel iz kojeg se izlazi na stazu iz pit-a. Mislim mene ne a ako nekog i zanima super!
Edited by spookysleeper, 03 January 2010 - 16:28.
#54
alpiner
-
- Members
- 11,330 posts
Posted 22 January 2010 - 20:46
Five problems F1 designers face in 2010
22 January 2010 by f1fanatic
F1 cars will weigh almost 100kg more at the start of a race this year compared to last.
That presents a host of challenges to F1 designers such as brake wear, ride height, weight distribution and tyre wear. Any team which doesn’t get a grip of the problems will find themselves playing catch-up like McLaren did in 2009.
We’ll find out what their solutions are when the 2010 F1 car launches start next week. How might they try to solve them?
The starting point for most of the challenges facing F1 designers this year is the banning of refuelling. Instead of having cars weighing up to 660-700kg at the start of a race and 605kg at the end, that variation will be more like 800kg to 620kg.
That has major repercussions for the design of the cars in several key areas:
Brakes
Brakes will take an even greater pounding in 2010 as drivers will have to brake harder and longer in their fuel-heavy cars. And designers will have to get it right straight from the off as the first race of the season is at Bahrain, one of the toughest tracks for brake wear.
F1’s most notorious brake-buster – the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Montreal – will be back later in 2010. And teams will return to Abu Dhabi where higher than expected brake wear caused problems for McLaren and Red Bull in 2009.
And they’ve got to cope with all that using brakes which are the same size as those they had last year:
11.3.2 All discs must have a maximum thickness of 28mm and a maximum outside diameter of 278mm.
FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations 2010
In the second half of last season – particularly after the Surtees and Massa accidents – we saw the stewards crack down on teams to prevent them from running cars that were damaged or dangerous. We saw this in their reaction to Fernando Alonso losing a wheel during the Hungarian Grand Prix, and BMW being ordered to replace Robert Kubica’s damaged front wing at Monza.
When Mark Webber crashed with brake failure at Singapore, it was shortly after the team had warned him on the radio that he had a brake problem and should return to the pits. Teams who do not take that precaution next year are likely to face the wrath of the stewards.
Ride heights
Heavy fuel weights at the start of a race present another problem for designers. For optimum performance the cars need to run as low to the ground as possible. But as the fuel weight decreases the cars will ride higher because there will be less mass pushing down on their suspension springs.
In the last two seasons when refuelling was not allowed in F1 – 1992 and 1993 – many teams solved this problem using active suspension technology, which could be programmed to compensate for the ever-decreasingly fuel load by gradually reducing the ride height.
But two clauses in the 2010 rules prevent those kind of systems from being used:
10.2.2 Any powered device which is capable of altering the configuration or affecting the performance of any part of the suspension system is forbidden.
10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.
FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations 2010
The regulations appear not to rule out teams designing mechanical systems to adjust ride height during pit stops, but that may prove too complicated and time-consuming to achieve.
As has been the case since 1994, teams which run their cars too low are at risk of wearing down their skid blocks (also known as ‘planks’). This year will be the first season they’ve had to keep their plank wear in check while refuelling has not been allowed.
If you see pictures of cars in the pits without their nose cones on you may spot laser ride height sensors being used by the teams to check their compliance with the rules – especially during the forthcoming pre-season tests.
Fuel consumption
With refuelling banned the teams now have to fit an entire race-worth of fuel into their car. As Dominic Harlow of Force India explained recently, they begin by looking at the track which is the most demanding in terms of fuel consumption.
A rough calculation using Williams’ fuel consumption figures from last year suggests that will be the Singapore Grand Prix – 61 laps each using 2.533kg of fuel needing 154.5kg of fuel. But the real picture is more complicated than that.
To begin with, that figure of 2.533kg per lap will increase in 2010 because the minimum weight of the cars has gone up by 15kg to 620kg. Also, the cars will consume fuel at a faster rate at the beginning of the race due to the extra weight of fuel on board. That means they will need even more fuel in the tank to begin with.
Then we have to factor in the varying fuel consumption rates of different engines. Williams used the comparatively thirsty Toyota engine last year – this year they will have Cosworth engines whose performance is an unknown quantity. The FW32 is the first Cosworth-powered car we’ll get a look at, and the size of its back end compared to its rivals could give us an indication of how thirsty Cosworth’s CA2010 is.
The other engine users face the challenge of adapting their engines as to achieve better fuel economy within the strict engine freeze rules. This is a particular challenge for Mercedes and Ferrari, whose fuel consumption in 2009 was much higher than the likes of Renault .
Weight distribution
The reduction in front tyre width combined with the enlargement of the fuel tanks means some tough calls have to be made on weight distribution.
Front tyres will be 25mm narrower in 2010 compared to last year. So while in 2009 designers aimed to move weight distribution forward, this year they’re likely to try to move it rearward.
This may also lead to a reversal in the trend towards shorter wheelbases we saw last year.
Bridgestone will be supplying more durable tyres in 2010 to cope with the increased wear.
Rear packaging
One of the biggest technical stories of 2009 was the controversial double diffusers. Teams will be able to run them again in 2010 – but are looking to ban them in 2011.
They offer such a valuable increase in downforce it’s unlikely any teams will race without them this year. But the air flow around the rear of the car will be compromised by the enlarged fuel tanks which will require the radiators to be re-positioned and enlarged. Ferrari have already confirmed they will integrate the oil tank for their car within the gearbox case to give more room for the fuel tank.
Last year the Red Bull RB5 had low, tightly-sculpted side pods and pull road rear suspension. It will be harder to pull off that arrangement while meeting the demands imposed by the diffuser and the larger fuel tank. But if any designer is likely to spring a surprise it’s Adrian Newey. The team have already admitted the RB6 will not appear at the first test while it fine-tunes what could be the most radical design on the pit lane.
One other potentially significant change here is that no team will be running KERS. McLaren and Ferrari potentially have more to gain in this area compared to their 2009 designs which still had KERS installations at the end of last season.
22 January 2010 by f1fanatic
F1 cars will weigh almost 100kg more at the start of a race this year compared to last.
That presents a host of challenges to F1 designers such as brake wear, ride height, weight distribution and tyre wear. Any team which doesn’t get a grip of the problems will find themselves playing catch-up like McLaren did in 2009.
We’ll find out what their solutions are when the 2010 F1 car launches start next week. How might they try to solve them?
The starting point for most of the challenges facing F1 designers this year is the banning of refuelling. Instead of having cars weighing up to 660-700kg at the start of a race and 605kg at the end, that variation will be more like 800kg to 620kg.
That has major repercussions for the design of the cars in several key areas:
Brakes
Brakes will take an even greater pounding in 2010 as drivers will have to brake harder and longer in their fuel-heavy cars. And designers will have to get it right straight from the off as the first race of the season is at Bahrain, one of the toughest tracks for brake wear.
F1’s most notorious brake-buster – the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Montreal – will be back later in 2010. And teams will return to Abu Dhabi where higher than expected brake wear caused problems for McLaren and Red Bull in 2009.
And they’ve got to cope with all that using brakes which are the same size as those they had last year:
11.3.2 All discs must have a maximum thickness of 28mm and a maximum outside diameter of 278mm.
FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations 2010
In the second half of last season – particularly after the Surtees and Massa accidents – we saw the stewards crack down on teams to prevent them from running cars that were damaged or dangerous. We saw this in their reaction to Fernando Alonso losing a wheel during the Hungarian Grand Prix, and BMW being ordered to replace Robert Kubica’s damaged front wing at Monza.
When Mark Webber crashed with brake failure at Singapore, it was shortly after the team had warned him on the radio that he had a brake problem and should return to the pits. Teams who do not take that precaution next year are likely to face the wrath of the stewards.
Ride heights
Heavy fuel weights at the start of a race present another problem for designers. For optimum performance the cars need to run as low to the ground as possible. But as the fuel weight decreases the cars will ride higher because there will be less mass pushing down on their suspension springs.
In the last two seasons when refuelling was not allowed in F1 – 1992 and 1993 – many teams solved this problem using active suspension technology, which could be programmed to compensate for the ever-decreasingly fuel load by gradually reducing the ride height.
But two clauses in the 2010 rules prevent those kind of systems from being used:
10.2.2 Any powered device which is capable of altering the configuration or affecting the performance of any part of the suspension system is forbidden.
10.2.3 No adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion.
FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations 2010
The regulations appear not to rule out teams designing mechanical systems to adjust ride height during pit stops, but that may prove too complicated and time-consuming to achieve.
As has been the case since 1994, teams which run their cars too low are at risk of wearing down their skid blocks (also known as ‘planks’). This year will be the first season they’ve had to keep their plank wear in check while refuelling has not been allowed.
If you see pictures of cars in the pits without their nose cones on you may spot laser ride height sensors being used by the teams to check their compliance with the rules – especially during the forthcoming pre-season tests.
Fuel consumption
With refuelling banned the teams now have to fit an entire race-worth of fuel into their car. As Dominic Harlow of Force India explained recently, they begin by looking at the track which is the most demanding in terms of fuel consumption.
A rough calculation using Williams’ fuel consumption figures from last year suggests that will be the Singapore Grand Prix – 61 laps each using 2.533kg of fuel needing 154.5kg of fuel. But the real picture is more complicated than that.
To begin with, that figure of 2.533kg per lap will increase in 2010 because the minimum weight of the cars has gone up by 15kg to 620kg. Also, the cars will consume fuel at a faster rate at the beginning of the race due to the extra weight of fuel on board. That means they will need even more fuel in the tank to begin with.
Then we have to factor in the varying fuel consumption rates of different engines. Williams used the comparatively thirsty Toyota engine last year – this year they will have Cosworth engines whose performance is an unknown quantity. The FW32 is the first Cosworth-powered car we’ll get a look at, and the size of its back end compared to its rivals could give us an indication of how thirsty Cosworth’s CA2010 is.
The other engine users face the challenge of adapting their engines as to achieve better fuel economy within the strict engine freeze rules. This is a particular challenge for Mercedes and Ferrari, whose fuel consumption in 2009 was much higher than the likes of Renault .
Weight distribution
The reduction in front tyre width combined with the enlargement of the fuel tanks means some tough calls have to be made on weight distribution.
Front tyres will be 25mm narrower in 2010 compared to last year. So while in 2009 designers aimed to move weight distribution forward, this year they’re likely to try to move it rearward.
This may also lead to a reversal in the trend towards shorter wheelbases we saw last year.
Bridgestone will be supplying more durable tyres in 2010 to cope with the increased wear.
Rear packaging
One of the biggest technical stories of 2009 was the controversial double diffusers. Teams will be able to run them again in 2010 – but are looking to ban them in 2011.
They offer such a valuable increase in downforce it’s unlikely any teams will race without them this year. But the air flow around the rear of the car will be compromised by the enlarged fuel tanks which will require the radiators to be re-positioned and enlarged. Ferrari have already confirmed they will integrate the oil tank for their car within the gearbox case to give more room for the fuel tank.
Last year the Red Bull RB5 had low, tightly-sculpted side pods and pull road rear suspension. It will be harder to pull off that arrangement while meeting the demands imposed by the diffuser and the larger fuel tank. But if any designer is likely to spring a surprise it’s Adrian Newey. The team have already admitted the RB6 will not appear at the first test while it fine-tunes what could be the most radical design on the pit lane.
One other potentially significant change here is that no team will be running KERS. McLaren and Ferrari potentially have more to gain in this area compared to their 2009 designs which still had KERS installations at the end of last season.
Edited by alpiner, 22 January 2010 - 20:47.
#55
Downforce
-
- Members
- 4,995 posts
Posted 23 January 2010 - 17:33
Ovo donosi znacajnu razliku u performansama. U rangu DD. Siguran sam da ce neko pokusati da iskoristi ovo "sivilo". Napred je lako izvodljivo. Pozadi jako tesko, ali ne i nemoguce.The regulations appear not to rule out teams designing mechanical systems to adjust ride height during pit stops, but that may prove too complicated and time-consuming to achieve.
#56
Rad-oh-yeah?
-
- Members
- 21,862 posts
Posted 23 January 2010 - 19:47
Naskarovci i IRL imaju to vec ohoho, podesavanje ogibljenja tokom pitstipa, to je ono kada pritezu-otpustaju onim kljucem pozadi. Doduse, njihovi pitstopovi su svakako duzi (zbog pravila da samo 6 mehanicara sme da radi na bolidu pa se prvo radi desna strana a onda leva) pa ima vremena i za to, a u F1 ce servis u boksu bez dolivanja goriva da traje samo 3-4 sekunde sada...Ovo donosi znacajnu razliku u performansama. U rangu DD. Siguran sam da ce neko pokusati da iskoristi ovo "sivilo". Napred je lako izvodljivo. Pozadi jako tesko, ali ne i nemoguce.
#57
nlavrnja
-
- Members
- 31,992 posts
Posted 23 January 2010 - 19:53
Naskarovci i IRL imaju to vec ohoho, podesavanje ogibljenja tokom pitstipa, to je ono kada pritezu-otpustaju onim kljucem pozadi. Doduse, njihovi pitstopovi su svakako duzi (zbog pravila da samo 6 mehanicara sme da radi na bolidu pa se prvo radi desna strana a onda leva) pa ima vremena i za to, a u F1 ce servis u boksu bez dolivanja goriva da traje samo 3-4 sekunde sada...
Ali sto npr. ne izgubiti jos 3-4 sekunde, ako ce to donositi npr 0.3 sec po krugu. Bice zanimljivo videti, ako postoji realna mogucnost da se u voznji nadoknadi to dodatno vreme u pitu, kada ce se ekipe odlucivati na tako nesto i koliko su spremne da rizikuju
#58
Rad-oh-yeah?
-
- Members
- 21,862 posts
Posted 24 January 2010 - 00:00
Ali sto npr. ne izgubiti jos 3-4 sekunde, ako ce to donositi npr 0.3 sec po krugu. Bice zanimljivo videti, ako postoji realna mogucnost da se u voznji nadoknadi to dodatno vreme u pitu, kada ce se ekipe odlucivati na tako nesto i koliko su spremne da rizikuju
Da, teoretski ima smisla to sto kazes no pitanje je kako ce se bolidi ponasati na stazi, tj. hoce li preticanje opet biti gotovo nemoguce. Jer dzaba ti 0,3 sekunde po krugu ako si izgubio poziciju na stazi i sad ne mozes da preteknes onog sporijeg ispred tebe...
#59
nlavrnja
-
- Members
- 31,992 posts
Posted 24 January 2010 - 00:09
Da, teoretski ima smisla to sto kazes no pitanje je kako ce se bolidi ponasati na stazi, tj. hoce li preticanje opet biti gotovo nemoguce. Jer dzaba ti 0,3 sekunde po krugu ako si izgubio poziciju na stazi i sad ne mozes da preteknes onog sporijeg ispred tebe...
Nista.... treba uvesti precice
Edited by nlavrnja, 24 January 2010 - 00:09.
#60
alpiner
-
- Members
- 11,330 posts
Posted 30 January 2010 - 09:39
Ferrari thinks double diffuser saga could re-fire
Date 2010-01-29
Ferrari is concerned the double diffuser legality controversy in Formula One may be set to re-fire.
At the launch of the F10 on Thursday, technical director Aldo Costa said he thought at least one team was "on the limit" of legality with its 2010 design of the rear aerodynamic solution.
The initial emergence of double diffusers on the Brawn, Williams and Toyota cars last year caused great controversy, until the FIA said their rule interpretation was in fact legal.
"We were put in a very unpleasant position last year and we still think that the double diffuser is illegal," Costa told La Gazzetta dello Sport. "Maybe the saga will just carry on."
Ferrari's chief designer Nikolas Tombazis admitted: "The double diffuser allows a lot of room for experimentation and this is what worries us."
By the time of the McLaren launch on Friday, rumours were circulating that 2010 cars would be debuting 'triple' and 'quadruple' diffusers.
"We've got a fairly extreme incarnation (of double diffuser), but we won't be alone in that -- we believe we will see some pretty extreme solutions from our competitors as well," McLaren's engineering director Paddy Lowe said.
On the launch stage, the rear of McLaren's MP4-25 was tucked into a corner, and the diffuser itself was apparently covered.
All three 2010 cars seen so far - the Ferrari, McLaren and Williams - feature very high noses, to allow maximum airflow to much bigger diffusers.
Lowe denied Ferrari's fears that the diffuser rules are still unclear.
"We think the interpretation is very clear," he said. "In certain aspects we have sought guidance from the FIA and they have come out with very clear interpretation, understanding and guidance -- and we think that has been made available to all the teams.
"We are hoping for a much cleaner start to the season then we had a year ago in terms of the teams' collective understanding of the basis from which we go racing," Lowe added.
Date 2010-01-29
Ferrari is concerned the double diffuser legality controversy in Formula One may be set to re-fire.
At the launch of the F10 on Thursday, technical director Aldo Costa said he thought at least one team was "on the limit" of legality with its 2010 design of the rear aerodynamic solution.
The initial emergence of double diffusers on the Brawn, Williams and Toyota cars last year caused great controversy, until the FIA said their rule interpretation was in fact legal.
"We were put in a very unpleasant position last year and we still think that the double diffuser is illegal," Costa told La Gazzetta dello Sport. "Maybe the saga will just carry on."
Ferrari's chief designer Nikolas Tombazis admitted: "The double diffuser allows a lot of room for experimentation and this is what worries us."
By the time of the McLaren launch on Friday, rumours were circulating that 2010 cars would be debuting 'triple' and 'quadruple' diffusers.
"We've got a fairly extreme incarnation (of double diffuser), but we won't be alone in that -- we believe we will see some pretty extreme solutions from our competitors as well," McLaren's engineering director Paddy Lowe said.
On the launch stage, the rear of McLaren's MP4-25 was tucked into a corner, and the diffuser itself was apparently covered.
All three 2010 cars seen so far - the Ferrari, McLaren and Williams - feature very high noses, to allow maximum airflow to much bigger diffusers.
Lowe denied Ferrari's fears that the diffuser rules are still unclear.
"We think the interpretation is very clear," he said. "In certain aspects we have sought guidance from the FIA and they have come out with very clear interpretation, understanding and guidance -- and we think that has been made available to all the teams.
"We are hoping for a much cleaner start to the season then we had a year ago in terms of the teams' collective understanding of the basis from which we go racing," Lowe added.
