2013 F1 technical regulations coming

[ioan]

From autosport.com :

Engine:
- the latest plan is for 1.6-litre four-cylinder turbo engines to become standard.
- numerous energy recovery systems
- power around 650bhp.
- possible limit of engines to 5/driver/season

- fuel flow rate limit is considered to ensure the engines are economical.

Williams technical director Sam Michael said: "Rather than dump as much fuel in as we can at the moment, there will be a fuel flow metre - so you won't be able to blow more than a certain amount of fuel. It is a good chunk less than we had at the moment."

Why not simply impose a fuel tank volume?! To easy for the F1 managers to think about it?!

Chassis:
- ground effect being actively considered to improve overtaking

"They are talking about putting a greater proportion of down force to the diffuser, a ground effect car - like the early 1980's," added Michael. "They have been looking at that, as well as increasing crash protection at the front of the car by moving the sidepods further forwards."

Not sure what he is talking about! How is that you can protect the front of the car with the sidepods unless these protrude in front of the front wing!

If they think like they express themselves F1 is doomed.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86341

[V12]

Why not simply impose a fuel tank volume?! To easy for the F1 managers to think about it?!

That'd be the logical thing to do, wouldn't it - sounds like the usual overcomplicating what should be a simple issue.

On the whole I've nothing against 1.6-litre turbos, nothing against ground effects, nothing against the use of energy recovery systems, the plan sounds good, I just worry about the execution.

I hope to hell we don't get:

-Standard engines, standard blocks, any standardised physical parts of the motor, with only energy recovery peripherals free for development, and someone at the FIA rabbiting on about designated "performance differentiators" and so on when justifying the decision.

-Hybrid/recovery systems that can only be used for 6.78345671 seconds per lap or whatever, they should let them use whatever they can harness, if they are serious about promoting these sort of technologies.

[gloomyDAY]

Ticks all of my boxes!

I'm looking forward to 2013.

[Retro Formula 1]

The FIA et al are obviously expecting the recession to be over by then as it's going to be hugely expensive to develop all these sea changes.

[SGWilko]

Not sure what he is talking about! How is that you can protect the front of the car with the sidepods unless these protrude in front of the front wing!

If they think like they express themselves F1 is doomed.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86341

Take a look at the Ferrari 641 - how far forward the sidepods are.

Aside from protecting the driver, that is one b. e. a. utiful car!

[Ben_Chracer]

From autosport.com :
Why not simply impose a fuel tank volume?! To easy for the F1 managers to think about it?!

I could be wrong, but having a limited fuel capacity, but unlimited flow may offer a "push-to-pass" feature where a team could crank up the fuel flow for more power at the start or to open a gap, then back it off substantially later in the race to make it to the end. Webber had to back off in Turkey just before Vettel ran into him. Limiting the flow will serve to limit the overall consumption AND improve the competition amongst the cars by keeping them bunched up.

I'm excited about ground effects and how the close racing may be improved.

This is my first post here and I hope it makes sense. Thanks for the excellent discussions and info!

[ioan]

Take a look at the Ferrari 641 - how far forward the sidepods are.

Aside from protecting the driver, that is one b. e. a. utiful car!

Still the sidepods of the 641 do not protect the front of the car.

IMO they should be honest and say it loud that they need more surface under the car for the ground effects instead of this crap about protecting the front of he car.

[ioan]

I could be wrong, but having a limited fuel capacity, but unlimited flow may offer a "push-to-pass" feature where a team could crank up the fuel flow for more power at the start or to open a gap, then back it off substantially later in the race to make it to the end.

I do not see any problem with that, especially that they are talking about consuming less fuel for environmental reasons not for limiting overtaking opportunities.

PS: welcome to the board!

[ArrowsFA1]

Chassis:
- ground effect being actively considered to improve overtaking

[Jag_Warrior]

I hope that the "numerous energy recovery systems" will translate to some sort of power on demand systems. I'm assuming the weight regulations will be the same as now?