2013 F1 technical regulations coming

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

"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."

---

:confused: 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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.

Ticks all of my boxes!

I'm looking forward to 2013.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

:confused: 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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben_Chracer

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! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Chassis:
- ground effect being actively considered to improve overtaking

---

:up:

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?

Well we are sure as he'll gonna need those KERS systems to be a huge improvement on the current ones, otherwise just 650 ponies on tap is gonna be rather tame.

I welcome the ground effects debate, and turbo's but these cars need more power than grip so 1000bhp should be the target - fact. Pow!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

Well we are sure as he'll gonna need those KERS systems to be a huge improvement on the current ones, otherwise just 650 ponies on tap is gonna be rather tame.

I welcome the ground effects debate, and turbo's but these cars need more power than grip so 1000bhp should be the target - fact. Pow!

---

+1

The ground effects this time around will be nothing like we saw in the 1980's. Anyone witnessing what happened when there was problem was able to see how dangerous the cars were.

And the drivers hated the cars because there was no feel or balance and it significantly reduced the driver usefulness.

The most vivid memory I have was watching during practice at Sunset Bend at the old Kyalami track. One of the skirts got stuck on the Williams and it literally flung Carlos Reutemann like a slingshot towards the catch fencing - how he managed to control that and literally slide all opposite locked back onto the track and drive around to the pits was amazing!

So this time with all the knowledge available the ground effects will hopefully allow cars to become pretty again including reducing the godawful ugly front wing arrangements we have today.

As well as permit close running without turbulence to allow drivers the chance to overtake when they have made the opportunity - MAYBE even the better driver in the lesser car will once again be able to beat the lesser driver iin the better car.

650HP?! Awful!

That will be the equivalent of when formula 1 had those 1.5L engines in the 60's. Very unspectacular. And not as challenging for the drivers.

More power and less grip is needed. And while they're at it, they should ditch the engine freeze and the rev limiter.

Whats the point of these overtaking working groups when they reduce the car power, which means lower straight line speeds, which mean smaller and less frequent braking zones, which mean less overtaking?

I feel they should've made the slicks bigger to give a greater mechanical contact patch rather than dabble with ground effect, to be honest.

Ground effects?
650 horsepower?

I think I know what they are trying to make.
http://www.italiaspeed.com/2009/moto...le/indycar.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by call_me_andrew

Ground effects?
650 horsepower?

I think I know what they are trying to make.
http://www.italiaspeed.com/2009/moto...le/indycar.jpg

---

Get rid of it! Burn it! Send it to hell! :D

As long as F1 doesn't copy their dildo replacement car, then I shouldn't be too concerned.

Yep 1000hp+ and no grip is what we want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

The ground effects this time around will be nothing like we saw in the 1980's. Anyone witnessing what happened when there was problem was able to see how dangerous the cars were.

---

Absolutely. Sticking skirts and rock hard suspension made for a bumpy and dangerous ride :eek:

Although in a heavier, less advanced chassis, 650 hp is about what the current IRL car has - and it's less than what the next IRL car will have (assuming it ever sees the light of day). And at roughly the same weight/dimensions of an F1 car, the current GP2 car has close to 600 hp. Hopefully there's more to the story and 650 hp is just some sort of base that will be added to by the energy recovery systems. I don't see the cars becoming substantially lighter than they are now. So surely there's more in the bag that's being missed by this story.

Hoop98 or one of the engineers could speak to this better than I can, but at 1.6 liters and 650 hp, this isn't going to be a highly pressurized turbo engine, is it? I mean, it won't be anything like the crazy turbo engines we saw in the 80's. Would these things have any sort of meaningful torque? I know a fellow who has a 2.0 liter turbo in a street car and he's making well over 400 hp... and has over 30K miles on the engine. I don't know, but I guess I've just come to expect F1 engines to be from another planet. This one sounds like the guy next door (so far).

Well thats what the proposals state - the 650bhp is the basic engine with the KERS allowing up to another 180bhp.

But I doubt the 650 is going to be agreed to because as you note it will essentially place the f1 car at the GP2 level and that is ridiculous.

It would be better to allow turbo engines to reach 850 and then if we HAVE to be tortured by the goddam KERS allow another 150 to raise the level to 1000 bhp.

Make the cars somewhat too powerful for the chassis and THEN watch the good drivers come to the fore - I knew there was a reason why I have always like Tony Brooks's ideas on f1 :-]

And maybe a reasonable approach on ground effects will lead to less bits of aero on the above part of the car - even getting rid of the ugliest bloody front wings since the MARCH 701.

One idea which these days may or may nor be contrary to the rules, could overcome the dratted problems that the horrible idea of control tyres has allowed.

Especially for drivers such as Schumi who requires a car to be essentially oversteer at its maximum and therefore the rear considered undriveable by other drivers - most of them incompetent when compared to the Kerpen man.

I refer to the concept designed and used by Barnard on the McLarens of the 1980's at some point - use the front brakes to force more oversteer when the point is reached where the control tyres just flat line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Hoop98 or one of the engineers could speak to this better than I can, but at 1.6 liters and 650 hp, this isn't going to be a highly pressurized turbo engine, is it? I mean, it won't be anything like the crazy turbo engines we saw in the 80's. Would these things have any sort of meaningful torque? I know a fellow who has a 2.0 liter turbo in a street car and he's making well over 400 hp... and has over 30K miles on the engine. I don't know, but I guess I've just come to expect F1 engines to be from another planet. This one sounds like the guy next door (so far).

---

It depends a lot on if the FIA wants to change the maximum bore diameter.

650bhp ?
That's pretty less power than the f1 car had today . Oh well , at least they'll have turbo and ground effect but just don't move the side pod forward .
The only thing i look forward to...

The KERS + Turbo + Ground effect .

Well known Ferrari F-40 has 2.9 L (2936 cc) turbocharged V8 giving 478 PS (352 kW; 471 hp) under 110 kPa (16 psi) of boost at 7000 rpm. If we "shrink" the engine to 1,6 L we will have about 250 HP, if "accelerate" to about 19000 rpm we get about 650 HP. These calculations are very primitive, but they give some figures at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

---

Yeah, how they managed to not think of that is simply retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theugsquirrel

Yeah, how they managed to not think of that is simply retarded.

---

There is too much opportunity for abuse with scavangers, additional pipework, swirls etc adding a few extra litres :)

With a flow meter, you can guarentee that as long as nothing is between the injectors and meter, then that's the maximum they can use.

If we have a maximum fuel tank size, we will get more of this fuel saving mode instead of racing and it's more costly to change the flow rate in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

If we have a maximum fuel tank size, we will get more of this fuel saving mode instead of racing and it's more costly to change the flow rate in the future.

---

Exactly, we don't want situations like we've already seen where cars have too little fuel to complete the race and have to go into 'fuel saving'. Let them have as much as they need but only use so much at once.

I still think that isn't the answer however. And that's drastically slashing aerodynamic grip to almost zero!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Exactly, we don't want situations like we've already seen where cars have too little fuel to complete the race and have to go into 'fuel saving'. Let them have as much as they need but only use so much at once.

I still think that isn't the answer however. And that's drastically slashing aerodynamic grip to almost zero!

---

This is where we have some problems.

If you cut down aero grip and rely on Mechanical, you have slow corners and lap times.

If you compensate by introducing ground effect downforce then you improve corner speeds but make the cars unpredictable in a crash or any off track excursion into the kitty litter or grass.

I hate the idea of a spec series but standard front and rear wings which generate up to 50% of the current grip in addition to ground effect aero seems a good alternative.

I still just say we should keep the cars how they are now, with these regs, just ban double diffusers (which they are anyway), blown diffusers,turning vanes, and winglets on the front and rear wings.

That will create the spectacle that they were going for in 2009.

I was watching the season review of 2009 the other day, and the front wings that were on the Renault in Australia were almost completely clean of aero bits. All the cars should be like that. Yes the teams should be allowed to shape the sidepods, engine cover, wings, and even have F-ducts, but it's all these other bits that I don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woody2goody

I was watching the season review of 2009 the other day, and the front wings that were on the Renault in Australia were almost completely clean of aero bits. All the cars should be like that. Yes the teams should be allowed to shape the sidepods, engine cover, wings, and even have F-ducts, but it's all these other bits that I don't like.

---

They should ban F-ducts too. They are clever, yes, but they detract from the actual skill of driving the car. All these trick double diffusers, blown diffusers, f-ducts should be completely done away with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

The ground effects this time around will be nothing like we saw in the 1980's. Anyone witnessing what happened when there was problem was able to see how dangerous the cars were.

And the drivers hated the cars because there was no feel or balance and it significantly reduced the driver usefulness.

The most vivid memory I have was watching during practice at Sunset Bend at the old Kyalami track. One of the skirts got stuck on the Williams and it literally flung Carlos Reutemann like a slingshot towards the catch fencing - how he managed to control that and literally slide all opposite locked back onto the track and drive around to the pits was amazing!

So this time with all the knowledge available the ground effects will hopefully allow cars to become pretty again including reducing the godawful ugly front wing arrangements we have today.

As well as permit close running without turbulence to allow drivers the chance to overtake when they have made the opportunity - MAYBE even the better driver in the lesser car will once again be able to beat the lesser driver iin the better car.

---

Offset by the fact the fuel flow will regulated, the wings will - in theory have to be skinny to minimise drag and therefore less downforce from the body and probably not the rock solid suspension depending how the undertray is regulated.

The front wings? Hmm, I'm guessing they'll become even more uglier to clean airflow around the car.

According to motorsport.com, most of the teams have agreed to the 1.6l 650hp motor for 2013, and also GP2 will be using the same tires as the F1 cars. This is sad news to me. F1 will no longer be the fastest cars around. GP2 cars at around 610hp and the same tires are gonna be about as fast as an F1 car...so are Indy cars. F1 gonna go way down hill if this really happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by import111

According to motorsport.com, most of the teams have agreed to the 1.6l 650hp motor for 2013, and also GP2 will be using the same tires as the F1 cars. This is sad news to me. F1 will no longer be the fastest cars around. GP2 cars at around 610hp and the same tires are gonna be about as fast as an F1 car...so are Indy cars. F1 gonna go way down hill if this really happens.

---

and i'm not lovin' it . Perhaps , WE're not lovin' it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by import111

According to motorsport.com, most of the teams have agreed to the 1.6l 650hp motor for 2013, and also GP2 will be using the same tires as the F1 cars. This is sad news to me. F1 will no longer be the fastest cars around. GP2 cars at around 610hp and the same tires are gonna be about as fast as an F1 car...so are Indy cars. F1 gonna go way down hill if this really happens.

---

If this is the case, it is a mistake, F1 must stay ahead of feeder series and be the pinicle of motorsport, it can't be the same as GP2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aki13

If this is the case, it is a mistake, F1 must stay ahead of feeder series and be the pinicle of motorsport, it can't be the same as GP2

---

Lets not forget, however, that recoverable energies, KERS etc will be employed, further boosting power output.

I think the engine power being relatively modest is a deliberate attempt to put greater emphasis on perfecting and encouraging the use of ever more effective alternative recoverable energy harvesting.

Lets hope so, anyway.

I can see it now. Renault will be moaning that their batteries are not as powerful as the other top teams, Red Bull will be scrutinised for using the wrong tyre of rubber bands and McLaren will be investigated after having a peak at Ferrari's new wind turbine blue prints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Exactly, we don't want situations like we've already seen where cars have too little fuel to complete the race and have to go into 'fuel saving'. Let them have as much as they need but only use so much at once.

---

And what exactly is the difference?
Is it easier to police the volume of the tank or the flow rate of the fuel during the race?
Is it easier to hide the manipulation of the flow rate through the ECU or that of the volume of the tank?
And which one is easier to understand for the fans?

Not too mention that none of them will carry more fuel than what is needed to finish the race at the maximum allowed flow rate, and that this move will also nullify any possibility of having a fuel strategy game.

To me it looks like they are looking to create a rule that is difficult to enforce and most probably with enough loopholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

And what exactly is the difference?
Is it easier to police the volume of the tank or the flow rate of the fuel during the race?
Is it easier to hide the manipulation of the flow rate through the ECU or that of the volume of the tank?
And which one is easier to understand for the fans?

Not too mention that none of them will carry more fuel than what is needed to finish the race at the maximum allowed flow rate, and that this move will also nullify any possibility of having a fuel strategy game.

To me it looks like they are looking to create a rule that is difficult to enforce and most probably with enough loopholes.

---

For me, I see it as thus;

For a given fuel rate (that is the constant), they are encouraging the engine designers/builders to come up with the maximum power possible. Surely, this will lead to finding the optimum efficient way to extract maximum energy possible for a given amount of fuel.

Coupled with energy harvesting and recycling, this is allowing F1 to lead the way in development of the future of road cars for you and I, amongst the backdrop of ever depleting supplies of finite energy sources - i.e. Crude oil.

Looking at the set of proposed rules - are we going back to the early 80's? :p :

Ground effect? Interesting! This could be one of the keys in finding solutions to improve overtaking. GP2 has ground effect cars and racing there is fantastic. However, are they going to restrict aerodynamics or why not ban wings to reduce the speeds as a result?