The force limit mentioned invites cheating and circumvention in a number of places, including but not limited to suspension and illegal use of ground effect. I should say, though, that the more I learn about the 2009 car, the more I think it has the right -basic- idea. I think if they want to get it completely right, though, FIA must allow the engineers to build better powerplants and suspension.

Yes, we’re indeed starting to see diffusers on road cars. But it must be said that on aero side Formula 1 has no relevancy for road cars. Formula 1 cars are open-wheel, road cars are closed-wheel. This means that the entire bodywork and undertray work differently.

you’re right, a lot of cars do have diffusers more and more — but I suspect they are as much for a look as they are for functionality, just like ’spoilers’ that were so popular on everything from saloons to hatches for a while but provided no functionality (spoilers on every day cars were set at a neutral angle from the factory that produced neither downforce nor lift). The effect of a rear diffuser is, I suspect, minimal, without a flat undertray to guide the air to it, which, like I mentioned is expensive and reduces access for even basic car maintenance. But I’m no aerodynamicist!

The F1 green credentials issue is one that I find very interesting, and pressing. F1 will always be expensive, and the aerodynamic changes for next year are going to be very expensive to adjust to. Most money in F1 is spent on aero these days, but if the engine regulations were to change (to a fuel-minded specification, for example) and allow development, then I think we would see less spent on aero and more being spent on engines — basically whichever part of the package could provide the biggest gains is where the most money will be spent. So I don’t really think the budgets would change — just be re-diverted. Besides, implementation of KERS next year won’t come cheap, and that effort is, I think, misguided at best.

Technological development in F1 is what we love about the sport, and I think if it were channelled, in times like these, towards efficiency and sustainability, it could greatly improve F1s image. The V10s from 1995 to 2005 when from ~650bhp to almost (or perhaps over) 1000bhp with no change in displacement! It’s astonishing what can be achieved when F1’s great minds focus on a problem over a sustained amount of time.

Here’s the hypothetical scenario I keep coming back to: if oil reaches $200 a barrel, it’s not hard to imagine public opinion going sour on a boisterous racing series that jetsets around the world guzzling fuel. If there is enough public outcry within a race-hosting nation, it’s also not hard to imagine a government-subsidized Grand Prix disappearing from the calender very quickly. Politics are politics. And from there it could only take one. We know there are emerging countries lined up for a GP right now, today, but will that still be the case after, potentially, a few years of global recession and rising oil prices?

Sorry for the doomsday scenario, but I believe that the public opinion may have a large influence on the fate of F1, which could go for or against it. Sure, the effect of 20 race cars on the global environment is miniscule — but on the other hand, if the might of F1’s tech wizards were working towards a goal of reduced consumption, it actually would make a difference, one that could eventually trickle down to benefit each and every one of us, in the same ways that advances in automotive safety do today.

I think if they were developing the engines to use less fuel in a weekend or something that could be directly transferable, but the FIA has different ideas…

I guess the reason they don’t pursue this is to cut manufacturers’ expense on engine development.

It’s a conflict between two things F1 needs to do: become more cost effective and improve its environmental credentials. If manufacturers are developing green technologies through F1 that’s great, but they’re going to spend an awful lot of money to do it, which is a problem.

there’s still not that many cars in production using diffusers and underbody technologies — it drastically reduces the serviceability (ask any Lotus Elise owner) and a true venturi would impose on the packaging and reduce trunk or interior space.

You bring up a good point that F1 has curiously and purposely closed off almost all development except aerodynamics, and it would be great if somehow this research could be applied to make production cars better. I’m not sure how — it would be much better I think if they were developing the engines to use less fuel in a weekend or something that could be directly transferable, but the FIA has different ideas…

If I was going to rewrite the F1 rulebook I’d do away with most of the aerodynamic devices from the top & sides of the cars & let the teams develop venturies (is this the right spelling ??) and other under car devices.

There’s less than 20 road cars available to buy at the moment that use aerodynamics & downforce in the way that F1 cars do and they all cost over £100,000, it just has no relevance to modern production cars & never will.
Many production cars use the undertray, splitters & defusers as a means to generate grip and all of them use mechanical grip generated by the suspension & wheels so why not use F1 as a means to develop road relevant technology ?

It’d also get rid of most of the problems associated with turbulence & allow the cars to run a lot closer together.

my 2 cents

I appreciate that there is a cost factor

Whatever cost factor there is would surely be mitigated to some extent by them not having to fly refuelling equipment around the world? They must have at least 20 rigs per weekend (two per team), and those things are pretty big.