2010 F1 cars technical analysis (Part 1)

The MP4-25's details set it apart from the RB5 clones

The MP4-25's details set it apart from the RB5 clones

F1 Fanatic guest writer John Beamer examines the seven 2010 F1 cars revealed so far.

It’s been an exciting couple of weeks for F1 fans as teams have begun to unveil their 2010 challengers.

From a technical point of view, 2010 should be a belter. Teams are still learning what works and what doesn’t after the radical technical overhaul last year. Now that the double diffuser is legal aerodynamicists have the opportunity to design their cars around the device – expect to see some radical solutions.

Add to that a couple of subtle rule changes – in particular no refuelling, the loss of KERS and narrower front tyres, which has the potential to mix up the grid.

Its no surprise to see teams borrow the best bits from the 2009 cars – the high Red Bull v-nose, the double diffuser, outboard mirrors, heavily undercut sidepods, double endplates – but these features are tied together in trying to achieve two outcomes.

These are getting more air to the rear of the car, and in particular the diffuser, and managing the air flow around the front wheels, which are a major source of drag.

The diffuser

Forcing air under the car speeds it up and creates low pressure. The diffuser is a piece of kit towards the back of the car that returns this high-speed, low pressure air to freestream. This is done by allowing the air to expand in a controlled manner.

Typically the larger the diffuser, the more air can be accommodated through the floor, the lower the pressure and the greater the downforce. ‘Double decker’ diffusers allow complex structures above the floor to help manage this airflow.

It’s not only air to the diffuser that’s important but airflow over it. Getting fast airflow over the top of the diffuser is critical to generating suction. The beam wing – the aerofoil below the main double element rear wing – works in tandem with the diffuser by creating low pressure at the diffuser’s exit. This reduces the pressure differential between the diffuser and freestream making the rear of the car more efficient – the wing acts to pump the diffuser.

Bargeboards and undercut sidepods also play a critical role in managing air to the diffuser. Undercut sidepods with a tight, heavily tapered coke-bottle zone translates into a more consistent, higher-speed airflow to the rear of the car. This is why Red Bull elected for pull rod suspension on its RB5 – it allowed for tighter packaging at the rear of the car (although wasn’t conducive to retrofitting a double diffuser).

The tyres

Bridgestone 2010 F1 tyre width

Bridgestone 2010 F1 tyre width

The narrower tyres will increase straigh-line speed by reducing drag. The equation is simple – less surface area presented to the oncoming air equals more speed.

A second effect is that a higher volume air can funnel between the tyres (space between the tyres has increased by 50mm in total), which will improve the efficiency of vanes and bargeboards in this region.

However, this comes at the cost of lower front grip, which affects cornering speed. The net effect will be to give the car more of an understeer feeling. As in previous years the temptation for teams is to ensure a forward weight bias to control for this.

The intent of the rule change is to flip the balance back towards the handling characteristics of the 2008 cars, where the grooved tyres resulted in less front grip.

Unfortunately the cost for the teams will be substantial. One feature of 2009 technical development was the proliferation of front wing endplate designs. Given the ever tightening regulations there were few areas of technical freedom where designers could claw back downforce. Managing air around the tyres was one of them – hence the complex detail of the endplates with teams spouting all manner or wierd and wonderful vanes and flicks in this region.

The rule change for 2010 means that designers need to re-base their knowledge rather than simply copy last years’ solutions.

Other trends

The other significant change to the regulations is of course the banning of refuelling. Fuel tanks must now be twice the size which presents some unique challenges for designers, particularly in trying to maintain as low a centre of gravity as possible and ensure weight doesn’t shift around the car in low fuel.

From an engineering perspective fuel efficiency becomes a lot more important and if you believe the reports the difference between the most and least efficient engines could amount to 15kg. We’ll see.

Let’s take a closer look at how the different teams approached 2010 from a technical standpoint.

Ferrari F10

Very few teams have published detailed specifications of their machines so it is hard to get a read on wheelbase, but the F10 appears to be one of the longer cars in the pit lane. Compared to the F60 the F10 is more tapered in the coke-bottle zone, which means the diffuser should work better. Ferrari has adopted a longer gearbox as a way to optimise the diffuser and this is one of the reasons for the more tapered sidepods.

Ferrari has also heaving borrowed from the Red Bull school of design with the V-nose. The V-nose does two things.

The regulations specify a minimum width and height for the chassis by the footwell area. The V-nose raises the outer part of the nose which allows the bottom of the nose to taper to the centreline. This creates more space between the front tyres and the chassis optimising the airflow.

The second effect is that the V-shape reduces lift on the nose by containing the air. The concave shape of the nose induces lift so by keeping the flow inline with the nose (which is what the V does) the lift is less.

The F10 is strikingly simple. The diffuser isn’t as intricate as others and the two-piece front wing lacked the fins and extra mini-decks we’re used to. No doubt the body shop is working overtime on upgraded parts for the later tests and the Bahrain GP. Also the sidepods look a bit bulkier than the competition – although that may be a photographic trick.

The Ferrari was fast out of the box in Valencia and the consistency of lap times was impressive – if testing form continues into the race 2010 could be a good year for the Scuderia.

McLaren-Mercedes MP4-25

The MP4-25 is the most radical new car – so far (who knows what Adrian Newey might reveal later this week).

Although the Woking outfit is one of the few teams to not adopt the V-nose there are plenty of other features to get excited about. First that overly-sophisticated diffuser.

McLaren has publicly acknowledged that it pushed the diffuser regulations to the limit and the resulting device is highly complex. The diffuser balloons out of the rear of the car and joins the beam wing. Although there are few close-up shots there a couple of different channels with a range of flicks and vanes. The detail is classic McLaren. One risk of such a complex device is that it may lack consistency across a range of speeds and corners.

To the chagrin of some fans the MP4-25 sported a shark fin. These fins serve two purposes. During cornering, air is directed so it is ‘normal’ to the rear wing, which improves downforce. Fins also reduce lift over the engine cover by ensuring a lower pressure zone isn’t created on the leeward side when turning.

Two final things to mention on the McLaren: the endplates and the snow plough. The McLaren endplate sports a drooping vane from the top edge of the plate. It is incredibly intricate on its outside and is different to the double-vane favoured by many teams last year. The effect is similar – namely to push air around the tyre and set up a vortex to control airflow.

The addition of the snow plough is intriguing. Williams conceived the device last year with the aim of controlling flow under the nose and spilling it under the floor to feed the diffuser. No other team adopted the device so it was a surprise when the eggheads at Woking unveiled it on the McLaren.

The McLaren implementation is a little different as the plough appears to merge into the chassis. The theory is to better control the air feeding the sidepods and floor but the risk of such a contraption is, again, consistency. Trashing the air under the nose is a sure fire way to wreck the performance of the diffuser. I’ll be intrigued to see if McLaren keeps the snow plough and if other teams pick up the device.

Mercedes W01

Mercedes, like Ferrari and a host of other teams, have also adopted the V-nose. Interestingly the front part of the nose appears to droop and is lower than that of other teams. This droop is to try to force air between the nose and wing which then expands into a venturi between the wheels. The theory is similar to the Brawn solution last year, although the implementation is different.

This will counter some of the lift produced by the nose although, ironically, the droop shape will create more lift. High noses are all the rage this year. Again this treatment should allow a more consistent flow of air under the car to the floor. And guess what that means? A more effective diffuser.

Perhaps more interesting is the re-emergence of single keel suspension. When raised noses first came into vogue designers placed a keel below the nose to attach the lower suspension arms to. This kept the integrity of the suspension geometry but at an aerodynamic cost. Eventually teams figured out that the aero compromise was too large and changed the suspension geometry to connect direct to the chassis. The W01 has a small keel in at attempt to improve the suspension and the loading on the tyres. The chamfered V-nose allows this implementation and it will be interesting to see if it is a one-off or if other teams follow.

The two other innovative features sported by the Mercedes W01 are the air box and engine cover. The engine cover is a hybrid between the classic tapered cover and the shark fin. The W01 looks like it has a razor blade (or perhaps a Stanley knife) emerging from the top of the airbox. The principle is the same as the shark fin – to control flow to the rear wing and mute lift.

The other innovation is the airbox. The airbox usually incorporates the roll hoop but the hoop is now a thick vertical support on the centreline of the car. To cool the car there are openings either side of this support – the airbox is effectively split in two. In addition there are some openings a bit further back allowing cool air to seep over the engine cover. At this stage it is unclear exactly its purpose but it is likely to help cooling with some of the engine and ancillary components that have been moved rearwards e.g., the oil pump.

Other teams

Given the RB6 is yet to be unveiled, outside the top three there are few startling aerodynamic innovations. The new Renault is intriguing with suggestions that the designers haven’t had to lengthen the car as much as some other teams, which may give an advantage at some tracks.

Also the word in the paddock is that the Renault powerplant is among the most efficient. Renault later introduced a W shaped rear wing in an attempt to improve the consistency of airflow particularly when cornering. 2009 didn’t see a lot of innovation with the rear wing – teams were spending more resources optimising the endplates and diffuser. Expect more development focus on the rear wing in 2010.

In early testing Sauber posted some competitive times but that could have more to do with a lack of sponsorship rather than a glut of speed.

Nevertheless the car looks well packaged, with small sidepods and a highly tapered coke-bottle zone – all important for optimising the diffuser.

Although Williams promised a lot last year – especially in free practice – the team rarely delivered over race distance.

That was due in part to a compromised car which was designed with KERS in mind but never ran it. The FW32 is designed from the ground up and is different to last year’s incarnation.

The Didcot-based team has adopted the obligatory v-nose and also has a snow plough type device ahead of the front splitter. This works different to the McLaren snow plough and channels air down to the floor. The air spills under the floor and feeds the diffuser.

The FW32 was the first of the Cosworth powered cars to be launched – at this stage its far too early to say whether the Cosworth is going to be competitive. It was slightly ominous that the FW32 was among the slowest cars in Valencia, but the team made a lot of comments about not knowing what fuel loads everyone else was running.

This is also the first time in Toro Rosso’s five-year history the team have had to design and build a car without Red Bull’s engineering help.

Unsurprisingly, the new car looks very similar to the RB5. This team, which has effectively used a customer chassis with some developments since 2006, are likely to suffer most in the development race.

Finally a big hand should be extended to Nick Wirth and his team at Virgin Racing.

The VR01 rolled off the production line last week and look reasonably detailed bar an noticeably simplistic front wing. Here’s hoping that Wirth comes good – Virgin, by going for a CFD-only approach, is innovating where others dare not to.

Testing

Although its tempting to read a lot into the testing times, this year we should be even more wary of making that mistake. Not only has the variance in fuel loads increased considerably but the Valencia circuit is one of the worst for getting a proper read on a car’s performance. It has virtually no high speed corners, which is where the performance of a car is really measured. To wit, the MP4-24 would do well at this track – the last thing any prospective team principal wants is to have his car compared to that dog.

After the Barcelona test we’ll have much greater insight into the speed of each team. Expect there to be fewer surprises than there were when Brawn showed up at the end of last year’s tests.

Before then, we have anything up to a further seven cars yet to appear,starting with the Force India and Red Bull later this week.

Pictures of the 2010 F1 cars launched so far

This is a guest article by John Beamer. If you want to write a guest article for F1 Fanatic you can find all the information please email Keith.

Advert | Go Ad-free

75 comments on 2010 F1 cars technical analysis (Part 1)

1 2 3
  1. Bigbadderboom said on 7th February 2010, 21:57

    Great piece John, it does seem that some teams have really rolled the dice with the new aero solutions to the recent reg changes, it looks like the one with the most consistent effort will win overall. I like to see revolutionary solutions but have Mclaren landed themselves with a can of worms, will they be able to set up their car for every circuit with so little track time. Visually a like Ferraris solutions but as you say lets wait for Mr Neweys offering, although speaking to Team Red Bull members, they are not optimistic about the Renault engine.

    • MigueLP said on 8th February 2010, 2:21

      Toro rosso is doing their car alone but im sure the two red bull team will share some info the only prob is the enginne no one knows the values of the engines but is evident that renault cosworth and toyota are under developed so i dont believe oon a red bull miracle next week

      • RBR will be king of the heap this year…just dont expect them to do a Ferrari and ‘win’ every test session…

    • Senor Paz said on 10th February 2010, 0:28

      Fantastic article, thanks so much John. Your pre-season speculations are some of the really great things about this site.

  2. thomas said on 7th February 2010, 22:02

    I am most surprised with renault’s design this year (so far). They seem to have an improved version of last years car which wasn’t all that great. They didn’t use the high nose like most other teams. I expect them to fail for another consecutive year, but anything can happen and I am sure they will make additions to the car before Bahrain.

  3. Ned Flanders said on 7th February 2010, 22:10

    I’ve spotted a micro error- so small it’s hardly worth mentioning! In the paragraph opposite the picture of the Virgin (car that is), it says ‘an noticeably’ instead of ‘a noticeably’.

    Anyway, very interesting article. But could someone elaborate and/ or provide a picture of this so called ‘snow plough’ device on the McLaren’s front wing, I’m not sure what John meant by that

  4. This is an excellent post. It’s been one of the more enjoyable pre-seasons purely trying to work out what direction the teams have decided to take.

    Top post adding clarity to this.

    Adie

  5. John Beamer said on 7th February 2010, 22:33

    Ned – you can see it here under the nose

    http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/photolarge.php?photoID=144134&catID=4673

  6. Damon said on 7th February 2010, 22:34

    I’ve got one basic question – Is the Torro Rosso this year again an Adrian Newey RB design clone like the last year’s car?
    I don’t really know how it works between those teams in terms of bulding their respective cars.

    • matt88 said on 7th February 2010, 22:45

      this year is not going that way, each team has to build its own chassis, so probably STR has a completely different car from Newey’s RB.

    • No because of the rule changes and double diffuser optimization they can’t really do much with last years Red Bull.

      • ? they wouldn’t need to lengthen last years car too much…very similar to the Renault..it was long last year.
        But I hear the RB6 won’t be a carbon copy of the Toro Rosso

  7. Top article, thankyou.

  8. Thanks John, that was a nice read.

    Recently, I went back and looked at some articles from testing from 2009. I think James Allen (whose articles I wasn’t reading at the time) managed to get a decent read on the pecking order and was also quite willing to stick his neck out to single out winners and losers. That being said, I think he overestimated Ferrari’s pace and underestimated how much of a dog the MP4-24 was. (Please note: this summary is my opinion)

    It’s also clear that quite a bit can change between the start of testing and the first race.

    Will be interesting to see what happens on the more aero demanding circuits.

  9. Bartholomew said on 7th February 2010, 23:14

    Great post, John — many thanks. Now I will understand a little bit more.
    One of the next steps for next year is to start making the cars a lot shorter in total length. They are so long now that passing is difficult and many historic race tracks are being made obsolete.
    The cars are full of interesting features, but in the end they have to be raced on a track. The car-track relationship is what is important for an exciting visual show.
    Cheers

  10. Scribe said on 7th February 2010, 23:19

    I think McLaren’s job over testing is simply to make the package more efficient. They don’t need to introduce anything particularly radical to improve the car, they simply need to understand what they’ve built.

  11. I think McLaren, as in 2009 season, is behind Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull in the early tests. But will be ground before the start of the championship!

  12. three4three said on 7th February 2010, 23:47

    Great article John, very informative and a good read, thank you. I liked it that you covered the aero aspects in detail as I find this fascinating. Also good to see an analysis of what the different teams are concentrating on, though I would have like it if you’d covered Renault and Sauber in more detail, especially how the Enstone team managed to achieve such a short wheel base. I look forward to your covering the remaining teams in the following week(s) and seeing how the all CFD VR-01 does!

  13. Mark Hitchcock said on 8th February 2010, 0:20

    Nice article John.
    I haven’t quite got my head around even basic aerodynamics, even after 8 years or so of watching F1. So these sorts of articles are very helpful!

  14. wasiF1 said on 8th February 2010, 2:05

    Awesome article,really a lot of hard work have gone into it.The car which is surprising me the most is Renault,with a small car relative to the Mclaren & Ferrari.

    From my point of view I hope Sauber are fast because I do want Kobayashi to fight on track with a good car.

  15. sato113 said on 8th February 2010, 2:06

    thanks john. always look forward to your technical insights.

1 2 3

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.