How the 2012 rules will influence F1 car design

F1 technology

Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, Interlagos, 2011

Red Bull have been the class of the field in recent years

The 2012 season is the first since 2008 without significant changes in the technical regulations.

In 2009 we saw a reduction in aero appendages, refuelling was banned the following year, and the 2011 season was shaped by new Pirelli tyres, the introduction of DRS and return of KERS.

We’ve already had our first glimpse of a 2012 F1 car, but what will the other teams have in store for us this year?

Continuity and change in the 2012 rules

With the next major change coming in 2014 the rules for this season have undergone comparatively minor revisions. But there have been several tweaks which will make life interesting for F1 designers.

The changes include the banning of exhaust blown diffusers, restriction on engine mapping and a lowering of the maximum height of the front bulkhead. Further minor changes include a tighter definitions of how anti-stall systems must work and the extent to which wheel uprights can extend inboard.

One potentially significant change for the 2012 season which never materialised was a relaxing of the restrictions on weight distribution.

These were imposed last year due to the unknown characteristics of the new tyres. They acted as a safety net to ensure none of the teams got this fundamental aspect disastrously wrong and endured a season well off the pace.

One team with recent experience of this is Lotus, formerly, Renault. In 2007 the team failed to understand how the weight characteristics changed after switching from Michelins to Bridgestones, and endured a win-less season having won back-to-back championships in the two previous years.

The FIA originally intended to relax the weight distribution limits for the 2012 season. Its U-turn removes a wild card that could have shuffled performance among the top teams.

The exhaust-blown diffuser ban

Jaime Alguersuari, Toro Rosso, Suzuka, 2011

Exhaust-blown diffuser improvements spurred Toro Rosso late in 2011

The most significant rule change is the banning of exhaust blown diffusers. This is achieved by rules which dictate the position of the final 10cm of exhaust piping. The rules specify that this section must be circular, thin-wall and 75mm in diameter. This prevents odd-shaped exhausts with vanes to direct airflow. Teams can have no slots along the length of the exhaust so McLaren’s unraced ‘octopus’ exhaust wouldn?t be allowed.

An area for the exhausts’ exit is also defined by the rules. The FIA has also specified maximum and minimum exhaust angles. The limitations are not too restrictive but should move the exhaust exit some way from the floor area and prevent teams from blowing gasses close to the car’s bodywork.

F1 teams have spent an inordinate amount of money on perfecting exhaust blowing technologies over the last two years and the suspicion is that engineers will still be able to use that capability to blow exhaust gasses for some aerodynamic benefit. There are a number of possible options for where teams can blow exhaust gasses.

The obvious solution is to aim the exhaust at the rear or beam wing ?ǣ this is possible under the dimension restrictions in the regulations. Aiming the gasses at the underside of the wing at the car centre line will help keep airflow attached to the element and should result in a downforce increase. However, the interaction with DRS will be complicated and needs to be understood.

Valtteri Bottas, Williams, Abu Dhabi, 2011

Williams experimented with exhaust placement at the Abu Dhabi test

Another alternative could be to point the exhausts down outside the rear wing endplates and try to manage the wheel/diffuser interaction. In this set-up it may even be possible to create downforce around the suspension arms. But this is likely to prove a very difficult solution given the intricacy of the suspension and brake ducts in this area. And the distance between the area and the exhaust exits may make directing the gasses with sufficient accuracy impossible.

A further option is to blow the exhausts into the gap between the diffuser and beam wing. This shouldn’t have a huge effect on downforce but could aid airflow in the coke bottle zone. Lastly, the exhausts could be aimed out and away to prevent the gasses from interfering with the aerodynamics – but which designers would be happy to sacrifice the potential downforce gains?

It is likely that a lot of effort will be spent on modifying exhaust positioning throughout the season. At the young drivers? test in Abu Dhabi last year we saw both Williams and Mercedes run exhausts blowing the underside of the rear wing close the car centre line in preparation for the 2012 season.

Engine mapping restrictions

The ability to run different engine maps has been severely curtailed. Now the majority of driver inputs are ‘drive by wire’ ?ǣ in other words, they are processed by the engine control unit. Each driver input will have an ECU map by which input is mapped to output. There are two ways in which the throttle can be manipulated. The first is the pedal ?ǣ this controls how open or closed the throttle is. The second is how the throttle opening position delivers engine torque.

The FIA has attempted to link the pedal position, throttle opening and torque demand. In essence teams are allowed two ‘pedal shaping maps’ ?ǣ one for dry tyres and one for wet/intermediate tyres.

Also, the maximum pedal position must correspond to maximum torque demand of the engine and the regulations also specify how torque demand should increase with change in the pedal position. In addition there are limits on the gradient of the torque demand map and ignition offsets are prohibited under 80% of throttle or 15,000rpm.

Does this mean canny designers will still be able to take advantage of exhaust blown aerodynamics? It will be far harder but after two years of deep research designers have a much greater understanding of exhaust gas flows and so it is likely we’ll continue to see teams experiment with exhaust positioning to eke out every final advantage.

Nose height

Caterham CT01

Caterham's nose: The shape of things to come?

Since the 2009 regulations rewrite there has been a trend for higher noses. This is because a high nose allows maximum airflow under the car which can be shaped by the vanes and feeds the floor ?ǣ which is a major determinant of diffuser performance.

The problem with high noses is that the chance of the car flipping or spearing another car or drive in an accident is higher. The Technical Working Group has therefore been looking for ways to to restrict nose height.

Like all parts of an F1 car the definition of the nose height is complicated. The 2011 regulations allowed the top of the chassis and nose section to be a maximum of 625mm above the reference plane. The boundary height has been lowered to 550mm close to the front axle, which results in an inclined profile to the front wing.

The Caterham CT01, revealed on Wednesday, confirmed suspicions that this would produce an unattractive new breed of cars. Its ‘platypus’ nose hugs the 550mm boundary to allow maximum airflow under the car to feed the floor.

It is likely a typical example of what the front of an F1 car will look like this year. Just fore of the front axle the required 10cm drop is clearly visible. In addition Caterham have chosen to raise the suspension pick-up points in order to create maximum space under the nose.

This solution was common last year but in conjunction with the new nose regulations results in a car with dubious looks. Don’t be surprised if it becomes a common picture up and down the pit lane this year.

Reactive ride height

Kimi Raikkonen, Lotus, Valencia, 2012

Lotus's reactive ride system was banned

Recent weeks have seen much debate over the merits of a reactive ride height system Lotus ran during the young drivers’ test at Abu Dhabi. However on Friday the FIA announced the device was being banned for the coming season.

Ferrari also had plans to run a similar system from the start of the year and Mercedes were believed to be developing the concept as well.

The aim of the device was to stabilise ride height to increase downforce – much like the famed active suspension systems of the earlier nineties and, more recently, the J-damper and mass dampers introduced by McLaren and Renault respectively.

The FIA decided the system contravened article 10.2.3 of the technical regulations which states no adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion, as well as some other rules.

F-duct 2.0

Michael Schumacher, Mercedes, Suzuka, 2011

Mercedes experimented with channelling airflow

The F-duct, introduced by McLaren in 2010 and widely copied that year, was banned for the 2011 season. But that hasn’t stopped designers looking into ways to exploit the thinking behind it for other purposes.

The original F-duct was a driver-activated fluid switch that allowed channelled air under the rear wing to create a turbulent flow. This prevented the air from attaching to the underside of the rear wing reducing downforce and also drag.

At the end of the 2011 season Mercedes tested a new front-wing F-duct based on a passive switch – i.e., one without influence from the driver. This is legal under the current regulations and has the potential to open up a new wave of passively-blown systems.

The Mercedes F-duct had an inlet at the front of the nose. Air is routed down the front wing pylons into a long but narrow slot across the breadth of the front wing. This is believed to incorporate a ‘passive switch’ which is dependent on air pressure, which in turn is dictated by how quickly the car is travelling.

There are competing theories about what Mercedes is trying to do with its front wing F-duct. There are two options ?ǣ either keep airflow attached to the wing and increase downforce or to stall the device as was the purpose of the original F-duct.

The placement of the exit slot ?ǣ near the leading edge of the wing – suggests that the most likely intention is to stall the wing rather than assist airflow. If the intent were to keep air attached the slot would probably be placed further back.

The most logical reason to do this is to manage front ride height – the team can reduce it without the risk of the car touching the ground at high speed.

Tyres

2012 Pirelli F1 tyres

Pirelli have altered their tyres for 2012

One the lessons of 2012 was the significant role that tyres play in F1. At the start of the season, while teams were getting used to the new rubber, we saw the most exciting racing and varied strategy – a view borne out by F1 Fanatics’ race ratings. Towards the end of the season teams had figured out how to set the cars up to optimise tyre performance and we saw less variation in performance.

During the Bridgestone era the focus was on tyre aerodynamic modelling to work out the car/tyre aerodynamic affects. The race tyres were so durable that they never really featured in race strategy.

Pirelli’s entrance into the sport has turned that approach on its head. Teams need to understand what combination of heat and cooling cycles will best cure the rubber for performance. In addition, understanding how to get the most out of a set of tyres is critical to race success.

In 2011 the Pirelli rubber behaved very differently to Bridgestone compounds. The trick with the Bridgestones was to get the tyre up to optimum temperature to create traction through chemical grip. This is less of a feature of the Pirelli tyres where the mechanical grip of the rubber seems to play a larger role.

Pirelli revealed details of changes to its 2012 tyres today. It includes a move towards softer compounds which they hope will recreate some of the early 2011 racing excitement. It will also be worthwhile seeing if the changes in construction alters the way the tyres behave.

As far as improving the quality of racing goes the fundamental problem remains: as teams increase their knowledge of the tyres and improve their tyre simulation techniques, so we are less likely to see the kind of surprises that can make for great races.

Other trends

Felipe Massa, Ferrari, Buddh International Circuit, 2011

Ferrari experimented with tha 2012-style front wing in India

The current generation of rules led teams focus their efforts getting the front wing as close to the ground as possible: whether through Lotus’s banned ride height system or the use of rake to lower the front of the car when it is moving.

The latter not only induces a ground effect but in turn lifts the rear of the car off the ground increasing the volume of air that passes through the diffuser. Provided sufficient air can be fed to the diffuser this, again, will increase downforce. Last year exhaust blown diffusers were a huge help in this endeavour by blowing gasses into the diffuser.

Either way, it isn’t hard to see how critical controlling ride height and rake is. Linked suspension is one way in which teams have tried to add ‘anti-dive’ to their cars. Basically the front and rear suspension systems are linked with a hydraulic line. During braking there is load transfer to the front suspension which can ‘draw’ on the hydraulic link to increase suspension stiffness and prevent excess dive.

This year is also likely to see further conflict around flexible front wings. Red Bull mastered this technology 18 months ago but its complexity has delayed up-take of the technology among its rivals.

Ferrari introduced their version in the last few races of 2011 but with limited success as it suffered from extreme ‘fluttering’. The trick is about composite design and lay-up ?ǣ no doubt all the big teams have been investing heavily to erode Red Bull’s lead.

Evolution or revolution?

Success in F1 today is mostly about incremental change rather than drastic innovation. That is why Red Bull have dominated for the past few years. They have a very strong base car with a deep understanding of its aerodynamic characteristics. Each year Red Bull fine tunes the chassis and suspension striving for ever-tighter component packaging to optimize downforce.

Contrast that approach to McLaren over the past two years. Their 2009 car was two seconds off the pace and the team started with a clean-sheet approach for 2010 around an oversized double diffuser. The diffuser was highly pitch sensitive meaning that the MP4/25 needed very stiff suspension to generate downforce.

The RB6 ?ǣ Red Bull?s challenger at the time ?ǣ was a much more rounded car built on an evolution of the RB5. Last year McLaren went clean-sheet again in designing the MP4-26 with L-shaped sidepods and radical ‘octopus’ exhausts. After struggling in testing the team ditched their exhausts on the eve of the new season and followed Red Bull’s lead.

It takes time and resources to build a complete aerodynamic picture of an F1 car. It isn?t difficult to see how much easier it is to obtain performance if a team is building from a strong concept rather than reinventing the wheel every season.

Given the strength of the RB7 and the stable regulations it is likely the Red Bull RB8 will be an evolution of its championship-winning predecessors. Ferrari, meanwhile, look set to reveal a substantially changed successor to the unsuccessful 150??? Italia.

The view in Woking will likely be that the MP4-26 was fundamentally inferior to the Red Bull, largely because the exhaust blown diffuser was retrofitted to the car and the L-shaped sidepods created aerodynamic compromises with cooling (requiring larger radiators) and airflow around the sidepods sealing the floor. Will they, like Ferrari, go radical in their pursuit of Red Bull?

Testing starts in a few weeks time and that will provide more data points as to who is where. However, it won?t be until Saturday at Melbourne that the true pecking order is revealed.

2012 F1 season preview


Browse the 2012 F1 season preview

Images ?? Red Bull/Getty images, Red Bull/Getty images, Williams/LAT, Caterham, Lotus F1 Team, Mercedes, Ferrari, Ferrari spa/Ercole Colombo

Advert | Go Ad-free

41 comments on How the 2012 rules will influence F1 car design

  1. vjanik said on 27th January 2012, 11:33

    why have they not eliminated the weight distribution rule?

    if the reason for the rule was Pirelli, why keep it for a second season? Why is the FIA trying to protect teams from creating a dog of a car? isnt that part of the sport?

    • Renner (@renner) said on 27th January 2012, 13:44

      The teams wanted to keep it

      • vjanik said on 27th January 2012, 15:00

        of course they did. but the FIA is the one making the rules not the teams.

        If i was a team principal I would also want to keep it. Doesn’t mean the FIA should listen to me.
        the teams would like many things. not all of them are allowed because they want it. the FIA’s job is to govern the sport and set the rules.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 28th January 2012, 0:21

          Regardless of what the teams want I could not help but think that a fixed ballast location will be good for some drivers and bad for others because drivers vary in weight and how it is distributed, could this have been a factor in Seb Vettels vastly improved performance over his taller and heavier teammate.

          • raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 28th January 2012, 4:52

            @Hohum the advantage with a lighter driver is a lower CofG (as you can ballast the car in lower places) and also how much ballast you can actually play with – If I was 10kg lighter than you; I’d have 10kg more ballast to play with.

            However; what the fixed weight distribution rules actually did was limit the amount of weight that COULD be moved around. Ironically Seb should have had a lot more advantage under 2010 rules.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 28th January 2012, 17:20

          Maybe @vjanik, but as the FIA is also pushing to keep costs for competing in the sport acceptable, the argument that having the teams experiment with weight distribution might mean a lot of money being thrown around, means the FIA has agreed on the proposal.
          The FIA does not need to go against the teams, if its not a matter of big importance to them.
          Not to mention the fact that teams could have agreed on this between them (just like they did with KERS in 2010) even if the FIA would not have kept the fixed weight distribution for 2012.

  2. Alex W said on 27th January 2012, 11:58

    Thankyou John for an excellent article.

    One thing I will say about the throttle changes, in 2011, at times we had cars with no throttle pedal. For much of the racing and qualy, the “throttle pedal” was really a manual timing ajustment, something not fitted to cars since the 1920′s I’d think!

  3. Becken Lima (@becken-lima) said on 27th January 2012, 12:12

    “…as teams increase their knowledge of the tyres and improve their tyre simulation techniques, so we are less likely to see the kind of surprises that can make for great races…”

    I guess the teams will achieve this even faster this year. Pirelli is providing them with a new technology named RACING TYRE SYSTEM:

    “…it allows users to monitor the performance, wear and behaviour of the tyres throughout every phase of their use…”

    — Pirelli

    But what I´m really expecting is that with a more durability and front grip, those new tyres could suite Lewis better.

    • raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 27th January 2012, 14:08

      @becken-lima I’ve heard they were increasing rear rather than front grip. It makes sense in a way; as the banning of the off-throttle maps would have decreased a lot of slow-speed rear grip.

      Where did you hear they were increasing front grip?

  4. Hairpin (@hairpin) said on 27th January 2012, 12:25

    I have a question for the author of this article, you state
    “Another alternative could be to point the exhausts down outside the rear wing endplates and try to manage the wheel/diffuser interaction. In this set-up it may even be possible to create downforce around the suspension arms. But this is likely to prove a very difficult solution given the intricacy of the suspension and brake ducts in this area. And the distance between the area and the exhaust exits may make directing the gasses with sufficient accuracy impossible”

    How is this possible when the rules state

    ” 5.8.3 The last 100mm of any tailpipe must in its entirety :
    a) Form a thin‐walled unobstructed right circular cylinder whose internal diameter is no greater than 75mm with its axis at +/‐10° to the car centre line when viewed from above the car and between +10° and +30° (tail‐up) to the reference plane when viewed from the side of the car. The entire circumference of the exit should lie on a single plane normal to the tailpipe axis and be located at the rearmost extremity of the last 100mm
    of the tailpipe.
    b) Be located between 250mm and 600mm above the reference plane.
    c) Be located between 200mm and 500mm from the car centre line.
    d) Be positioned in order that the entire circumference of the exit of the tailpipe lies between two vertical planes normal to the car centre line and which lie 500mm and 1200mm forward of the rear wheel centre line”.

    I think this section of the article is incorrect and needs a rethink or removal.

    Awaiting your reply.

    • John Beamer said on 27th January 2012, 12:39

      Picture the car side on – the exhaust exit can be in a rectange 500-1200 from the rear axle and 250-600mm above the reference plane.

      An exit at the bottom right of that rectangle (250,500) at a 10 degree tilt would blow around the upper wish bones. As I said it isn’t a very likely solution as there are more efficient options.

      • Hairpin (@hairpin) said on 27th January 2012, 14:02

        I think were going to have to agree to disagree on this one as I don’t see how the exhausts could be anywhere near enough to make a significant influence on the upper wishbones or brake ducts, and they can’t be pointed down as suggested as they have a minimum 10 degree upward incline of the last 100mm.
        One thing we do agree on is, that would be a very unlikely solution.

        • John Beamer said on 27th January 2012, 14:16

          Okay — if you draw the geometry out you will see if it is just about possible but impractical.

          Either way you are correct – we won’t see it this year!

          • GeeMac (@geemac) said on 29th January 2012, 7:54

            @hairpin @johnbeamer

            Here is an intersting piece by ScarbsF1 that has a section which illustrates the point John is trying to make re blowing the rear wing endplates/brake ducts (if I understand it correctly!).

  5. Ivano (@) said on 27th January 2012, 12:38

    They wouldn’t have to change the design rules every year to improve overtaking, if they instead modified various tracks.

  6. Tim Katz (@timkatz) said on 27th January 2012, 13:57

    Brilliant article. I learned lots.
    There’s a tiny typo here “Ferrari introduced their version in the last few races of 2012 but with limited success”. Should be 2011.

  7. TheJudge (@thejudge) said on 27th January 2012, 14:01

    Thank you for the great article.
    FIA should let the teams develop on their own at some areas of the car. Because then we could see some new and great soulutions. Now a days everything is banned and the rules are so tight,they leave teams no space for new ideas. Othervise I’m afraid that sooner or later the cars will look all the same,like indy.

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 27th January 2012, 14:37

      While I hear what you are saying about homogenous cars, not ‘everything’ is banned, and I think in any series that has tight rules there is still room for new ideas…perhaps even moreso the tighter they are, as teams scramble to outdo one another in small increments as the article suggests.

      Unfortunately the other side of the coin is that left on their own the teams that have the most resources will continue to dominate, it becomes a money game which one could argue it still is, and we are left with a series that is always about only 2 or 3 teams as potential winners with everyone else left to never be able to catch up, especially in a global recession where sponsorship is so hard to come by that pay drivers who are only there because they have money and aren’t necessarily the best drivers available, are the norm. And if lesser teams can never catch up, what is left to attract them to the sport? Major sponsors, fewer and fewer as they are these days, have to have a sense that within a reasonable amount of time their package might at least be fighting in the middle of the pack.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 28th January 2012, 0:29

        It’s my belief that the more restrictions there are the more money it costs to find a winning formula, vast amounts of money need to be spent on ever diminishing returns rather than the simpler methods of yore.

        • Mahir C said on 28th January 2012, 14:10

          Yes but the upside to that is you wont be too far behind if you dont spend that money. Generally teams have a budget and they spent that amount regardless of technical freedom they have.

  8. Mike (@mike) said on 27th January 2012, 14:12

    Fantastic article. A really good read.

    I’m particular interested in Mercedes work on a passive F-duct. If, and it’s a mammoth if, but if they can make it work I think it will give them a significant boost that will be hard for the other teams to follow.

    That and it’s nice to see that Mercedes is really really trying to improve.

  9. Cacarella (@cacarella) said on 27th January 2012, 14:12

    I got to the Reactive Ride Height part of the story and thought,
    “wow Keith, that’s some in depth knowledge”. When I got to the F-duct 2.0 I thought, “wait a minute, did John Beamer write this one?” scrolled to
    the top of the page and sure enough…

    Great job John, hoping to see you thoughts on the upcoming launches as well!

  10. verstappen (@verstappen) said on 27th January 2012, 15:32

    I hope Mercedes’ Front-duct will become this years must have: If so, it’ll help them gain a bit and because it’s very different from RB’s flexing solution, it will equalise the field. Maybe. Potentially.

    • raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 28th January 2012, 4:54

      because it’s very different from RB’s flexing solution, it will equalise the field

      I’m not getting the connection there. The F-duct was also different. The FEE was also different. How does different translate into equalizer?

  11. TribalTalker (@tribaltalker) said on 27th January 2012, 15:41

    Great article – good content and well written. Thank you!
    It’s so nice to read an article where the author knows how to use the word “eke”…
    The only thing I would like to see added would be a discussion of tyre camber angles. I was intrigued by Red Bull’s extreme camber angles which caused them difficulties in the Belgian Grand Prix, for example.

  12. I don’t like all of these ban/regulations. The blown diffuser/engine mapping is one invention that, in my opinion, is one brilliant engineering idea. Although, yes, they sound bad. But this is F1!
    Regarding the nose, I think today’s F1 is safe enough and making that change only makes the car slower.

  13. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 27th January 2012, 20:20

    Always great to see a John Beamer article – they always make me feel a tiny bit smarter! It’s going to be interesting to see the different philosophies regarding the exhausts and maybe one or two teams go down the MP4-26 route with the nose instead of the CT01.

  14. Mahir C said on 27th January 2012, 22:49

    In 2011 the Pirelli rubber behaved very differently to Bridgestone compounds. The trick with the Bridgestones was to get the tyre up to optimum temperature to create traction through chemical grip. This is less of a feature of the Pirelli tyres where the mechanical grip of the rubber seems to play a larger role.

    Can anybody explain what is chemical grip and mechanical grip of tires? I thought all the grip the tire creates is via chemistry of the compound.

    • Alex W said on 27th January 2012, 23:54

      Chemical is the stickyness of the tyre, and the pressure exerted downward by the suspension is Mechanical.

      The stickyness depends on carcass composition, temp, pressure, wear, angle, torque, Mechanical grip, and compound.

      The mechanical grip depends on gravitational pull on the vehicle, inertia roll force in cornering, braking and accelerating lift and dive, suspension dampening, but mostly in an F1 car, aerodynamic downforce on the bodywork/wings.

    • raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 28th January 2012, 4:57

      Mahir; basically; what happened with the Bridgestones of 2010 was that if you could get the tyres into a temperature sweet spot; there was a reaction with the rubber that was already on the racing line and that would give you not only a lot of grip; but a lot of longevity.

      Mechanical grip is basically what we normally know as grip – Try down on the table with your hand; and moving it around. The harder you press down the harder it is to move the hand. That’s the grip meant.

  15. Wasn’t ferrari the one that invented the f-duct on the front wing is 2006 or 2007? And then mcclaren used that idea and created the f-duct for the rear wing?

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.