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

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 – 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.

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’ – 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 – 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’ – 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'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 – 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

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

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 – 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 – 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

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

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 – 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 – Red Bull’s challenger at the time – 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.

F1 technology

• How the 2012 rules will influence F1 car design
• Mid-season technical review part 2
• Mid-season technical review part 1
• Technical review: 2011 Canadian Grand Prix
• F1 technology in 2011 part 2: Diffusers and more
• F1 technology in 2011 part 1: Tyres and DRS
• Why F1 steering wheels have over 20 buttons - and what they all do
• Video guide to KERS and DRS with Sebastian Vettel
• McLaren cover least test distance with new car
• Pre-season technical review

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

McLaren have won the last two races

Guest writer John Beamer continues his look at the technical developments so far this year. Read the first part here.

McLaren work on their rear wing

McLaren has continued to bring upgrades to most races but many of the changes have been subtle – the team hasn’t produce a big an upgrade package as Ferrari.

The biggest development in the pipeline is a revised rear wing similar with a shorter flap chord, similar to Ferrari’s new wing.

Red Bull’s ability to deploy its Drag Reduction System early in corner exits is worth several tenths of a second per lap in qualifying. It is this performance McLaren are looking for. However their new wing has yet to be raced because it gives worse overall performance on race day.

McLaren also modified its exhaust system and floor. The most obvious changes were the addition of vanes to the floor area below the rear wing end plate.

These have two effects: air exiting the exhaust is channelled over the diffuser generating downforce and it becomes harder for dirty air from the wheels to pollute the exhaust gasses.

Much of McLaren’s increased pace is thought to come from altering the car rake and getting the engine mappings right post-Valencia, where teams were banned from changing engine maps between qualifying and the race.

But it’s not as simple as ratcheting up the rake and expecting more downforce to follow. There will need to be subtle changes to the exhaust, floor, diffuser and bodywork.

Renault stick with forward exhausts

Renault

Midfield teams continue to innovate as well – with Renault perhaps being the most aggressive in recent races, particularly around the front wing.

At the Nurburgring they introduced a radical front wing design. A close look at the inner part of the cascade shows the team running a quasi-five element device.

There is a slot etched in the main plan (two elements) and the in-board middle flap has been split in two (another two elements), with the rear flap providing the fifth element.

As Craig Scarborough noted in a recent article, these are called Y250 vortices and are used to manage the componentry that lives 250mm from the car centre line: front wing pillars, under-chassis vanes, T-tray, bargeboards.

This is a critical area as it directly influences the air flow to the diffuser and around the sidepods.

Also at the German Grand Prix Renault tried more conventional rearward-facing exhausts, although the forward exhausts were raced and are likely to be kept for the rest of the season.

This is despite Nick Heidfeld suffering two separate exhaust fires in Spain (during practice) and Hungary.

Although the forward exhausts seem like a good way to increase airflow to the diffuser, performance has been less than was hoped. The extra space and cooling required by the new exhaust system makes the sidepods more bulky, which is detrimental to airflow around the sidepod undercut. Renault has struggled to develop the concept and has lost performance.

Mercedes mimic Red Bull

Mercedes are focussing on 2012

Mercedes has publicly stated it is no longer focusing on its 2011 challenger and will increasingly turn resources to next year.

However, two of the more obvious changes that Mercedes have made in recent races have been to revise its front wing and update the exhaust system.

The new exhaust brings Mercedes in line with Red Bull’s design. Its implementation was similar to that we saw last year with the exhaust existing below the sidepods and blowing over the floor. But it is likely to be less effective. The exhaust exits is moved rearwards, is flatter and has fences beyond its exit to control the airflow over the diffuser.

Oddly, Mercedes has elected not to use the out 5cm of the floor to create a sealing vortex like many other teams have.

At the Nurburgring the team came with an updated front wing. A couple of additional elements were added to an extended cascade in an attempt to better manage the vortices under the car similar to what Renault have done.

Mercedes is one of the few cars on the grid to sport a two-element front wing (ignoring the cascade) – another unusual design choice from this team.

Rest of the season

The narrowing gap between the top three teams was reflected in the figures published on F1 Fanatic last week.

However a combination of unusually low temperatures for the German and Hungarian races, along with the exhaust-blown diffuser debacle at Silverstone, has clouded the true performance picture.

I suspect the role played by relatively low tyre temperatures in recent races has been more significant than has been widely understood. Once the Europe season is concluded and race temperatures increase I expect to see Red Bull remain the team to beat.

The other dynamic at this stage is the point at which teams switch focus to their 2012 cars. Given the lead Red Bull has and Sebastian Vettel have in the two championships their rivals may now be starting to pin their hopes on next year.

F1 technology

• How the 2012 rules will influence F1 car design
• Mid-season technical review part 2
• Mid-season technical review part 1
• Technical review: 2011 Canadian Grand Prix
• F1 technology in 2011 part 2: Diffusers and more
• F1 technology in 2011 part 1: Tyres and DRS
• Why F1 steering wheels have over 20 buttons - and what they all do
• Video guide to KERS and DRS with Sebastian Vettel
• McLaren cover least test distance with new car
• Pre-season technical review

Images © McLaren, Renault/LAT, Mercedes

It's now a three-way battle at the front

Guest writer John Beamer examines how Ferrari and McLaren have closed the gap to Red Bull.

Red Bull has a healthy, 103-point lead in the constructors championship. But does it still have the fastest car on the grid?

The RB7 has not won for three races, its lead in qualifying has been cut, and on race pace McLaren and Ferrari have often had faster cars.

It pays to be careful when making sweeping statements about performance, especially when track layout and tyre performance can have a dominating effect on race results.

But consider the Hungarian Grand Prix, where last year Red Bull were a second clear in qualifying, while this time Sebastian Vettel took pole position by less than two-tenths of a second partly because Lewis Hamilton made a couple of small errors on his final run.

The top teams’ recent technical developments gives some insight into how the battle for victory has changed.

Exhaust blown diffusers

Ferrari won their only race of the year so far at Silverstone – a weekend clouded by the row over exhaust-blown diffusers.

Prior to the race the FIA mandated that teams restrict off-throttle blowing to 10% of the full amount.

However, during Friday practice it emerged that Renault had permission to run up to 50% off-throttle based on a historical analysis of how it used its engines to aid valve cooling. This was in response to Mercedes being allowed to fire four of its cylinders off-throttle to relieve crank case pressure.

These changes remained in place for the race but were rescinded afterwards. That Ferrari won the race and McLaren struggled gave a lot of insight into the design of their 2011 cars.

The EBD restrictions were to limit the amount of hot-blowing, which many believed is what helped Red Bull secure such a large qualifying advantage, especially when it turned up the engines in Q3.

It turned out that Red Bull does not use hot-blowing. The team had tried hot-blowing in testing and free practice but it wrecked the rear tyres.

McLaren’s ‘octopus’ exhust

McLaren struggled at Silverstone

McLaren , on the other hand, spent most of the off-season designing the MP4-26 around the infamous ‘octopus’ exhaust system, which did hot-blow the diffuser floor. The octopus exhaust was designed to release gasses across the full width of the diffuser but created too much aerodynamic sensitivity.

So they switched back to a conventional EBD layout before the Australian Grand Prix and picked up over a second a lap in time.

Although the diffuser was changed to accommodate the new exhaust system the aerodynamic principles relied on hot-blowing the exhaust. Fast-forward to Silverstone where hot-blowing was banned and McLaren suffered the most as the delicate balance of the car so apparent in the ‘octopus’ days returned.

Ferrari’s resurgence

Ferrari were off the pace early in the year partly because of wind tunnel calibration issues. That changed when they brought a radical upgrade package at Silverstone consisting of new rear bodywork, a revised exhaust layout, a new rear wing and floor.

That Ferrari got the harder compound working so well after struggling in previous races is a testament to the increased downforce generated.

Rear wing

Ferrari's earlier rear wing seen in Valencia

One significant performance differentiator in 2011 is rear wing design. This is intrinsically linked to the Drag Reduction System, which has a significant effect on laptime, especially in qualifying where DRS can be used feely.

To achieve this the wing needs to stall more aggressively in DRS operation. The trade-off is that this typically results in worse performance in total as airflow struggles to reattach when the DRS is deactivated – Mercedes suffered from this issue in the first few races.

Ferrari extended the main plane and increased its camber. In turn the flap cord length is reduced. When DRS is activated the effect of the flap slot disappears and the air under the main plane stalls causing downforce to drop away more quickly.

The rear wing Ferrari raced in Hungary

The wing was updated for Hungary practice. The flap chord was further shortened to give even greater drag reduction but so as to avoid losing too much downforce a Gurney was attached to the flap’s trailing edge. We may see this wing return at Spa, where drag reduction is especially important.

Rear bodywork

The other feature of the RB7 which Ferrari have tried to replicate is its distinctive coke-bottle rear bodywork, which allows cleaner airflow to the diffuser. Ferrari altered their rear bodywork, reworking the exhaust and radiator layout. The sidepods have also been extended rearward.

Normally designers try to create as much space as possible so superficially this seems an odd choice. There are two possible factors: first, the airflow wasn’t staying attached to the bodywork so by lengthen the sidepod this phenomena is being encouraged. Second, this new arrangement allows the exhaust construction to be simplified – it is now sunk into the floor.

The back of the RB7 is very tightly packaged

Ferrari’s front wing has also been modified, with the most recent version appearing in Hungary. They have wavered between using a two- and three-element front wing. In one sense this allows them to choose the wing depending on the circuit but this approach is likely to be more expensive in development time and resources.

The outer section of the wing has reduced camber, which will cut downforce but feel more consistent and stable to drivers when steering. There have been changes to the cascades which now appear a lot more detailed than in the past – the cascade is now dual element with a separator midway across its length.

Also, the forward-facing camera is mounted directly behind the central section where it looks like a second section. The two cameras appear to join so it looks like a single section – presumably the FIA is happy with this construction.

Red Bull’s rake

The thin wedge of light under the RB7 shows the angle of rake

A noticeable trend over the last few months has been the degree of rake the Red Bull cars run. For the uninitiated, rake is the nose to tail angle that the car runs. A car with a lot of rake has its nose closer to the ground while its tail is higher.

Why is this an advantage? The theory is that by running a lot of rake the front wing is closer to the ground where it is more effective. In addition the diffuser is at a steeper angle. Both phenomena, in theory, create more downforce. Let’s look at both of these in more detail.

Rake and the diffuser

Downforce in the diffuser is a function of height above the ground and slope. The steeper the diffuser the greater the downforce. A higher diffuser creates less downforce and also raises the centre of gravity. Both of these are only true up to a point – push them too far and all performance is lost. Adding rake to a car is trading off these phenomena.

One of the reasons why increasing diffuser height cuts downforce is because the diffuser becomes more prone to stalling. Red Bull realised that it could harness the power of the exhaust blown diffusers to mitigate this.

The exhaust gasses add energy to airflow in the outer part of the diffuser and prevent turbulent air from rear tyres entering the diffuser (acting as a seal). This reduces the effect of increasing the height of the diffuser.

Rake and the front wing

The 2009 technical regulations allowed the front wing to be run much closer to the ground than in previous seasons. This meant that the ground effect came back into play.

Ground effect is the same phenomena associated with changing the diffuser height. The lower the wing is to the ground the more downforce is generated – this is commonly known as the Venturi effect. Adding rake in conjunction with exhaust blown diffusers results in a considerable downforce benefit.

Teams follow Red Bull’s lead

Visible rake on Massa's car in Hungary

Red Bull has run a lot of rake for the best part of a year, and in recent races that McLaren and Ferrari have begun to follow suit. Is this a factor in the more competitive running order? Almost certainly.

This was particularly so in Hungary where Vettel abandoned a new front wing and floor design after Friday practice. The team had to break the FIA-imposed curfew to return the car to its Nurburgring configuration.

The main problem was the revised front wing and under-chassis turning vanes. The front wing pillar was wider and consequently the turning vane was deleted. In addition the trailing edge of the front wing flap sported a gurney and the cascade profiles were changed.

The addition of the gurney was interesting as this is usually a quick way to increase grip at low speeds. Although these changes seem minor, a small change at the front of a car can have a significant effect further back.

The updated diffuser, which was in all probability updated to work with the new front wing, sported a few subtle changes (externally at least). The central section below the rear crash structure contained a new fence structure and the vanes in the primary diffuser channel were lengthened.

It’s unclear what Red Bull is trying to achieve with these updates but presumably by adding/extending these vanes the intent was to better control and direct airflow exiting the diffuser.

This is a very sensitive part of the car as the pressure gradient aft of the diffuser determines how much downforce it generates. Too steep a gradient and the diffuser is more prone to stalling.

Don’t miss part two of this article tomorrow which will look at McLaren’s progress this year and significant changes in the midfield teams.

F1 technology

• How the 2012 rules will influence F1 car design
• Mid-season technical review part 2
• Mid-season technical review part 1
• Technical review: 2011 Canadian Grand Prix
• F1 technology in 2011 part 2: Diffusers and more
• F1 technology in 2011 part 1: Tyres and DRS
• Why F1 steering wheels have over 20 buttons - and what they all do
• Video guide to KERS and DRS with Sebastian Vettel
• McLaren cover least test distance with new car
• Pre-season technical review

Rear wings

Before the new 2009 regulations we tech spotters used to see much more variation in aerodynamics at the different races – especially at high-downforce Monaco, and low-downforce Montreal and Monza.

But these race-to-race changes have more or less disappeared.

Take Monaco, for example. In the past teams would turn up with an impressive array of aerodynamic appendages to try to maximise downforce around the principality. Here top speeds are not a factor so teams are willing to add downforce at the cost of drag, a trade-off that wouldn’t be made at, say, Barcelona.

However, this year at Monaco teams didn’t bring any new high downforce components – all they did was ratchet up the wing angles.

So what about Canada? The track favours a low downforce set-up, similar to Monza, but not as extreme. The Gilles Villeneueve circuit consists of a series of lengthy straights, a few chicanes and an slow hairpin with no high-speed corners to speak of.

Naturally all teams came with low-profile rear wings but most were simply existing wings with modified angle. Williams and Renault were among the few to use new, low-downforce concepts, both of which featured twisted spans.

Renault

Nick Heidfeld, Renault, Montreal, 2011

Renault had an M-shaped wing which eagle-eyed readers will recall was an approach used on the car for the Canadian Grand Prix last year. The idea is to try to optimise load distribution across the length on the wing.

The curvature either side of the centreline aligns better with the incident airflow so presents a reduced angle wing. The theory is that this increases the aerodynamic efficiency (defined as the downforce-to-drag ratio) of the wing by better reflecting the shape of the incoming airflow.

Williams

Pastor Maldonado, Williams, Montreal, 2011

The Williams concept was a little different. It is shovel-shaped to try to increase downforce over the middle part of the wing where the airflow is cleaner.

By making the mid-wing do the work the pressure gradient is reduced at the endplates, which produces smaller vortices and less drag.

Designers are investing substantial resources in optimizing the DRS system and this is also evident in the Williams design.

The flap has a short chord and its job is to keep the airflow attached to the underside of the main plane. The flap extends the low pressure area behind the rear wing which in turn increases downforce of the device. When the DRS is activated this low pressure area drops away and the lee-side of the main plane stalls, causing a large drop in drag (and downforce).

Neither Renault nor Williams ran their new front wings in the race because of the threat of rain.

There were also fears that the super-soft tyres would last only a few laps. Under this scenario more rear downforce would help preserve the tyres.

This also explains why McLaren opted to run its cars with more rear downforce and was one of the reasons why Jenson Button was so much faster than Sebastian Vettel on the drying race track at the end of the race.

Front wings

One reason why we don’t see vastly different car configurations on a low downforce circuit like Montreal is because of the extreme aerodynamic sensitivity of the cars. Following the 2009 regulations changes, teams achieve optimal downforce by treating the car as a system.

Ostensibly this means tailoring the intricate front wing design to optimise airflow to the sidepods and floor. However, given the sensitivity of the aerodynamics, teams don’t have a lot of latitude to radically change the front wing because all their aero optimisation work will be undone – this is 18 months-worth of intensive CFD and wind tunnel analysis.

As a result teams rarely produce radical new front wing designs – the last such example was probably McLaren which introduced the split cascade to manage airflow around the tyres in the middle of 2010.

Interestingly for Canada Williams introduced an endplate-less front wing. The endplates were merged into the cascades and a horizontal vane is attached to the integrated endplate to manage air to the tyres.

In addition a fence was placed underneath the outer part of the cascade in order to control the vortices below the front wing. This will aim a vortex outside the tyre to try to reduce wheel drag.

Ferrari’s suspension

Felipe Massa, Ferrari, Montreal, 2011

One of the surprises when the 2011 cars were launched was Ferrari’s decision to stick with pushrod rear suspension at a time when many other teams were following Red Bull’s lead in switching to a pullroad configuration.

The Scuderia was very aggressive with its placement of the suspension pick-up points to try to create as narrow a back-end as possible. The intention is to enable as much air as possible to channel to the coke-bottle zone and over the diffuser. One consequence of this set-up is that Ferrari is quite harsh on its rear tyres, particularly the harder compound.

In recent races the team has subtly altered the suspension pick-ups to try to better manage the rear tyres. By fine tuning suspension pick-ups it is possible to control the weight transfer under breaking, accelerating and cornering. The team is no doubt attempting to get a more consistent weight distribution to the rear tyres under dynamic conditions.

Another suspension innovation that Ferrari has adopted is a dual-rate anti-roll bar. As its name implies the anti-roll bar resists roll – in a road car you can feel the car rolling when cornering. The stiffer the bar the greater the resistance to roll. A stiff bar will keep the car at a consistent attitude, which is beneficial for aerodynamics. A softer bar will give more mechanical grip when cornering.

Dual-rate anti-roll bars give the best of both worlds. Typically a stiff bar is attached to the suspension with a soft-sprung coil. The coil gives compliance when cornering but quickly becomes fully compressed allowing the stiffer anti-roll bar to resist rolling motion.

Changing regulations

The debate over the future technical direction of F1 continues. After the Canadian Grand Prix it was confirmed that from Silverstone teams would be limited in their application of hot-blowing diffusers.

When off the pedal the throttle is only allowed to be up to 10% open – many teams maintain full throttle opening, especially in qualifying. To restrict this the FIA has also mandated that, from this weekend, engine maps must not be changed after qualifying (unless a driver starts from the pitlane). This means that teams will have to run less aggressive maps in qualifying.

The impact is likely to be significant, especially for Renault and Red Bull, the two teams that first developed the technology.

The most intriguing dynamic is whether Red Bull’s qualifying advantage is reduced – given the RB7 has almost a second on its rivals in the hands of Vettel I suspect the Milton Keynes-based outfit won’t be too concerned. However, we will need to wait a couple of weeks before we know exactly what the regulation change has done to the running order.

The bigger change affects the 2012 regulations where exhaust-blown diffusers have been banned.

An early proposal was for the exhausts to extend a minimum of 330mm behind the rear wheel centre line, which is at the trailing edge of the diffuser. This would have prevented the use of blown diffusers but would have incurred significant costs as teams produced longer exhaust pipes.

There was also a strong likelihood that teams could still take advantage of the blown effect to reduce the pressure gradient aft of the diffuser or underneath the beam wing, both of which would yield a performance advantage.

A compromise has since been reached whereby the periscope exhausts of years gone by will be mandated. It is unclear how the regulations will be written to ensure this happens but it will mean that there is very low chance of the exhaust gasses being put to aerodynamic use.

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 you need here.

F1 technology

• How the 2012 rules will influence F1 car design
• Mid-season technical review part 2
• Mid-season technical review part 1
• Technical review: 2011 Canadian Grand Prix
• F1 technology in 2011 part 2: Diffusers and more
• F1 technology in 2011 part 1: Tyres and DRS
• Why F1 steering wheels have over 20 buttons - and what they all do
• Video guide to KERS and DRS with Sebastian Vettel
• McLaren cover least test distance with new car
• Pre-season technical review

Image © Ferrari spa/Ercole Colombo

Also, a look at the ongoing dispute over the new engine rules for 2013.

Exhaust Blown Diffusers

Renault R31 exhaust, Valencia, 2011

After much commotion at the start of the season with Renault’s sidepod-exiting exhausts and McLaren’s infamous aborted ‘octopus’ the majority of the front-runners have now imitated Red Bull’s design.

The regulations allow slots in the outermost 50mm of the floor. Red Bull tunnel the exhaust under the floor and exits them in this ‘free’ zone, feeding the hot exhaust gasses into the diffuser.

There are two alternative designs. One is to use the starter motor hole for the same effect but the slot is small and the performance gains minimal.

The second is to simply blow the exhaust over the top of the floor, which doesn’t feed the diffuser directly but does create a region of low pressure aft of the diffuser structure reducing the pressure gradient under the floor. Mercedes has stuck with this solution.

This configuration has caused Mercedes much trouble with overheating rear tyres. In Spain the floor of the Mercedes sprouted a turning vane beside the rear tyre to channel air away from the rubber.

Hot-blown diffusers

One trend to go hand in hand with exhaust blown diffusers has been the application of special engine maps to ensure a consistent flow of exhaust gasses even when the driver is off throttle. This has been dubbed ‘hot-blowing’, but it is set to be heavily restricted after the next race in Valencia.

By retarding the ignition and igniting fuel in the exhaust when the throttle is closed, hot gasses continue to feed the diffuser, generating more downforce.

This technique has a dramatic effect on fuel consumption. Renault estimated that its engines are consuming around 10% more fuel in a race then they were last year because of the retarded ignition approach.

Teams runs two maps: one for qualifying where more fuel is burned to drive faster, more consistent flow; and one for race day which burns less fuel.

A week before the Spanish Grand Prix the FIA made the surprise announcement that off-throttle diffuser feeding was to be restricted.

The precise wording of the revised regulation is still pending but it is likely to mandate engine throttles closing to 10% of their maximum when the driver is off the gas. That is a significant change and will vastly reduce the efficacy of engine mapping.

All the front teams are effected – especially Red Bull and Renault – and a protest delayed the introduction of the ban until Silverstone. Renault in particular could suffer as the front exhaust exists are likely to suffer a larger performance drop-off under the proposed regulation changes.

Flexible bodywork

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Montreal, 2011

Another controversy from 2010 that has refused to die down is the application of flexible body work, particularly for the front wing.

Recall that Red Bull’s car seemed to magically lower its nose at high speed creating extra downforce. Despite the FIA’s attempts to tighten the regulations the RB7 sports the same advantages.

After the Malaysian Grand Prix, when it was clear that Red Bull still had an advantage, utterances from Aldo Costa (Ferrari’s technical director at the time) and Ross Brawn suggested that they believed the more stringent regulations would put an end to flexible bodywork.

They didn’t. Rather, it appears that under the static load test the RB7’s front wing flexes less than its rivals.

However the test is still flawed. In full flight the RB7’s wing flexes a little down but also appears to move backwards a little. This degree of fine tuning will take a lot of skill (not to mention expense in terms of computer software and resources).

It’s fairly straightforward to achieve this kind of bending. By altering the composition of the carbon fibre lay-up process the final, cured product will exhibit different tensile characteristics. There are many parameters at play include lay-up orientation, autoclave temperature/curing time, fibre thickness, resin constitution, and so on.

But the difficult part is controlling these variable to make a wing that behaves exactly as desired under load.

This requires deep understanding of structural mechanics as well as flow analysis – a combination of Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) techniques.

Despite the immense computing power F1 teams throw at CFD their simulations can only provide an estimate of actual flow – throw in the need to solve FEA equations and the problem compounds. It is thought that through a venture with MSC Software that Red Bull has managed to get around some of these problems and has a very good read on the FEA-CFD interlinks.

2013 regulations

The 2013 regulations, in particular the rules, have received a lot of attention.

Engines

At the last World Motor Sport Council meeting the FIA said the controversial new engines rules could be postponed pending a vote to be taken by the end of the month.

The FIA announced in December a switch to 1.6 litre, 4 cylinder engines would take place in 2013. These would include a more powerful Kintic Energy Recovery System and turbo-charging to produce roughly the same power output as the current V8 engines do.

The hopes this might entice more car manufacturers to enter the sport appear to have been in vain so far. Volkswagen, one car manufacturer which was being targeted, instead announced it would compete in the World Rally Championship.

The only engine builder not currently active in F1 to announce plans so far is PURE, a new manufacturer led by former BAR team principal Craig Pollock.

Along with a feeling that the new rules have not had the desired affect of attracting new manufacturers, there are concerns about the cost of building engines for a new formula.

But in seems inevitable the sport will ultimately need to embrace a more modern solution that follows the car industry trend for smaller, less thirsty engines.

Aerodynamics

There will also be changes to the aerodynamic rules. Initially a proposal was put forward to simplify the front wing and allow more design freedom underneath the car as this was thought likely to improve overtaking.

However, as we’ve seen this year, altering mechanical grip (via the new Pirelli tyres) is a more effective way to encourage overtaking. Some teams were worried that removing the shackles from floor development would just create a new aero arms race just as costly as the current one.

History supports that hypothesis and as a result those plans have been scaled back. The 2013 aero regulations will be based on the 2011 rules but with tweaks to reduce the design intricacy of the front wing and to further restrict bargeboard and sidepod wing development, which the original 2009 rules did not completely eliminate.

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 you need here.

F1 technology

• How the 2012 rules will influence F1 car design
• Mid-season technical review part 2
• Mid-season technical review part 1
• Technical review: 2011 Canadian Grand Prix
• F1 technology in 2011 part 2: Diffusers and more
• F1 technology in 2011 part 1: Tyres and DRS
• Why F1 steering wheels have over 20 buttons - and what they all do
• Video guide to KERS and DRS with Sebastian Vettel
• McLaren cover least test distance with new car
• Pre-season technical review

Tyres

Fernando Alonso, Renault, Silverstone, 2005

As pre-season testing indicated, the characteristics of the Pirelli rubber are very different to the old Bridgestones. It’s worth going through a bit of history to understand how we got here.

Ten years ago pit stop strategy was an essential element of Grand Prix racing. The tyres would wear out quickly and teams had to work out whether the speed advantage of a series of short sprints outweighed the cost of spending more time trundling down the pitlane. The problem was that Ferrari and Michael Schumacher were imperious and the spectacle was dull.

To try to spice things up in 2005 the FIA banned tyre changes. The thesis was to bring tyre management into play and make the sport more exciting.

The tyre companies (Bridgestone and Michelin) at the time poured research in to developing more durable compounds that wouldn’t degrade so much over a 300km race.

The racing was better but this was because the Michelin-shod teams had better rubber and were able to close the gap to Ferrari who stuck with Bridgestone.

Then came the ill-fated 2005 US Grand Prix where the high lateral loads caused by the banked Indy speedway dangerously weakened the sidewalls of the Michelins.

We all know what happened next – the Michelin teams weren’t allowed to race turning the Grand Prix into a farce. That saw the sport scarp the ‘no tyre change’ rule and move to a single supplier for tyres (Bridgestone) for 2007.

The 2007 control tyre was based on the compound developed in 2005 and the tyres were very durable – degrading a maximum of a 0.05s per lap. Fuel stops still gave a strategic angle to race day.

It wasn’t until 2010 and the refuelling ban that the F1-watching public started to cotton on to how important tyres were in deciding the outcome of a Grand Prix.

Sebastian Vettel demonstrated how durable the super-softs were last year in Monza when he ran them for practically the entire race distance.

Sebastien Buemi, Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton, Montreal, 2010

A few races earlier, the combination of compound choice, rain and asphalt characteristics turned the Canadian Grand Prix into an overtaking bonanza as the tyres lasted a handful of laps.

These events dovetailed with Bridgestone’s decision to exit the spot and when Pirelli was selected as F1’s sole tyre supplier it was give the mandate to make rubber that would degrade faster.

In the Bridgestone days the biggest problems the teams had was graining. This is when the first layer of rubber is torn by the asphalt temporarily resulting in reduced grip. Once the graining phase was over the tyres would work as normal.

Simply put, the Pirellis don’t grain. The tyres just degrade – the rubber is more consistent throughout the tyre and it wears away (hence the marbles which appear off the racing line).

Driving style has a limited effect on degradation. Witness Lewis Hamilton having to claw back places in Turkey following a poor start – his tyres were done a couple of laps before the others.

Drivers have to work out when to push and when to hold back but the point is that two drivers going the same speed will have a very similar degradation pattern whereas with the Bridgestones there was more scope for managing the tyres.

The other point of note is the extent to which the Pirellis amplify the difference between team mates, particularly in qualifying.

Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso and Rosberg have consistently outpaced Webber, Button, Massa and Schumacher respectively – and typically by a greater margin than last year:

• Sebastian Vettel 2011 form guide
• Lewis Hamilton 2011 form guide
• Fernando Alonso 2011 form guide
• Nico Rosberg 2011 form guide

DRS and rear wings

Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, Montreal, 2011

The Drag Reduction System is probably the most radical rule change to F1 since shaped under floors were outlawed.

As everyone who reads this site knows the flap may open by a distance of 50mm reducing its angle of attack. Drag squares with speed and the open flap allows cars to find roughly 10-15 kph on the straight.

As we saw in Turkey the effect DRS has in the race can be substantial. However, perhaps the bigger and much less discussed consequence is that Red Bull’s qualifying dominance is largely down to its ability to use DRS where others can’t.

At the recent Spanish Grand Prix, coming out of the last corner the RB7 had its wing open entering the last corner where as the McLaren, its closest challenger, waited until the car was past the corner apex. It confirms how much raw downforce the Red Bull has.

On an average track in qualifying trim the RB7 has a second a lap advantage over the MP4-26. That’s huge. On Sunday when DRS use is restricted the gap contracts to a less jaw-dropped 0.2s (and McLaren believe they are quicker over a race distance), which goes to show how unrestricted use of the DRS exaggerates the performance gap.

Michael Schumacher, Mercedes, Montreal, 2011

In addition the design of the DRS system and rear wing can also effect performance. The Mercedes has the most aggressive DRS design.

The chord length of its rear wing flap is short and in the early races when the DRS deactivated it took too long for airflow to reattach to the underside of the flap. This meant that downforce couldn’t be recovered quickly enough and was one reason why Schumacher and Rosberg struggled during qualifying in the early races.

Ferrari’s banned rear wing

Felipe Massa, Ferrari, Barcelona, 2011

There wasn’t a lot of innovation in rear wing design until Ferrari appeared in Spain with a raised lip on the trailing edge of the rear wing (pictured) that resembled a gurney flap – and caused the rear wing to exceed a maximum height threshold.

Closer inspection revealed that the trailing edge is part of the extended wing separators as specified by article 3.10.3 of the technical regulations.

The article mandates two central supports between 2-5mm thick and a maximum distance of 30mm from the wing surface that fully enclose both the main plane and flap of the wing. Ferrari joined the two separators together and then split them at the trailing edge of the flap so they then shadow the rest of flap along its length, 30mm from the trailing edge.

The benefits were obvious with the device acting a gurney flap, which is an efficient way to add downforce to the car. However, before free practice 3 the FIA deemed that Ferrari’s innovation contravened the regulations and it was banned.

At the start of the 2011 campaign there were fears that the writing of the DRS regulations would introduce new loopholes that canny teams would exploit to produce the 2011 equivalent of the f-duct. So far it hasn’t happened – at least not to the naked eye.

The only parameters that designers can tweak are chord length and profile thickness. A shorter flap (i.e., small chord length) will shed drag more quickly when open but will produce less downforce when closed.

The second part of this article tomorrow will look at exhaust-blown diffusers, flexible bodywork, and the planned changes for 2013.

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 you need here.

F1 technology

• How the 2012 rules will influence F1 car design
• Mid-season technical review part 2
• Mid-season technical review part 1
• Technical review: 2011 Canadian Grand Prix
• F1 technology in 2011 part 2: Diffusers and more
• F1 technology in 2011 part 1: Tyres and DRS
• Why F1 steering wheels have over 20 buttons - and what they all do
• Video guide to KERS and DRS with Sebastian Vettel
• McLaren cover least test distance with new car
• Pre-season technical review

Images © Renault/LAT, Bridgestone/Ercole Colombo, Red Bull/Getty Images, Daimler

This year designers have had to squeeze in buttons for Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems and Drag Reduction Systems along with the usual array of toggles, switches and levers.

Now F1 is being broadcast in high definition it’s easier for us to see what the driver’s up to at the wheel.

This video from Mercedes gives an introduction to some of the settings their drivers have to tweak while they’re on the move:

Here’s a closer look at Sauber’s steering wheel and what their drivers have to control while lapping at over 200mph:

Sauber steering wheel

In addition to the various controls, drivers also receive information via the lights on the steering wheel.

On the Sauber steering wheel the displays are:

• RPM indicator (upper LEDs)
• FIA flag signals (left and right LEDs)
• Gear selection (centre LED)
• Speed and sector times / MFRS options (left and right screens)

On some cars, such as the Red Bull, this display cluster is mounted behind the steering wheel.

F1 technology

• How the 2012 rules will influence F1 car design
• Mid-season technical review part 2
• Mid-season technical review part 1
• Technical review: 2011 Canadian Grand Prix
• F1 technology in 2011 part 2: Diffusers and more
• F1 technology in 2011 part 1: Tyres and DRS
• Why F1 steering wheels have over 20 buttons - and what they all do
• Video guide to KERS and DRS with Sebastian Vettel
• McLaren cover least test distance with new car
• Pre-season technical review

Image © Sauber F1 Team

Update: You can also watch the Mark Webber version of this video.

F1 video

• Red Bull RB8 launch - first pictures and video of Red Bull's 2012 F1 car
• Sauber C31 launch - first pictures and video of Sauber's 2012 F1 car
• Ferrari have "taken a few more risks", says Fry
• Ferrari F2012 key changes explained
• Domenicali: F2012 is "not so pretty... but that doesn't count"
• Ferrari F2012 launch - first pictures and video of Ferrari's 2012 F1 car
• 2011 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix programme
• Massa's crash and more fans' videos from the Indian Grand Prix
• 2011 Indian Grand Prix programme
• Neel Jani drives the first laps of India's F1 track

Jenson Button, McLaren, Barcelona, 2011

McLaren covered the least distance in testing with their new car of all the teams, apart from HRT who have not yet tested their new car.

The data reflects the trouble the team have had with their MP4-26, which was introduced in the second test of the season at Jerez.

Lotus overcame a series of problems with their T128 to log one of the highest daily mileages of the year on their final day of testing.

Heikki Kovalainen covered 642km – the equivalent of more than two race distances – on his last day in the car.

Ferrari covered the most ground in the 15 days of pre-season testing, racking up almost 7,000km, almost twice as much as McLaren’s 3,601km.

Ferrari and Red Bull accumulated more than a season’s racing mileage in 15 days, each managing more than 6,100km.

Despite the usual testing problems most teams managed to share the run roughly equally between their two drivers. Mercedes gave Nico Rosberg extra running in Friday’s dry session to compensate for lost laps earlier in testing.

See below for a day-by-day breakdown on the amount of testing done by each team and driver. This does not include testing done in private ‘filming’ days.

Daily testing distances by car

This chart shows how many kilometres each car covered on each day of testing.

HRT did not test on the 10th-13th, 21st and 8th-12th. Ferrari, Mercedes and Williams did not test on the 8th. McLaren did not test on the 10th. Red Bull, Sauber, Renault, Force India, Lotus, Virgin and Toro Rosso did not test on the 12th.

Cars testing mileages

Drivers testing mileages

2011 F1 testing

• Young Drivers Test Day 3 in pictures
• Vergne completes third day on top in Abu Dhabi
• Young Drivers Test Day 2 in pictures
• Vergne stays quickest on second day of test
• Italian F3 pair complete Ferrari test
• Jean-Eric Vergne leads first day of young drivers test
• 2011 F1 testing diary part four: Barcelona
• McLaren cover least test distance with new car
• Rosberg: Mercedes are "on the up"
• Second Barcelona test day 5 in pictures

Jenson Button, McLaren, Barcelona, 2011

Guest writer John Beamer reviews the innovations on the 2011 F1 cars revealed so far.

As the fourth pre-season test begins it is still difficult to judge the 2011 pecking order. But we can draw some informed conclusions about the general picture.

Common wisdom pegs Red Bull and Ferrari out in front with Renault and Williams vying for third and fourth, with McLaren and Mercedes further back. Yes, you did read that correctly!

But remember, this is only testing and there are many further developments to come. If you believe the utterances from the McLaren garage, they treat it differently to say a Red Bull or a Ferrari.

McLaren’s public position is that pre-season testing is the one opportunity to correlate on track performance with the wind tunnel and CFD. That’s partly why the MP4-26 trundles around the track looking like farm machinery.

While that is true to extent everything else points to the new McLaren being woeful. To understand why this might let’s first look at what Red Bull and Ferrari have done right.

Red Bull RB7

Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, Jerez, 2011

Superficially there are few if any radical innovations on the car – no trick exhausts or U-shaped sidepods.

And you’d be worried if there was. This is a car that won ten races last year and had a 0.5s performance advantage at the end of the season. Instead what Adrian Newey has done is continue to focus on optimising the car to eek out every last millisecond of performance.

The biggest change has been to the sidepods and cooling setup to try to improve the airflow in the ‘coke bottle’ zone and over the diffuser. As was apparent in the double diffuser era getting clean air to the rear of the car is crucial for good downforce.

When the RB5 was launched one way Newey made the rear end slimmer was to place a cooling outlet in the centre of the car above the gearbox. However, there were still some cooling ducts aft of the radiators in the coke bottle zone.

The RB7 has eliminated these and routes all radiator cooling to the central duct. This allows the ‘coke bottle’ to be super-slim and expose more of the floor surrounding the diffuser to clear air.

The other major visual change to the RB7 is to the exhausts. Last year Red Bull pioneered the exhaust-blown diffuser (EBD) and has a lot of experience with the system.

This year teams are trying all sorts of exhaust tricks and the Red Bull solution is to route the exhausts to the 50mm zone at the edge of the diffuser where a cut can be applied to allow the exhausts to route under the diffuser. Look carefully in the ‘coke bottle’ zone and you’ll see a raised angled section between the engines and the edge of the floor – this carries the exhausts.

Ferrari 150° Italia

Felipe Massa, Ferrari, Barcelona, 2011

When first launched many thought that the 150° Italia was a tad conservative. The team retained push rod rear suspension configuration, the sidepods weren’t as hugely undercut as other teams’ were and, well, the car just didn’t look particularly radical.

However, in other ways the car was different. By retaining a push rod layout Ferrari is now in a minority. In some ways this is a bigger call than adopting a pull rod layout given it was perceived wisdom that pull rod was the way to go. No doubt the Ferrari designers spent hours debating this.

Ferrari has changed the suspension layout at the rear and slimmed down component packaging. For instance there are no visible bulges housing the rockers and dampers. It appears Ferrari have dropped the rear torsion bars so is effectively running with no rear side springs, allowing the suspension componentary to be further reduced.

Last year there were suggestions that Ferrari ran interconnected suspension i.e., linked the front and rear axles as this allows better control of the cars’ attitude to create more consistent downforce from the floor and diffuser. Ferrari blows the exhausts over the centre of the diffuser and pass some the gasses through the starter motor hole to create more downforce.

So far in testing the car looks quick. It isn’t a radical car by any stretch but like the Red Bull it is an evolution of its predecessor.

McLaren MP4-26

Lewis Hamilton, McLaren, Jerez, 2011

In 2009 McLaren launched its worst car in a decade. In testing the MP4-24 was some 2.5s off the pace as the McLaren designers interpreted the new regulations very conservatively.

Meanwhile Brawn pioneered the double diffuser, which meant their car stuck to the track like araldite and the allowed Button to establish such a dominant lead in the first half of the season that it didn’t change the outcome when other teams finally caught up.

You can imagine the conversation in Woking, “Damn those Brawn boys … next year we are going to product the biggest and most powerful double diffuser in the galaxy”. And that is what McLaren did.

The MP4-25 was designed around a huge double diffuser. Sure, peak downforce was impressive – I bet the wind tunnel readings were off the scale – but to use the double diffuser the car had to be set up incredibly stiffly, which meant it was susceptible to even the smallest bumps and was pitch sensitive in the extreme. It turned out that shooting for more consistent downforce led to a better lap – both Red Bull and Ferrari produced a more supple car that was ultimately faster than the McLaren.

Also during 2010 testing the McLaren designers see Adrian Newey wheel out trick exhausts and further refine the rear cooling and suspension arrangement to maximise airflow over the double diffuser. Now fast-forward to 2011 and picture the conversation as the design team snuggled around the boardroom in the design office, “To beat Red Bull we need to come up with the craziest exhaust system and a wacky idea to optimise airflow to the rear wing.” And here we are with an exhaust system that melts the under tray and L-shaped sidepods that at first blush are not producing sufficient rear grip.

McLaren MP4-26 launch, Berlin, 2011

Let’s take a closer look at some of the innovations of the MP4-26. The two major talking points are the sidepods and exhausts. There are two exhaust configurations: a now standard rear exiting exhaust which blows gas over the top of the diffuser; and a trick exhaust that exits forward of the gearbox to energise airflow around or under the floor. No one is quite sure where the trick exhausts exit but photos show a very clear U-bend as the exhausts exit the engine. Indeed there were even suggestions of multiple exits for the trick exhausts but these are unconfirmed.

In the first two tests McLaren ran a series of back-to-back experiments with the exhaust systems to try to baseline the downforce improvement. However, its unclear whether there was any improvement and when McLaren announced that they were hampered by a shortage of components it pointed to insufficient heat shielding at the exhaust exits.

It will be interesting to see the configuration McLaren opts to race with in Australia – if it is the standard exhaust set-up then they will be writing off millions of pounds worth of exhaust research.

The other innovation is the U-shaped sidepods. The theory here is that the U-shaped sidepods increase the air flow to the beam wing. This in turn reduced the pressure gradient above the diffuser and results in more downforce.

There are some compromises to this approach. First the radiator inlets need to be bigger. This is because the inlets are in line with the front tyres which generate dirty air. The more energized the air the better the cooling performance.

Also the radical shape means the McLaren sidepods are less undercut that some of their challengers. This will restrict the flow to the coke-bottle zone around the side of the car. The balancing equation is whether increased flow over the centre of the car more than offsets the complex radiator set-up and reduced undercut.

Renault, Williams, Toro Rosso

Nick Heidfeld, Renault, Jerez, 2011

Three other teams have produced significant innovations in the off-season: Renault, Williams and Toro Rosso. They are all looking to solve the same two problems that McLaren were, namely how to optimise the use of exhaust gasses and maximise rear downforce in the wake of the new diffuser regulations.

Renault sprung a surprise on the other teams with its innovative new exhausts. The exhausts route from the engine underneath the radiators and exit at the front of the sidepods and point under the floor. Exhaust gasses will drive a higher volume of airflow to the diffuser which increases downforce.

The challenges are twofold. First, the exhaust pipe runs at about 800C so a lot of heat shielding is required. Second, the engine mapping settings need to ensure there is a consistent flow of air to the diffuser especially during corner entry when downforce is needed and the drive is off the throttle.

Pastor Maldonado, Williams, Barcelona, 2011

Williams and Toro Rosso have focused on pushing more air over the diffuser. As mentioned earlier this create lower pressure above the diffuser, which means the pressure gradient is lower. This generates more downforce and is better for consistency as airflow stays attached in the diffuser.

Williams’ solution is to aggressively shrink the gearbox to create a super-tight ‘coke bottle’. By reducing the blockage ahead of the diffuser the airflow over the device is much cleaner and also lowers the centre of gravity. The smaller gearbox has ramifications for the drive shaft which is now angled at about 15 degrees into the gearbox.

Typically an angled drive shaft costs reduces the power transmitted to the wheels so this will have been an area of focus for the gearbox engineering team.

Jaime Alguersuari, Toro Rosso, Barcelona, 2011

Toro Rosso have taken a different approach to Williams by creating a double floor. Effectively the sidepods are raised above the floor creating an incredibly deep undercut. This allows air to channel in a gap between the sidepods and floor with the intention to drive better quality air over the diffuser.

The challenge with this approach is that, unlike the Williams design, the car’s centre of gravity is raised, which compromises handling.

Rear wings and Pirelli tyres

Along with innovation from the teams there are a host of other factors that will affect the racing in 2011. The two most significant are the Drag Reduction System (moveable rear wing) and the Pirelli tyres. There are mixed views on how both of these will affect the races.

Expect the rules on the rear wings to be conservative in the early races. The device can only be used once per lap in a designated area, which is likely to be a maximum of 600m in length.

The rules are reasonably fluid as the FIA has reserved the right to tweak the application of the moveable wing after the first four races – expect the FIA to make use of this power.

The new tyres are an altogether different matter. Evidence from the first few tests suggest that the tyres are 1.5-2s slower than the Bridgestones.

That isn’t surprising: Bridgestone was in the sport for nearly two decades and was involved in tyre wars with both Goodyear and Michelin.

The construction of the Pirellis is far stiffer and getting heat into the tyres is harder. As a result wear is rapid and the tyres are quickly wearing out. They are also producing a lot more marbles, which could have consequences for overtaking.

At this time of year we inevitably have more questions than answers about the cars. Bring on Melbourne!

2011 F1 season preview

• The complete F1 Fanatic 2011 season preview
• The 2011 F1 season in 20 questions
• The 2011 F1 rules changes at-a-glance
• Which F1 races are you going to in 2011?
• DRS: Separating the good from the bad
• How new tyres will change F1 in 2011
• Waiting to win: When each F1 driver last won a race
• Rookies bring three countries back to F1
• Glock doubts Virgin will reach midfield in 2011
• Hard to see much progress for HRT in 2011

Images © Pirelli, Red Bull/Getty images, Ferrari spa, Pirelli, www.mclaren.com, Pirelli, Williams/LAT, Pirelli