Is he using his KERS boost? What tyre compound is he on?

Following Formula 1 is going to get a lot more complicated in 2009.

The nature of F1 inevitably makes it harder to cover on television than other sports such as football. But Formula One Management and the television compaines that broadcast its feed will have to be seriously on the ball this year. Here’s why.

KERS power boost

As we all know drivers running KERS-equipped cars will be able to summon a boost of up to 80bhp for up to six seconds per lap.

When will drivers use KERS? Probably when they’re trying to overtake. But surely they’ll be hitting the button once per lap wherever the longest straight is to begin with? For the viewer, knowing when and where a driver is using his KERS – whether it’s to overtake, defend or set a hot qualifing lap – is essential.

Presumably the activation of KERS is handled by the standard electronic control unit introduced last year. The FIA has access to that device, so it may have the means to let viewers know in real-time who’s got their finger on the magic ‘K’ button.

Simply knowing which drivers are in KERS-equipped cars in the first place would be a helpful start. Several teams have already indicated they won’t be using KERS in the first race.

Wing adjustments

Another innovation for 2009 is adjustable wings. Drivers can change the position of flaps in their front wings by six degrees twice per lap.

As with KERS the thinking is this will provide an opportunity for drivers to overtake – in this case by adjusting their front wing to compensate for lost downforce when following another car. But are they not just as likely to make use of their adjustments even when not in traffic, to reduce drag on a long straight or increase grip in a series of corners?

Again, exactly how the drivers will use it is interesting, but fans will only be able to follow what is going on if they can see who has changed their wing, and how, in real-time. It may be possible to tell from video of the car whether the driver has adjusted his wing flaps, but that’s not clear yet.

Otherwise, how are we to know whether a driver has adjusted his wing up or down? And, as with KERS, will we be able to see what every driver is doing with their wing angles and KERS boosts or just the drivers we’re being shown on screen? Will we have access to more detailed information on the timing screens? Here’s hoping.

Tyre compounds

How will we tell prime and option slick tyres apart?

The rule requiring drivers to use each of the two compounds of dry-weather tyres during the race remains in 2009 (Sporting Regulations Article 25.4d). And the regulations also state that the two different compounds must be “visibly distinguishable from one another when a car is on the track” (Article 25.1).

But exactly how that will be put into practice isn’t clear. When then two-compounds rule was introduced in 2007 Bridgestone first tried to differentiate between the compounds using white marks on the tyre sidewalls. The problem was they were near-impossible to see when the car was in motion.

That led to Bridgestone adopting the practice of painting one of the grooves white to signify the softer compound. With slick tyres returning this year that will not be possible, so what will they do instead?

It will be especially important to know as Bridgestone plans to bring tyre compounds with greater performance differences in 2009.

In Champ Car (R.I.P.) they used to paint the sidewall of the softer tyre red. The problem with that solution in image-conscious F1 is that teams whose colours do not include red would probably object. Perhaps painting the sidewall in white and stencilling the ‘Bridgestone’ lettering in black would be a better solution?

Or they could just axe the two-compounds rule, as it doesn’t really add anything to the racing and is entirely artificial.

Engines

As discussed last week, the engines situation is going to get more complicated in 2009.

Drivers have eight engines to use during the season and can use whichever they choose in third practice, qualifying and race. How will the fans watching the sessions be told which engine their driver is using? Will the teams be required to declare their choice at the start of each session?

Formula 1 has taken some bold and controversial steps to improve the quality of racing in 2009. But if it fails to keep fans up-to-date with what’s going on in each of these areas during races it will only create more confusion.

Of course we’ll do everything possible to keep track of what the drivers are doing during the sessions in the live blogs, but like everyone else we’re dependent on FOM, the FIA and the teams getting it right.

Felipe Massa tests the Ferrari F60 at Mugello

F1 Fanatic guest writer John Beamer concludes his review of changes in the 2009 F1 rules designed to allow cars to follow each other more closely and encourage overtaking.

Rear bodywork

Changes: In the 2008 rules there were few limitations on the placement of bodywork between the front and rear wheels. In the last section we discussed the onerous restrictions on the barge board zone. Now we examine what designers have to contend with in the mid-part of the car (between the rear wheels and the front of the sidepods).

The short answer is that for 2009 chimneys, flip-ups and winglets are mostly excluded. As ever the wording is convoluted: it stipulates that any vertical cross section must form one continuous tangent curve on its external surface with a minimum radius of 75mm. In practice any sharp corners (i.e., with radii less than 75mm) are banned, which means an end to the detailed flow conditioners we see in this region today. Apertures are prohibited except to accommodate the suspension and exhausts, which prevent louvers and any opening of the bodywork for cooling.

The continuous tangent curve condition covers bodywork spanning from the rear wheel centre line to a point 450mm forward of the rear edge of the cockpit entry template. Ahead of this point there is some latitude to introduce simple wings and fins provided they are integrated into the sidepod structure (as discussed in the barge board section).

Finally, it’s worth noting that shark fin engine covers are still permitted.

Performance implications: Chimneys, winglets and flip-ups create a huge amount of turbulence so their removal will reduce the car’s wake. Also banning apertures should cut drag and associated turbulence.

Air management in this zone is largely to the benefit of rear downforce. Raising the rear wing by 150mm actually goes some way to negating the need for complex bodywork, although no doubt teams would have appropriately adapted flow conditioners to better interact with the rear wing. A consequence of these changes is that rear downforce falls slightly and centre of pressure shifts forward.

Retaining the shark fin cover probably wasn’t a difficult decision. For a start team bosses like the extra advertising space it yields. In addition it is designed to help redirect air more efficiently over the rear wing and encourage air to stay attached behind the airbox, both of which reduce turbulence.

Marks 9/10: As with the changes to the barge boards, the restrictions on mid-region bodywork support both of the FIA’s objectives by simultaneously reducing the sensitivity of the car and the size of its wake. Armchair aerodynamicists lose out as this region has been a frequent source of innovation and has contributed immensely to our understanding of how to use vortices to create downforce and manage airflow.

Also the banning of apertures in the bodywork could cause teams cooling issues particularly at hot, engine intensive circuits – anything that helps lift someone other than Ferrari or McLaren to the top of the podium is welcome.

Diffuser

Interim diffuser on BMW's 2009 F1 prototype (image brightened to enhance detail)

Changes: The rules governing the location and geometry of the diffuser for 2009 are, once more, opaque. Compared to the 2008 diffuser, the 2009 diffuser is moved to the rear wheel centre line (from 330m forward of this point) and its outer section is slightly longer and higher – allowable height has increased from 125mm to 175mm and can extend 350mm behind the rear axle, an increase of 20mm.

The central section has also changed. Whereas in 2008 it was up to 400mm high, 300mm wide and 830mm long, for 2009 it is shorter and narrower. Length is reduced to 500mm – by virtue of the whole diffuser moving back – and permissible width has halved to 150mm. Actually rear bodywork can overhang to a point 600mm behind the rear axle and this could be used to extend the central section, but in practice is for the crash structure and brake light, as it was in 2008.

Interestingly during the recent Jerez test, Williams’ prototype 2009 diffuser did not have a separate central section – it retained the same profile across its width. This may be because the presence of the plank limits the utility of the central section, or that undesirable separation occurs at the point where the central section extends aft of the rest of the diffuser. However, I’d be surprised if teams aren’t deploying some sort of central section when they take the grid for the Australian Grand Prix.

Finally, overall diffuser width is unchanged from 2008. It can extend up to 500mm from the car centre line – and while the inner 250mm section is allowed to touch the reference place the outer 250mm must be at least 50mm above the reference plane.

Performance implications: The net volume of the diffuser in 2009 is less than in 2008, with a consequential effect on performance. Although the outer sections are a little more powerful, it is in the central section where performance will dip causing overall power to drop. Some of this loss might be clawed back by virtue of the diffuser being steeper, allowing better pressure recovery. One other possible benefit of running a steeper diffuser is to lift upwash over a trailing car’s rear wing – that the rear wing is also raised negates this effect somewhat.

However, moving the device back reduces coupling with the beam wing (and upper elements too) as the wing is above the diffuser rather than behind it. It will also cause balance to shift rearwards. Perhaps the rationale is to counteract the possible downforce loss from the shorter and taller rear wing or the loss of flow conditioners in the mid-region.

Marks 4/10: The change to the diffuser is the most unwelcome part of the 2009 regulations for me. The diffuser and floor generate downforce but create little turbulence. Given that the FIA’s aim is to reduce the size of the wake then a powerful diffuser in conjunction with, say, a less cambered and more shallow rear wing is a must.

Making the diffuser steeper is, I believe, contradictory to the goal of reducing upwash, but perhaps the wind tunnel data tell a different story. The decision to move the diffuser back is also questionable because balance will fluctuate more when the car is in dirty air making it harder to drive. The only silver lining is that the reduction in power should help tidy the wake.

Closing thoughts

The 2009 regulations are a reasonable attempt to address the obvious overtaking issues that plague F1 today. By substituting aerodynamic grip for mechanical grip (largely through the introduction of slick tyres) races should be closer and passing more frequent.

Any revision to the rules draws criticism and these regulations certainly do. Three stand out. First is the huge cost associated with implementing the changes, which is ironic given F1’s cost cutting drive.

Second is the belief that the FIA hasn’t gone far enough in addressing overtaking. These rule changes will help but more radical solutions (for example, a more powerful diffuser with shallower front and rear wings) are needed to bring back the passing fans so crave. Indeed the FIA has already set out proposed changes for 2011 to encourage yet closer racing.

Finally there is the needling thought that by being ever more specific about what is and isn’t permitted F1 is slowly becoming a spec series by stealth. Aero restriction coupled with engine homologation are two major steps in that direction.

Perhaps the one group of people who are worse off are readers of this site. F1 has been the pinnacle of aerodynamic innovation and a source of inspirational ideas for other motor racing categories for many years – look at how other categories mimic F1’s design lead. As the 2009 regulations come into force there could be less to talk about!

Although the words feel very restrictive, if there is one lesson from the past 20 years is that you can never keep a good aerodynamicist down. Every time the FIA has challenged teams to cut downforce aerodynamicists have hit back. Barring the imposition of a spec series expect the next 20 years to be no different.

This series continues tomorrow with a look at the rear wing and barge boards. 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.

How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing

• How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing (part 1/3)
• How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing (part 2/3)
• How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing (part 3/3)

More on the 2009 F1 rules

• How new engine rules will affect strategy
• 2009 F1 rules make rear wings tiny
• How KERS will ruin great racing – Doctorvee reckons field spread will be much greater in 2009 due to KERS
• Changes to the 2009 Sporting Regulations In Full – Alianora la Canta on the new rules for 2009

Images copyright: Ferrari spa (1), BMW ag (2)

The high rear wing on 2009 F1 cars is designed to improve racing

Guest writer John Beamer continues his look at how the F1 rules have been changed for 2009 in a bid to encourage closer racing and more overtaking.

Rear wing

Changes: Like the front wing, the rear wing will look substantially different – superficially it will be narrower and higher. The top of the wing is raised by 150mm to 950mm and is now level with the summit of the engine cover. It is also narrower, reduced in width by 250mm to 750mm.

Allowable depth for the upper section has increased from 200mm to 220mm, to permit slightly more cambered and powerful aerofoils. As in 2008 only two elements are allowed. In addition the minimum area for the rear wing endplates has increased from 230,000mm2 to 330,000mm2, although part of this extra area allows for the taller device.

The beam wing remains in the same position (300mm above the reference plane) but, like the upper element, its maximum depth has increased from 75mm to 100mm. Again, as in 2008, the beam wing can only contain a single section.

Performance implications: By raising the height of the wing it will run in cleaner air and be more efficient. More downforce is available for a given angle of attack which, all else being equal, makes the associated wake smaller. However, the reduced plan area cuts total downforce and teams may simply reclaim lost grip by running more cambered profiles.

Specifying larger end plates gives teams an opportunity to better manage wingtip vortices, which will help contain the wake and reduce drag. Moreover, the narrower wing should reduce the size of the vortices induced by the rear wing section.

The other consequence of raising the wing is to decouple it from the diffuser – moving the diffuser back helps too (more on that later). How does raising the wing help? The 2008 regulations cause the rear wing to generate a low pressure zone at the base of the car, thereby creating a shallower pressure gradient for the diffuser to work against. In theory, raising the wing pushes this low pressure zone higher so upwash from the rear wing/diffuser combination is muted.

The high rear wing on Ferrari's F60

Marks 6/10: The concept of making the rear wing less sensitive is sound although the implementation is questionable. Despite the width reduction and height increase, by allowing teams to run more cambered profiles, the wake pattern is likely to remain similar.

Decoupling the diffuser from the rear wing is superficially good as it helps reduce upwash from the rear of the car but in practice the pumping effect has less influence on the wake than the steepness of the aerofoil or diffuser does. In all probability upwash will only be slightly reduced, if at all.

The narrower and higher wing will also look different. Many fans complain that the changes may make the cars look less racy. Is this a problem? Perhaps to some – but show a 1960s aficionado Michael Schumacher’s legendary F2004 and he’d say much the same.

Barge boards

No barge boards on the McLaren MP4-24

Changes: The rules governing the positioning of barge boards are some of the most complex in the new regulations and bring about a significant change to the look of a 2009 car.

A large restricted zone is defined which hugs the monocoque, extends the width of the car and spans from 625mm forward of the rear edge of the cockpit entry template to the front wheels – no body work is allowed in this area. A similar zone is defined in the 2008 regulations but is smaller, geometrically simpler and permits the plethora of forward turning vanes, barge boards and vortex generators that adorned last year’s cars..

Additionally, in 2009 a second zone is specified that extends from 450mm to 875mm forward of the rear edge of the cockpit entry template and overlaps with the zone defined above. No closed sections are allowed in this second zone.

In practice bodywork in the second zone must integrate with the sidepods or else the closed section requirement is violated. Simple fins, vanes and axe heads are permissible provided they comply with the closed section limitation.

Performance implications: Barge boards perform two roles: first, to manage air around the side of the car and second, to improve the efficiency of the floor. They work using vortex generators and panelling to appropriately direct and channel air flow.

Under the 2009 regulations barge boards as we know them are more or less banned. This has profound implications. First, it will be harder to feed the floor by appropriately directing vortices generated from the lower edge of the bargeboard. Second, it will be harder to shape air around the sidepod undercut through the coke bottle zone to the diffuser. Not only will under floor downforce fall but pressure above the diffuser will be higher, which further reduces the ability to generate under body downforce.

Marks 8/10: The FIA has done a thorough job making sure that the changes support both of its original objectives. Barge boards create a lot of turbulence that extends beyond the car’s form factor, so restricting the boards’ shape and ability to generate vortices will help reduce a car’s wake profile. As a consequence the entire aerodynamic package in this region is less sensitive to turbulence, which promotes closer racing. Sure, downforce suffers but the benefits are worth it.

At the same time there is still scope for aerodynamicists to apply some design latitude so we could see different and innovative solutions, especially given the convoluted writing of the regulations. Expect aerodynamicists to pay a lot of attention to what rival teams are doing with barge boards and to copy the best ideas.

This series continues tomorrow with a look at the rear wing and barge boards. 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.

How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing

• How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing (part 1/3)
• How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing (part 2/3)
• How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing (part 3/3)

More on the 2009 F1 rules

• How new engine rules will affect strategy
• 2009 F1 rules make rear wings tiny
• How KERS will ruin great racing – Doctorvee reckons field spread will be much greater in 2009 due to KERS
• Changes to the 2009 Sporting Regulations In Full – Alianora la Canta on the new rules for 2009

Images copyright: Toyota F1 World (1), Ferrari spa (2), www.mclaren.com (3)

Christian Klien tests BMW's 2009 F1 prototype

Over the last three years the rules that govern F1 have remained remarkably stable. In recent times the slowest car on the track (usually a Force India) has often been within 1.5s of the fastest. Ten years ago such a slim margin was unheard of.

However, that will all change as the FIA has overhauled the technical regulations for 2009, which promises to cause havoc in F1 design studios across the globe. Some teams are salivating at the prospect of using the revised technical baseline to leap up the grid. Who knows what will happen. Perhaps the only certainty is that the spread in lap times will increase.

In this series of three articles we will explore why F1 has decided to revamp its technical rules and what will change for 2009.

Why the change?

Despite an often dramatic 2008 season, it is widely acknowledged that F1 as a spectacle is often quite dull. Overtaking is tricky at the best of times and non-existent at the worst – winning from pole is common. Watch the breathless overtaking in GP2 or MotoGP and the challenge F1 faces is apparent.

The problem is that over time F1 cars have become finely tuned aerodynamic locomotives. With the homologation of power plants and imposition of control tyres, the majority of performance gain in recent times is from aerodynamic innovation. Teams can quite comfortably employ 200 people to man a couple of wind tunnels or a bank of supercomputers, just to shave that last hundredth of a second from a lap.

Unsurprisingly if an F1 car operates outside of its optimal aerodynamic band (e.g., when following another car) performance severely drops off. To understand why this is we must explore how air interacts between two cars close together. Two phenomena mostly explain why it is difficult for one car to follow another: upwash and turbulence.

Upwash is more pernicious and is mostly generated by the rear wing and diffuser. The diffuser is designed to help pressure recovery of the floor and as such is angled upwards. In modern F1 the rear aerofoil is coupled with the diffuser and acts as pump by creating a low pressure zone above the diffuser. The diffuser/wing combination creates a sizeable updraft. In addition, the rear wing endplates produce two, large, counter-rotating vortices that usually combine to enhance the upwash (depending on the design of the wing). A wing travelling in upwash faces a lower angle of attack, which reduces pressure on the skyward side and hence downforce.

Whereas upwash causes the airflow to change direction, turbulence is characterised by chaotic, stochastic property changes in a fluid. Typically, turbulence in an F1 car is generated by either a slipstream or a vortex burst. In both instances the outcome is the same: lower total pressure and flow velocity, which reduces the effective camber of a wing and makes it less efficient.

It isn’t only aerofoils that suffer; flow conditioners are badly affected too. These devices are designed to work in stable air so upwash and turbulence disturbs the geometry of the free air flow and the efficacy of the conditioner (usually translating to a loss of grip at the rear).

The 2009 regulations have two objectives in mind. First, is to curtail the car’s wake and control upwash; and second, is to reduce the aerodynamic sensitivity of the car (particularly for the benefit of flow conditioners) so it suffers less in turbulence.

With that in mind let’s take a tour around an F1 car and look at the aerodynamic differences we can expect in 2009.

Front wing

Felipe Massa in the 2009 Ferrari F60

Changes: The front wing is widened from 1,400mm to 1,800mm and now spans the width of the car. After being raised in 2005 to cut downforce, the wing is lowered from 150mm above the reference plane to 75mm above it. Also its leading edge is brought forward by 100mm.

Interestingly the central 500mm section is an FIA specified single-element profile and the shape and size of the non-specified section is partly restricted. At a point 750mm from the centre line to the edge of the wing various area requirements must be met. Also the zone 840mm to the edge must only consist of a single section when viewed from beneath, which allows flicks and channels on the endplate to manage airflow to the front wheels. However, the section spanning 400mm to 750mm from the car centre line is relatively free from restriction although must be less than 550mm long and 200mm deep.

Perhaps the most significant change is the presence of driver adjustable flaps in the zone 250mm to 750mm from the car centre line. These flaps must form a single closed section and can be adjusted by the driver twice a lap up to an angle of six degrees. Finally bodywork over and on top of the nose (i.e., dumbo ears or bridge wings) are banned, although Renault-style cascade flaps are allowed.

Performance implications: All things being equal, by widening the wing plan area is made greater and so is downforce. In addition, lowering the device induces a ground effect, which works better in turbulence, is less susceptible to upwash and also supplements downforce.

Moving the front wing forward improves its efficiency and shifts the aerodynamic balance of the car forward to the benefit of front grip. Although the imposition of a standard central section sparks worries about the sport becoming a spec series it should see the wing operate across a wider tolerance band.

The driver adjustable flaps are the first moveable aerodynamic devices allowed in F1 for over 40 years. The idea is that the driver of a car in dirty air can raise his flaps to increase the angle of attack of the front wing and generate more downforce. When passing the driver lowers the flaps to cut drag to increase the odds of a successful manoeuvre. However the drivers may only alter the positions of these flaps twice per lap.

Marks 7/10: The push to make the front wing less sensitive and increase the ground effective is welcome and will up the aerodynamic efficiency of a car in dirty air. As a result, cars will be able to travel closer together, which makes overtaking easier.

The driver adjustable section is a wild card. It adds a lot of cost and complexity to the wing and the performance benefits are uncertain – teams could waste a lot of cash for little gain. It also feels a little arbitrary and archaic – what’s wrong with adjusting it automatically and why only six degrees? There is a good argument for the reintroduction of movable devices into F1 as they could be tuned to the amount of turbulence, although the cost implications are significant. The FIA’s manual solution sacrifices efficiency and probably won’t improve racing.

The logic for widening the front wing is to add downforce but it may turn out to be folly. The interaction between the endplates and the front wheel is complicated and reducing drag in this region sucks up a lot of resource. Managing this interaction will continue to be subject to heavy (and costly) development, especially as the reintroduction of slicks alters the aerodynamic characteristics of the tyres. A wider front wing also increases the odds of bodywork flying around the track after prangs – at least it will keep pit crews busy.

This series continues tomorrow with a look at the rear wing and barge boards. 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.

How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing

• How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing (part 1/3)
• How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing (part 2/3)
• How the F1 rules changes for 2009 are meant to improve racing (part 3/3)

More on the 2009 F1 rules

• How new engine rules will affect strategy
• 2009 F1 rules make rear wings tiny
• How KERS will ruin great racing – Doctorvee reckons field spread will be much greater in 2009 due to KERS
• Changes to the 2009 Sporting Regulations In Full – Alianora la Canta on the new rules for 2009

Safety car periods should no longer bring controversial pit penalties in 2009

Alianora la Canta’s rigorous analysis of the 2009 sporting rules turned up a surprising and un-announced change. The ‘pit lane closure’ rule has been dropped.

The controversial rule required the pit lane to be declared closed at the beginning of a safety car period, and any driver who pitted during that time received a penalty. This unfairly ruined races for drivers on several different occasions.

Although the dropping of the rule is good news from a racing point of view, you have to ask why the rule was brought in in the first place.

The ‘pit lane closure’ rule was brought in for safety reasons. When a safety car period is called drivers can save themselves time by taking a ‘free’ pit stop before cars behind them have had a chance to catch up. However this potentially means drivers racing flat-out to get to the pits at a time when there is a serious incident on the circuit.

The revised sporting regulations don’t make any obvious provision to prevent that scenario from happening in the future. Last season the FIA ran several trials of a complicated system that required driver to stick to a pre-determined lap time when a safety car period was called. But that too seems to have been quietly dropped – presumably because it was too difficult and/or expensive to implement.

That said, the ‘pit lane closure’ rule caused safety problems of its own. Bunching the field up before most of them pitted together contributed to potentially dangerous incidents at Montreal and Singapore last year.

I’ve gone into the problems with the ‘pit lane closure’ rule at length in previous articles (below). I think abandoning it is the lesser of two evils because it was never going to work in Formula 1. We can chalk this up as another Max Mosley U-turn I think.

With a ban on race refuelling set for 2010, the pit lane closure rule was going to become irrelevant after the 2009 season.

• Changes to the 2009 Sporting Regulations in Full – La Canta Magnifico Blog
• Bad safety car rules catch out Heidfeld
• Video: Controversy as Lewis Hamilton hits Kimi Raikkonen in pit lane
• Felipe Massa’s pit lane disaster (video)
• New safety car rules catch teams out
• Video: the safety car rules danger

F1 teams will be able to manage their engine use better this year

Ferrari’s Stefano Domenicali has been talking about the changes to the F1 engine rules for 2009.

Gone are the days of teams using one engine for each two consecutive rounds. The 2009 system is more complex: it could face some teams with challenging questions – especially at the end of the season – and it could be a headache for us fans to follow too.

The new engine rules

The new engine rules can be summarised as follows:

• Drivers get a total of eight engines for the 17-race season
• If they have to use a ninth engine they get a ten-place grid penalty
• They don’t have to use the same engine in consecutive races
• As in 2008, the engines they use in Friday test sessions are not subject to these rules – just Saturday practice, qualifying and the race

If you want the full detail have a look at article 28.4 of the 2009 F1 Sporting Regulations which you can find on the F1 Fanatic drop.io account.

Teams will obviously want to manage the amount of work their engines do to reduce the risk of one failing. Almost every Grand Prix is run to the same distance, 300km, except Monaco which is 260km, so that will not play a great role in their thinking. A greater concern is what percentage of each lap is spent with the engine under maximum stress – i.e. at full throttle.

Engine demands at F1 circuits

Here’s a list of the tracks on the calendar ranked by the proportion of time a driver spends on full throttle during a typical lap. (I haven’t been able to find data for all of them – please fill in the gaps if you can).

Monza – 70% full throttle
Spa-Francorchamps – 70%
Melbourne – 65%
Sepang – 65%
Interlagos – 65%
Silverstone – 64%
Istanbul – 63%
Bahrain – 63%
Nürburgring – 58%
Hungaroring – 58%
Catalunya – 57%
Shanghai – 55%
Monte-Carlo – 42%
Suzuka – ?%
Abu Dhabi – ?%
Valencia – ?%
Singapore – ?%

Spreading out the number of races evenly between the engines means seven engines would do two races each and one would have to do three. Red Bull used one engine for three consecutive races last year.

Engine strategy

Not having to use the same engine in consecutive races frees the teams to mix and match their engines to minimise strain. For example, the same engine that does a high-strain race like Monza or Spa could also do Monte-Carlo – the lowest-strain event. Of course, this assumes their engines are happy to sit for four months in between.

There are other complications. In wet races engine strain is greatly reduced, so an engine that does at least one wet race may become a candidate for the unit that has to do three events.

Drivers are also not required to use the same engine all weekend – they could qualify with one engine and swap it for a different unit for the race.

This is generally good news in that we are much less likely to see a driver receive a grid penalty for a race. However at the end of the season drivers may find themselves having to make difficult decisions about which engine is the one to do three races.

Finally, it’s not clear whether the FIA intends to publish details of which driver used which engine in which session. Hopefully they will, and fans will be kept in the picture.

Read more

• F1Fanatic on drop.io
• Domenicali explains engine rules change
• 2009 F1 calendar

BMW are believed to be far ahead in their KERS development

The first fault line has opened in what so far has been the impressively solid unity of the Formula 1 Teams’ Association.

Speaking at Ferrari’s annual press skiing event, Stefano Domenicali complained that BMW had vetoed the efforts of the other teams to postpone the introduction of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) for 2009 due to the costs involved.

Two months before the start of a new season is not a time to go changing technical rules which have been known for two years. Although Domenicali insists his concern is cost-cutting, Ferrari’s KERS has had a difficult gestation while BMW look set to hit the ground running. Is this about politics or the competition?

Either way FOTA has so far worked hard to preserve the unity of the teams and resisted Max Mosley’s attempt to bring in greater standardisation. Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone may seize on this apparent opportunity to divide the teams.

Counting the votes

Inevitably with F1 politics you have to wonder whether someone’s being liberal with the truth. When was this vote of the team bosses taken on KERS?

Was it at the Heathrow meeting last week? Or was it while Honda’s team was still active? If so, it’s hard to imagine that the Japanese team that had staked a huge gamble on 2009 voting against a technology it had invested so much development into.

Perhaps there were two votes against deferring KERS, but with Honda out of the picture (a situation that may be dependent on Ferrari’s willingness to supply them with engines) only BMW are left now. And Domenicali is applying a little pressure.

A little bit of history repeating

It’s easy to point at Ferrari and mock the hypocrisy of their complaints about BMW’s ‘selfishness’.

Were not the teams trying to settle on testing restrictions four years ago? And didn’t a certain Italian team, notwithstanding that it had won every championship for the last five years, refuse to agree to them?

That was in the Jean Todt era, of course. Domenicali’s team now has its name on a deal which sees in-season testing banned, limiting the usefulness of its Fiorano test track and other nearby Italian circuits.

But singling out either team misses the bigger point. Which is that organisations like FOTA are always going to find their members torn between obligations: the pursuit of individual victory versus the need to preserve the greater good –in this case, protecting F1’s long-term survival by slashing costs.

In choosing to pursue victory by political means, perhaps Todt’s real successor is not Domenicali but Mario Theissen.

If Domenicali is making a fresh stand against wasteful spending, declaring it at an expensive media event the likes of which other teams have been cancelling was poor timing. Perhaps this is just the Ferrari boss letting off a little steam after the F60’s launch was hampered by KERS teething problems. After all, we do not know how united the other teams are behind Ferrari

More on FOTA and KERS

• Ferrari claims BMW blocked KERS deferral
• Theissen criticises rivals over KERS
• Why teams could build two cars for 2009 to get the maximum out of KERS
• Problems with KERS and its impact on F1
• KERS causing problems for F1 teams

BMW steering wheel with KERS button (click to enlarge)

Images (C) BMW ag

Max Mosley has backed down on slick tyres, refuelling and more

You can accuse Max Mosley of many things, but you can’t accuse him of being consistent. The next two years will see at least three reversals of major policy decisions taken by Mosley during his 17-year presidency of the FIA.

Why the U-turns? Is Mosley being forced to take decisions he doesn’t agree with? Is it an admission that past policies have failed?

Grooved tyres

Slick tyres will be back in 2009 for the first time since 1997

Mosley demanded a switch from slick to grooved tyres in 1998 as part of a package of changes aimed at slashing cornering speeds in F1 and improving safety. But next year slick tyres will return to the sport after a 12-year absence.

When he announced the change in 1997 it brought a critical reaction from drivers including champion-elect Jacques Villeneuve. The Canadian criticised Mosley’s decision in the harshest possible terms, for which Mosley had Villeneuve condemned by the World Motor Sports Council.

But events have proven Villeneuve’s suspicions about grooved tyres were well-founded. Aside from their ugly appearance, they demonstrably failed to contain escalating speeds. No other major motor racing series bothered to use them, apart from GP2, which got rid of them after a single season.

The re-introduction of slicks for 2009 has come hand-in-hand with a massive reduction in aerodynamic downforce. At the time grooved tyres were brought in Mosley was urged to reduce the size of car wings. It seems that would have been the better decision to take in the first place.

Banned! Slicks

Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems

A Ferrari testing a KERS almost ten years after Mosley first banned them

Mosley has made an enormous fuss about allowing teams to use Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) from next season. He is very keen to tout the role they will play in emphasising Formula 1′s contribution green technologies.

That wasn’t his point of view in 1999, however, when Ilmor produced a KERS for McLaren capable of providing a 45bhp boost. Mosley banned the device from being used.

Having reversed his position he’s now trying to argue that the 80bhp systems to be introduced next year are a case study in how F1 technology benefits ordinary drivers.

But how much more powerful might those systems be if F1 teams had been developing for the last nine years? Then Mosley might really have something to boast about.

KERS not powerful enough for F1?

Refuelling

Refuelling will be banned for the 2010 season

One of the first major decisions taken by Mosley to change the sporting regulations was the legalisation of refuelling in 1994, which had been banned after the 1983 season.

Refuelling was an idea imported from CART (Indy Car) racing, which was enjoying a surge in popularity at the time.

It did create an element of unpredictability in its first few years in F1 as teams grappled with the different strategic options it offered. Michael Schumacher and Benetton were the masters of the new dimension in race management. But after a couple of years the ‘surprise strategic twist’ was largely consigned to the dustbin, with Hungary ’98 a memorable exception.

While the likelihood of fuel strategy to produce interesting races has diminished, the problems it causes have multiplied. Fifteen years since its reintroduction the safety and reliability problems it causes have not been solved, as the multiple fires at the Hungaroring this year proved, along with Ferrari’s dramas at Valencia and Singapore.

Refuelling has also caused difficulty with safety car periods and has led to the creation of one of the most ill-conceived and unfair rules ever brought into F1 – the ‘pit lane closure’ rule. Its a Sword of Damocles that periodically ruins drivers’ races. Without it, Fernando Alonso might be a three-times world champion.

Despite opposition from Mosley, the Formula One Teams Association has successfully got rid of refuelling from 2010. Mosley said afterwards:

I was against banning them because in my opinion they were part of the show.

Presumably he hasn’t watched ‘the show’ for quite some time. I’m glad he’s been forced to get rid of refuelling.

The cost-cutting plans: refuelling ban

More U-turns ahead

It seems increasingly likely that the next U-turn on the agenda will be the F1 points system. Mosley had it changed in 2003 to give points down to eighth place and reduce the margin of advantage between first and second place from four points to just two.

Although he is not enthusiastic about Ecclestone’s proposed ‘medals’ system, Mosley admits his last change to the points was a mistake:

Extending the points-paying positions to the top eight by reducing the difference between first and second was a mistake, but I’m against changing the points system too often. It disorientates people.

If only he felt the same way about qualifying. That’s been a myriad of U-turns over the last two seasons, switching between one, two- and three-part sessions, aggregate timing, single-lap sessions…

What do you think these U-turns say about Mosley’s political position? Are these all just examples of him changing his mind? Or is his hand being forced by the teams because of political weakness – perhaps in the aftermath of the sadomasochism controversy? Have your say in the comments.

Get the latest articles from F1 Fanatic for free via RSS or our email subscription service. Click here for more information.

Wind tunnel use will be restricted in 2009

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the cost-cutting plan for F1 approved by the World Motor Sports Council today is the restrictions on development.

Not only are dramatic changes planned for 2009, but even tighter controls are envisioned for the future to keep costs down. Is it enough to prevent more teams leaving Formula 1?

Nine-month testing ban

From the first day of practice for the Australian Grand Prix on March 27th until the final round of the season at Abu Dhabi on November 1st, F1 cars will only be allowed to test at Grand Prix weekends.

This is bad news for the circuits that usually hold these tests, particularly Spanish tracks like Catalunya and Jerez, and the newly-built Algarve Motor Park in Portugal. But it will achieve an instant and dramatic reduction in operating costs for teams.

There will be little consequence for the average fan – in fact, it could turn out to have a beneficial effect. On several occasions this year we saw teams turn up at race weekends having tested at the same track only a week or so earlier. They therefore did little running on Fridays. Now Fridays will be a prime opportunity to test new parts, meaning more action for the fans at the track.

Development cuts

Teams will have to use models to work on aerodynamics development

Other restrictions on development will hit the biggest-spending teams especially hard. From next year teams will be limited to using wind tunnels at a maximum size of 60% scale and a maximum wind speed of 50m/s. Further cutting operating costs, factories will be closed for six weeks per year.

It’s obvious how these moves will cut costs for the teams but the question here is how can these rules be enforced? Presumably the FIA will have to send inspectors to each team’s headquarters on a regular basis. That will have a cost attached to it as well, though surely not as much as running a full size wind tunnel for 24 hours a day.

At race meetings teams will have to make tyre and fuel information publicly available. This will render the need for ‘spotters’ who spy on what their rivals are doing unnecessary. Hopefully the public will also get told, and the final session of qualifying will actually make sense if we know how much fuel is in the cars when it starts.

How much will it save?

The FIA estimates these steps will cut team budgets by 30%. That’s some way short of the 80-90% reduction Mosley was aiming for, but it’s still going to be in the region of $120m (£80m) saved. Given that it cost Honda a reported $150m (£100m) to leave F1, it puts a significant dent in any perceived financial benefit to be had from leaving the sport.

However a lot of this saving is going to come from staff layoffs. Mosley suggested over the following years team sizes could fall to 200 (at present they are often over 700 and some are approaching 1,000). Even in an ideal scenario where the reduced costs eventually encourages more teams to join F1, it’s still going to leave a lot of talented people out of work.

The future

The FIA statement referred to other areas of discussion for the future, including limits on Computational Fluid Dynamics research.

There will also be more consideration given to standardising car parts that are not ‘performance differentiators’. This could even extend to components such as transmissions.

And Mosley may yet relent over the controversial Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems. Although he has been adamant that teams must be free to develop KERS as it highlights F1’s contribution to improving environmentally-friendly car technologies, the possibility of teams using a standard KERS for 2010 remains.

Mosley believes that:

When you walk down the pit lane, or you sit in a grandstand or watch on television, you will notice no difference at all. It will be Formula 1 as we know it, but clearly much less expensive.

But for many fans this will be a further step away from Formula 1 as they know it. To them these changes will mark another step by F1 away from the white heat of technological progress and towards being just another specification series. Sadly, in the present financial climate, that may be unavoidable.

In a sense, F1 is gambling part of its heritage in order to safeguard its future. If this concession to cutting costs does not keep the manufacturers in the sport it will be considered a failure. And the first test will be whether this gives the likes of David Richards an economic justification to pick up the remains of Honda’s F1 team and carry it into 2009.

Read more

• The cost-cutting plans: engines
• The cost-cutting plans: refuelling ban
• The cost cutting plan: tyre warmers ban

Renault want engine performance to be equalised in F1 in 2009

Honda and Renault are leading the push for F1 engines to have equal power outputs in 2009.

Renault’s Flavio Briatore is said to have demanded the equalisation because Renault, unlike many other teams, did not get around the ‘engine freeze’ rules to enhance its power output in 2008.

Should the FIA equalise engine power in 2009? How could it be done?

Coming only a few weeks after the Formula One Teams Association argued strongly and successfully against standard engines , it seems strange that some of those teams now wants the FIA to make all engine power outputs the same.

It seems like a very complicated proposal to me. The characteristics of an engine are not simply defined by its power output – torque and the nature of the power delivery (is it smooth and progressive or does it all come in one big lump) also play an important role. Would these have to be equalised too?

Would it even be technically possible for the FIA to monitor the different variables and ensure the teams don’t make further performance tweaks to their engines? Presumably it would have to be done by the standard ECU introduced this year.

The attraction of equalising engine power is that it would help keep the racing close. But is equalising engine performance an artificial device that contradicts the ethos of Formula 1?

Do you think the FIA should try to equalise the power of teams’ engines in 2009? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

2009 F1 season