[Tech Issue] No 'Ground effect' for 2013 cars.

[Marbot]

It's been decided that ground effect will not be used from 2013 onwards.

There are other changes, however.

"Among the changes included on the FOTA proposal, which seeks to mirror the FIA's target of 35 per cent less fuel consumption with a drag co-efficient of around 0.7Cd, will be a front wing of reduced width, a shallower rear wing albeit with DRS retained, significantly lower noses, a restriction of front wing endplate design and a limit on extraneous bodywork, particularly between the front wheels and sidepods."

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/169091/..._for_2013.html

[ECW Dan Selby]

That's a shame - I was interested to see how it'd work.

Would have liked to have seen all of this with ground effect and DRS ditched (I'm actually a fan of it but it seemed to be introduced for 2011-12 before the new regs came in).

Apart from that, all good, though!

Selby

[Marbot]

Maybe it's for the best. Although, I'm sure that Adrian Newey will be disappointed.

[Marbot]

More reasons for its abandonment.

"The main thing was that the FIA had targets for downforce and drag, and it would have been very difficult to control to those targets [with a ground effect car].

"That is such a different design, whereas the current floor we have got, everyone has got a lot of experience with it. It means if you say that I want to target this drag and downforce, we can much more easily say that if you strip off this bargeboard or do this with the rear wing you can do it.

"With a shaped underbody, it is something that has not been in F1 for a long time, so a majority of teams felt that if you developed that you would end up significantly away from target."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91304

[ECW Dan Selby]

Makes alot of sense.

Just very different approach from the usual 'big overhaul' that the FIA usually impliment.

Very sensible!

Selby

[neiltb]

sounds good, less front aero = less rear aero = less drag = less wake = closer cars and less fuel used.

It's almost like they actually thought about it. endplates being endplates will be nice too.

As long as Pirelli don't pander to the teams and keep doing their own thing.

[ECW Dan Selby]

I can't wait to rid of them awful turning vanes infront of the sidepods

They'll almost, almost look like an early 90's F1 car, won't they?

Selby

[bravo]

Has the Mclaren only just got them little wings inboard of the L shaped sidepods? I dont remember them earlier in the season.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

I can't wait to rid of them awful turning vanes infront of the sidepods

They'll almost, almost look like an early 90's F1 car, won't they?

Selby

Yea, all they need to do is to actually increase the track width by moving the wheels totally outside the bodywork and fit wider rear tyres. If A1GP can produce cars that get sideways, then so can F1.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Good point. That'd look just awesome, too

Selby

[luke g28]

From what I understood of that link,

The teams were happy to include ground effect but the aero targets proposed in the new regulations were achievable without it. Therefore its very much wasted investment.

Maybe in the next rule change

[Marbot]

Possible Indy car?

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/indycar-s...ncept-indycar/

[ECW Dan Selby]

that's... strange!

I saw a better one the other day by Swift or something like that? Not sure if someone can help there. The ones with the 'mushroom buster' effect that was used in F Nippon.

I don't mind it, though. I'm glad to see a series is doing something nicely radical. The back end looks like a Le Mans style car, and the front end slightly more 'single seater' style, with some added futuristic elements

Selby

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Possible Indy car?

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/indycar-s...ncept-indycar/

It's one of two concept aero body kits that Dallara have come up with; a road/street course version and oval version. Neither is the final design but they've been met with howls of derision.

If you want to know more, there's the thread, Interesting Item on New Chassis in Indy Star (Merged) here on Ten-Tenths:

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...19577&page=113

[Marbot]

Further info on new 2013 regulations.

The changes agreed will include:

* a front wing of reduced width, down from from 1800mm to 1650mm

* a much shallower rear wing, similar to those used at the high-speed Monza track

* significantly lower noses on the cars to improve safety, although the exact maximum height has still to be determined

* the retention of the moveable rear wing - or drag-reduction system (DRS) - that was introduced this season to make overtaking a little easier

* a restriction on all the extra pieces of bodywork that have sprouted in front of the sidepods of the cars

* a restriction on the design of front-wing endplates, to limit the intricate designs seen today

* a plan to increase wheel diameter from 13 inches to 18 inches has been delayed until at least 2014




http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/form...e/13412925.stm

[Adam43]

Off topic:

Originally Posted by neiltb

As long as Pirelli don't pander to the teams and keep doing their own thing.

I thought it was the teams that asked for this current approach?

Originally Posted by Dan Selby

Just very different approach from the usual 'big overhaul' that the FIA usually impliment.

I'd have a big shake up ever year and not tell the teams what it was until around December the previous year. Shake the order up. Give the smaller teams a chance to steal a march.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Further info on new 2013 regulations.
...
* significantly lower noses on the cars to improve safety, although the exact maximum height has still to be determined

Good, it'll look better.

* a restriction on all the extra pieces of bodywork that have sprouted in front of the sidepods of the cars

Good, it'll look better.

* a plan to increase wheel diameter from 13 inches to 18 inches has been delayed until at least 2014

Boo, it'll look worse and the idiots with big wheels and no rubber who are ruining all new car offerrings will have won.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Boo, it'll look worse and the idiots with big wheels and no rubber who are ruining all new car offerrings will have won.

Have to agree with you there Adam.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I'd have a big shake up ever year and not tell the teams what it was until around December the previous year. Shake the order up. Give the smaller teams a chance to steal a march.

And with that!

[wnut]

Adam43 "I'd have a big shake up ever year and not tell the teams what it was until around December the previous year. Shake the order up. Give the smaller teams a chance to steal a march."

This is not the way the real world works!
The bigger teams will be far more adaptable and more able to find the resources necessary to rapidly move with the change!

Changes have a far greater negative impact on the smaller teams than the larger more established teams, and serve to maintain the competitive advantage of the big teams. After the rules have been stabilised for a number of years the lap times of the field begins to close up as everyone begins to understand the best way of extracting performance from that car configuration.

[Razor]

I was actually looking foward to seeing ground effect replacing wings. Sure, the F1 cars would look like Formula Ford cars on steroids but they would have a "black magic" feel to them.

[Mr Pink]

They should increase the wheel width instead of height. Good that they pushed the change back at least, I agree it'll look stupid.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

Adam43 "I'd have a big shake up ever year and not tell the teams what it was until around December the previous year. Shake the order up. Give the smaller teams a chance to steal a march."

This is not the way the real world works!
The bigger teams will be far more adaptable and more able to find the resources necessary to rapidly move with the change!

Changes have a far greater negative impact on the smaller teams than the larger more established teams, and serve to maintain the competitive advantage of the big teams. After the rules have been stabilised for a number of years the lap times of the field begins to close up as everyone begins to understand the best way of extracting performance from that car configuration.

They should also just give them 40 mil to do it with.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wnut

This is not the way the real world works![/FONT][/COLOR]

Granted you have to think about it a little. Or just change the font

The bigger teams will be far more adaptable and more able to find the resources necessary to rapidly move with the change!

Of course the bigger team will be more likely to get it right. That is obvious. I'm a little disapointed that you thought I missed that in my thoughts for the shake up. Or that I actually thought it was realistic in the conservative world of F1.

However if you don't change the rules there is less chance of any innovation upsetting the status quo.

The big teams are always more likely to do better. What you end up with is the following.
Under consistent rules: The big teams get to the top and stay there because they will always have the resource to build the best car given time. The small teams get progressively closer, but never quite get there. Everything is developed and the best teams get so good that they are very consistent. Eventually everyone is consistent with the best teams at the top.
- As you said the lap time difference gets much smaller, but the opportunity to make up that lap time gets smaller too.

Constantly changing rules. Short notice rewards the initial thought process not continued development. Of course the big teams have more resource and are more likely to get it right first time, but there is an opportunity for the small team to steal a march.
- Bigger spread of lap times, more opportunity to make it (and more) up.

Any team that believes they are players, but lack the overall resource, should not fear this. There is opportunity for innovation to win.

Another way of looking at it is that under consistent rules the big teams keep the benefit of their resources into the next year. Under constant changing rule the big teams lose their paid for advantage every year.

If you don't have change then nothing will change!

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by wnut

Changes have a far greater negative impact on the smaller teams than the larger more established teams, and serve to maintain the competitive advantage of the big teams....

off topic (i know this isn't the type of change we are talking about), but im not convinced of that. the larger the institution the harder it is for them to adapt to change. in times of economic downturns its the smaller leaner companies which ride the wave the best.

granted having a lot of money to throw at problems helps but its important to note that the most successful companies will be the ones that know how use their money and resources more efficiently as opposed to the ones whom simply have the most to spend.

on the surface i would think this is also true for F1 but the lack of success of the smaller teams suggests that its not. its an interesting question.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Any team that believes they are players, but lack the overall resource, should not fear this. There is opportunity for innovation to win.

this is what i was poorly trying to get at. the smaller teams (provided they are run well like Sauber for example) should be in a better position relative to the big teams to take advantage these types of opportunities.