Open top menu
27 Dec 2013
Looking ahead to 2014 - Part 5 - Rear End

Throughout this series of articles I've looked forward to writing this section the most. The regulations that were bought in, in 2009 looked to reduce the level of downforce the teams were able to achieve from the rear end. Of course the teams found ways around this and exploited the use of the exhaust plume to both energize airflow and seal the diffuser.

The diffuser still remains an area of focus for aerodynamacists as they know if they can extract performance here they will be able to change their approach further up the car.  Dimensionally the regulations for the Diffuser for 2014 haven't changed, but without the exhaust energy it will certainly be more difficult to extract performance from it.

That of course doesn't make it impossible, 2009 proves that as teams adopted the periscope style positioning.  Although of course the use of DDD's exploited the rules allowing more height in the central portion of the Diffuser in 09/10.


The loss of the beam wing however will be more of a significant loss with it not only providing structural rigidity, but also an aero link between the diffuser and the rest of the rear wing.


If we take a look at the quick diagram I produced above we can see the differences at hand: Loss of the beam wing, increase in free space difference between the reference plan and the underside of the rear wing mainplane (increased from 730mm to 750mm), placement of the exhaust along the cars centreline (in red) and the increase of 25mm of the design free region outwardly from the centreline (previously Y75 but will become Y100, increasing the width of bodywork that can be placed here such as the Monkey Seat or Wing support pylons).

Starting at the top and working down, the loss of 20mm in height of the Rear Wing's flaps might not seem drastic and to be honest it's not.  However it does have some consequences with the obvious being a loss of surface area and therefore a reduction in both downforce (more important) and drag.  If you didn't realise already the mainplane must always be larger than the top flap, something the FIA utilise to stop teams creating a much wider split in terms of strategy for each circuit configuration.  Furthermore this 20mm has an effect on DRS, as the opening remains at 50mm rather than being increased to 65mm as the original draft of the rules intended.  For those that don't like DRS you'll be glad to know that the artificial overtaking aids ability is therefore slightly more impaired and by that I mean the delta by which DRS can be utlised.  Those not versed in looking for the nuance differences at each circuit will not notice that the mainplane and top flaps change between each circuit.  This is done to maximise the downforce generated, drag reduction and DRS ability for the given circuit based on the rest of the cars package. * It appears that I had somehow been working from an interim set of regulations when writing this and the aperture has been increased to 65mm


Rear Wing Endplates were an area that were an area of development for teams in 2013 and moreover something that could be first found on the Williams FW34 coincidentally at in Barcelona 2012.  They then found their way onto the MR-01 and VJM05 as part of the Marussia and Force India upgrade packages respectively.  I'm talking about the leading edge tyre wake slots, these slots allow pressure/airflow to move from one side of the Endplate to the other.



The construction used in the early 2013 tyres led to a widespread proliferation of these tyre wake slots up and down the field with only Lotus and Caterham not choosing to field Endplates featuring the slots.  They've been run with varying success dependant on the prevailing choices made elsewhere on the cars and so I suspect we will continue to see their use in the forthcoming season too.

The other area of interest in regards to Endplates from 2013 was Ferrari's use of trailing edge slats whereby they disconnected two strips at the rear of the Endplate to allow airflow to move between both pressure sides.  Their purpose was to increase the overall effectiveness of the region and the structures leading into it, namely the upper mainplane and top flap, the beam wing and the diffuser.


The last area of conversation I'll have in regard to Endplates here is something that Red Bull looked at doing in 2009 and abandoned when they adopted their Double Decker Diffuser.



As we can see from the images above and my diagram on the left the principle is that you extend the Endplates down to form the outer wall of the Diffuser.  This would allow you to minimise the effects of tyre squirt on the Diffuser as not only does the squirt have further to travel but by virtue of the Endplate and a footplate creating an elongated vortex it's possible to skirt the Diffuser's flow.  The problem however is that you're robbing the Diffuser of 250mm of surface area as the Rear Wing is only 750mm wide whilst the Diffuser enjoys 1000mm of space.  It'll be interesting to see if anyone takes this route as the 125mm either side of the Endplates could prove an intricate design space.

The Y100 region see's the central portion of the car increase it's design free zone by 25mm from 75mm (from the centreline) for 2014, the reason for this is the the exhaust outlet must not lie more than 100mm from the car's centreline.  This of course has several implications to the approach the designers take to the surrounding components not only because it could aid aero wise but also for some might aid in structural integrity and packaging.

Learning from the past and looking back to some of the design choices implemented more recently we cannot ignore the possibility some teams may choose to utilise central pylons.  Used by teams in the past these pylons can not only be seen a small aero contributor but also a means with which to add rigidity and a passage for the DRS hydraulics.  The loss of the beam wing of course means that the need to affix the rear wing in position becomes a little more difficult.  I feel that most teams will simply bolt the wing to the floor via the endplates, this will mean that they will have to beef up the Endplates especially if they are utilising any of the aforementioned leading or trailing edge slots or slats.



Of course designed in tandem with the engine cover and exhaust position it may well be possible to re-direct the exhaust plume and utilise what little energy is still at it's disposal.  I mention this because over the last few seasons exhaust blowing has become the most prominent way in which to increase rear downforce.  With the exhaust plume angled at the gap between the tyre and the diffusers edge it isolates the diffusers flow.  The turbo's connection to the MGU-H puts more emphasis on recovering the usually expended energy on creating more power, dampening the amount of energy available for exhaust blowing.

The increase in width from 75mm to 100mm in the central zone may not sound huge but if we consider designs like those used below by Sauber in 2013, it does offer yet more scope for intricate rear wing designs.  The 'Spoon' Wing uses a dished central portion to maximise both increase in downforce whilst maintaining a similar level of drag.  Of course the design is implemented to cater for a wide range of speed and yaw angles and so although it may not be the best design for all conditions it makes up for it in others.  Furthermore the original intention was to utilise this style of rear wing with DRD but with Sauber struggling initially in 2013 (due to the change in tyre construction) their design perhaps never reached it's maximum potential.



2014 is going to pose the teams with many fresh challenges one of which is cooling the V6 Turbo powerunits and the associated ERS components.  Not only is it essential to get the right quantity of airflow through the apertures to cool them but the size and geometry of the outlets is also an essential design consideration.  More cooling = more drag and moreover the placement of a cooling outlet can have a detrimental effect on the airflow it feeds into.  Having used it's energy to cool the components it's been targeted at, the airflow becomes warmer and lower energy making the positioning of the outlet crucial.  This makes internal aerodynamics an artform that cannot be ignored with increasing/decreasing speed, yaw, temperature etc all playing their role in how the car works as a whole.

Brake Ducts have also become somewhat of a go to area in terms of both creating their own downforce but also in manipulating the airflow to create structures that will enhance the diffusers performance.  The new powerunit and moreover MGU-K regulations mean that braking done at the wheels will be much lower from 2014 onwards.  The MGU-K will be tasked with harvesting energy usually driven at the rear wheels and so we will see much smaller brakes used next season.  This of course means that the necessity to cool the brakes is also lowered, leaving much more room/scope for designers to elaborate on their already intricate designs.  As an aside I'm left wondering if less braking requirement could lead teams to re-investigate inboard brakes at the rear of the car.  I only mention it as it could have some interesting aerodynamic implications along with the reduction in un sprung mass (albeit this is fairly negligible in modern F1).  The spinning brake disc would of course impact the surrounding aero, which could be funneled toward the gap between the diffuser and tyre.  Of course the energy involved would be significantly lower than the exhaust energy the engineers are used to but could perhaps provide some solace?

Another spinning element that I talked about frequently throughout 2012 was the encapsulated halfshafts that Red Bull utilised.  Encasing the shafts within the lower wishbone not only stopped it's airflow effecting the exhaust plume that would have passed by it, but also allowed the lower wishbone to placed a little higher and out of the way of the airflow.  Most of the field converged on this idea for 2013 with Lotus the only lead runner to continue with exposed shafts.

As always the aesthetic draw will come from the front of the car, as the media are left aghast at the abhorrent state of the nose section.  Meanwhile the real story will be whom has made up the most ground early on at the rear of the car.  I look forward to seeing the different application of designs up and down the grid as the teams deliver their launches less than a month from now.

I plan to get to as many of the 2014 car launches as is viable and also have an eye on making at least one of the tests. This however all costs money and so if you enjoy reading my blog and feel you can help to support financially I'd very much appreciate any donations you make (big or small). Donations can be made via the paypal button in the right hand side bar of the website. 
Read more
22 Dec 2013
Another Chapter? Infiniti Red Bull Racing and the 2014 challenge


Red Bull Racing created a legacy in the sport by achieving 4 consecutive constructors titles in 2013, equaling McLaren and leaving the door firmly open to beat Ferrari's record of 6.  Meanwhile their German starlet Sebastian Vettel also claiming his 4th consecutive title, accrued enough points in 2013 to take the constructors title on his own, affirming his and the teams superiority.

For 2014 a new challenge awaits Vettel and his new compatriot Daniel Ricciardo, who joins the team from Toro Rosso just as Vettel did at the turn of the last regulation change. 

A smaller capacity (V6, 1600cc) engine, return to turbos and the prominence of more electrical energy to power the car (appromimately160bhp for 33.33 seconds per lap), means we refer to them as power units from here in.  Torque delivery will make the car's more difficult to drive but it's a technical challenge that's not insurmountable, especially for a team with great connections to both Infiniti and it's partners.  Red Bull's technological approach will undoubtedly pay dividends at the inception of the new rules, I look forward to dissecting the changes they've made not only to the power unit but the aerodynamics too.
Read more
20 Dec 2013
Looking ahead to 2014 - Part 4 - Central portion of the car

The central portion of the car could be the most critical area for 2014 with the new power units putting a revised emphasis on cooling. Packaging and internal airflow structures therefore will become even more important as the teams battle with creating an efficient cooling package whilst also creating as little drag as possible.

In terms of packaging, the design teams will have to consider the impact of the new power units which comprise of additional components they haven't had to account for in some time. Starting from the bottom and working our way up, the floor plays a pivotal role in how downforce is generated by a Formula One car.


The exhaust blowing of the floor the sport has featured since 2010 is all but ruled out with the new regulations. With not only the singular exhaust exiting in a much higher centreline position the turbo that it's attached to will have most of it's energy absorbed by the MGU-H that draws wasted energy from it.

This will have an effect on the design of the diffuser itself as the 'sealing' effect that running the exhaust in the optimum position to blow between the Diffuser sidewall and the tyres edge will be lost. I'll cover Diffuser design more expansively in the next piece, what we need to know here is that 2 design principles will likely be taken into consideration ahead of it. A reduction in the level of Rake run by the teams is inevitable, without the exhaust gases expanding the Diffuser's outer channels and sealing it's edges, the airflow dissipated by the tyres will 'squirt' into the diffuser laterally. This disrupts the airflow and makes the diffuser perform less consistently.

Tyre Squirt is something that you'll have undoubtedly heard me talk about in the past if you're an avid follower of my blog and is something that affected teams even with their 2012/13 exhaust solutions.

The image above is a basic explanation of how tyre squirt can influence the diffusers performance with Yellow representing the airflow moving over the cars floor to the rear tyre, blue represents the airflow moving under the car and through the Diffuser, whilst red indicates the intended target of the exhaust plume.

As we can see from the left hand picture, airflow is pushed laterally into the Diffuser's path reducing it's ability to create downforce. For 2012/13 teams employed tyre squirt slots ahead of the rear tyres in an attempt to minimise the effects of tyre squirt as the driver came off throttle and thus blowing and sealing of the diffuser lessened.

Each team as always has it's own way of designing this area to further manipulate the airflow and strengthen the vortex at the outer portion of the Diffuser. The use of the vertical guide strakes inbound of the slots are also crucial in how the airflow rolls up on the edge and into the Diffuser. As we can see all three teams (Red Bull, Lotus, Mercedes) have utilised either painted floor treatment (Red Bull) or metallic sections to stop the floor from warping (Lotus & Mercedes). The reason for this is these teams are also harnessing the exhaust plume and utilisng it's energy to increase the intensity of the vortex being generated. If the the floor were left untreated it would lead to a breakdown in efficiency over a sustained period. Obviously this won't be an issue for 2014 as the exhaust won't be placed any where near this section of floor but I suspect the area will still be proliferated with slots and strakes trying to move and vorticise airflow.

We must also consider the leading edge of the floor as after all this too plays a pivotal role in how downforce is extracted from the car. Often overlooked but several items are placed here in order to make the flow into and around the Sidepods more efficient.

Bargeboards have been around F1 for decades and although their size, placement and orientation has altered with the prevailing regulations their function remains roughly the same. Both shield and enhance the airflow that is distributed by the Splitter around the front of the Sidepod. It shields the airflow from the front wheels tyre wake but through it's interaction also sets up airflow structures for the underside of the floor.

Lotus and Red Bull both used slotted Bargeboards throughout 2013


The edge of the floor also see's teams adding additional vortex generating elements with strakes and cascades adorning the section just ahead of where the teams run their Airflow Conditioners.

Sidepod Airflow Conditioners

When the FIA looked to clear up areas in the previous regulations (pre 09) that allowed all sorts of aero 'flick ups' this area was left unviolated and as such development has continued in the area. Although some teams didn't start 2009 with them by the end of the season they were applied to all the cars. They haven't altered in their design drastically since then but moreover adapted to suit their surroundings. Their purpose is to protect the airflow that feeds around the front corner of the Sidepod, whether that be through the undercut or across the top of the Sidepod into the downwash toward it's tail end. The protection I refer to is the airflow dispensed by the rotating tyre ahead of it, especially in yaw. 2012 and 2013 saw the proliferation of extensions to the airflow conditioners, with teams extending and arc'ing them to meet with the shoulders of the Sidepod or in front of the leading edge. The shaping of the Sidepod's to enable the 'Coanda' exhausts (and before this the shaping required to maximise flow into the coke bottle region) means that the area creates lift at certain speed thresholds. Vortex Generators and the Airflow Conditioner extensions mentioned above help to reduce the problem of lift over a wider speed threshold, these devices are likely to continue to appear throughout 2014.

Component Installation

The core of the car runs along the centreline of the car with the Chassis being the load bearing structure that everything else bolts to. For 2014 most of the focus will be placed on the new power units and understandably so, however we must also play close attention to the ancillary components that must be packaged alongside it.

The fuel cell will be reduced in size for 2014 with 100kg fuel limit per race coming into effect, whereas the current V8's use around 150kg's per race.

You'd also expect that the physical dimensions of the V6 unit would be smaller than that of the current V8's however due to the additional ancillary components of the Turbo and ERS it will likely have a slighter larger footprint.

One of the biggest concerns for both the engine manufacturers and teams will be cooling, with the necessity to cool the charge air a probable concern. Supercharging by means of an exhaust driven or mechanical turbine was outlawed by Formula One in 1989 and since then we have seen the decline of engine capacity from 3.5 litre V12's down to the outgoing 2.4 litre V8's we waved off in Brazil this year. The FIA know that engine development is crucial in terms of both it's environmental impact but also in providing a worldwide rationale that things can be done more efficiently. I won't go on too much in this article about the power units directly, as I'll cover these more extensively in their own article.

Suffice to say though that since their use in Formula One 25 years ago the associated technology that 'Supercharging' brings to the table has increased exponentially. Furthermore the designers grasp on internal aerodynamics has increased rapidly too. The largest challenge facing the designers is the scope needed for intercooling the turbocharged air. The initial tentative diagram released by Renault showed a singular IC (obviously not to scale) and the idea was enforced when Renault released further pictures at the power units official launch.

Although Mercedes have released some tentative images they are being more coy in terms of establishing whether there is a need for an IC. Both manufacturer's show a singular outlet on the Turbo which would suggest an asymmetric design within the Sidepod to house the IC, however in terms of aerodynamics this would have be a no-no with one Sidepod creating more internal drag than the opposing side. So this suggests to me one of two rationales, either the ICE doesn't require as much cooling and will run with a singular radiator in one Sidepod with the Intercooler placed in the other. Or the Intercoolers size parameters are small enough for it to be housed underneath the exhaust outlet.

I would strongly suggest that the teams will use a single pass intercooler too as their need to retain or keep latent cooled air in the intercooler is limited.

The size and shaping of the intercooler(s) and radiator(s) are of course essential when considering the shape and design of the Sidepods. I suspect we shall see teams edging back toward the type of sculpted design seen on the RB6, with an aggressive undercut to the front of the Sidepod and a tapered tail end clearing maximum area into the coke bottle region.

The efforts made by Sauber in the design and layout of the radiators and other components of the C32 may also stand them in good stead, whilst also highlighting the merits to other teams.  Once the 2013 tyres were switched for 2012's construction it became apparent that although some had pointed to their radical Sidepods as an issue, they were not the root cause of their early season slump.


Airbox / Rollover hoop

Often overlooked but this area of the car is one that each team has it's own unique take on, during the last rule set we even saw teams trying on blade style, a trend started by Mercedes (2010) and subsequently mimicked by Team Lotus (now Caterham) and Force India (2011). The area is a battle between aero and safety as the designers try to carve away as much space around the structure as possible to aid in airflow. The structures intent however is of course to prevent the drivers head from impacting with the ground in the case of the car rolling over and so safety is paramount. The airbox inlet therefore is the secondary function of the area but nearly as important as it provides a much needed breathing apparatus to the engine.


The last great turbo car the McLaren MP4/4 and it's predecessors did away with the airbox inlet above the drivers head and instead simply employed a roll hoop to protect the driver. In the case of the MP4/4 it was powered by a twin turbo V6 and so the turbo's were packaged in either Sidepod. This of course allowed the team to isolate the inlets outboard instead (Periscopes atop of the Sidepods in this case). The new regulations stipulate that the singular turbo must be placed along the centreline and so this arrangement might not be pertinent as it would increase the pipework length and complexity of the aero structures around the Sidepod. I only bring up the matter from both it's historical context and the fact the airbox does create a certain level of blockage that impedes the rear wings performance. It's a necessary evil of course as the engine cover also has to be designed with dimensional criteria in mind and allowances are made to cater for the airbox in the rear wings aerodynamic design.


More recently we have seen the 'Ears' that were attached to the Lotus E20/21 airbox of which their primary function was to facilitate DRD. The fact that the team bonded these to the chassis however says more about the fact that the airflow structure created at the airbox/roll hoop doesn't have a mass effect on the Rear Wing. DRD was only run competitively once by Lotus on Kimi Raikonnens car at Silverstone and so if the effects were dramatic they would have removed the appendages.


The next part of this series will look at the changes around the changes to the rear of the car

I plan to get to as many of the 2014 car launches as is viable and also have an eye on making at least one of the tests. This however all costs money and so if you enjoy reading my blog and feel you can help to support financially I'd very much appreciate any donations you make (big or small). Donations can be made via the paypal button in the right hand side bar of the website. 
Read more
10 Dec 2013
no image

Following a meeting in Paris yesterday the FIA made several changes in regards to the regulations. They were apparently met with unanimous support from the newly formed Strategy Group and Formula One commission. The reason I write this article is the first announcement to come from the meeting:

Cost Cap

The principle of a global cost cap has been adopted.  The limit will be applied from January 2015.  A working group will be established within the coming days comprising the FIA, representatives of the Commercial Rights Holder and Team Representatives.
The objective of the working group will be to have regulations approved by the end of June 2014.

If we recall 2010, a certain Max Mosley then president of the FIA tried to make Formula One see sense and adopt said cost cap.  Max's proposals were skewed to try make the big teams see sense, giving more technical freedom to those that could spend under the proposed 40m cap.

No-one bought into Max's proposals as they believed it would create a 2 tier Formula and the 40m limit was unattainable.  The problem with a cost cap in Formula One is how it effects the sport initially and that's due to economic scale.  The 2 tier formula that the teams seemingly feared back in 09/10 is actually already apparent in the sport, it is however 3 tiers.

Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes and McLaren sit in the upper echelons able to attract the necessary funding or sponsorship that is needed to compete at the highest level (somewhere in the region of 100-150m per season).

Lotus, Force India, Sauber, Williams & Toro Rosso are what we ubiquitously refer to as the 'midfield' teams and with the exception of Toro Rosso are what I would call independents, ie run by the backing of their owners, pay drivers and any sponsorship they can accrue.

Caterham & Marussia are the tail enders or the lap markers starting from nothing when they arrived in the sport in 2010.  Both teams have seen several guises but the core ownership/management remains intact.

The 2 teams at the bottom of the pile arrived in Formula One (along with HRT) bright eyed and bushy tailed fully expecting the rest to have to play on a level playing field to them in the forthcoming seasons.  Their feasibility studies for entering Formula One were firmly targeted at the 40m budget cap and when this didn't arrive they had 2 choices: Re-Budget and spend beyond their means or pack up their toys and move on.  The latter would have course had financial ramifications anyway with the FIA/FOM going after their share of damages for not competing but it seemed all accepted their fate and stumbled on.

I think we can all agree that a budget cap isn't necessarily a bad idea, afterall we may still have 3 more manufacturers onboard had the FIA / Formula One acted more swiftly at the start of the financial crisis (BMW, Honda and Toyota).  All of which made their exit from the sport citing financial pressures most of which came from them over spending, in order to overhaul the already commanding positions the established teams had.

There is a certain ebb and flow in Formula One every time a large regulation change occurs which see's some teams move between the tiers, able either to establish themselves as a more potent force or languish in the lower bowels.  The last big regulation shake up saw BrawnGP emerge as the front runner but this came off the back of the team abandoning their 2008 campaign, using 2 full scale wind tunnels (Brackley & Japan) and assimilating most of the Super Aguri staff (which is where the Double Deck Diffuser idea was born).  Red Bull however for me were the team that made the largest leap, which had the DDD been banned at the start of 09 I feel we could be seeing Vettel/Red Bull holding 5 consecutive Championships now and not 4.  Their rise is somewhat disconcerting for the other teams but was born out of the way they invested their money on the run up to the 2009 rule changes.

We must remember that prior to 2009 the way in which cars were designed and then improved was firmly skewed toward a testing regiment, something that suited the likes of Ferrari and McLaren as they were adept at producing mass quantities of physical parts to test.  Red Bull settled into the new regulations quicker than the others as they had pre prepared for the new challenge, instead of adjusting their tunnel to a 50% scale like most of their rivals and adopting the same scales for tooling they invested in the 60% route.  A much more accurate investment allowing correlation between the test environments of CFD and the Wind Tunnel to that at the track.  This gave a head start to Red Bull and though 10% may not seem like a significant number, in terms of scale it is, stall and boundary layer turning turbulent are but a few elements that more easily definable with the larger scale.  Scaling can of course be mathematically calculated when given the right information from 100% testing (correlation) the problem comes when you get inconsisent results on a constant basis from the prediction to the 100% model.

This has been prevalent during this last regulation set when teams have had to design area's of the car with the use of the exhaust plume in mind.  The problem with using the exhaust is that it runs at a significantly different temperature to the atmosphere but is also ballistic.  You can't simply build an engine 60% the size and use it in the wind tunnel and so teams have to improvise and fabricate other methods to simulate the exhausts effects.  Having the ability to do this effectively whilst also getting the jump on the rest of the field by moving to 60% scaling earlier gave Red Bull the impetus to overhaul some of the established names. 

So as we can see, sometimes it's not about how much you spend but the context in which that money is used, utilising the right equipment at the right time can surmount to a huge swing in the positioning of a team in the field.  Red Bull managed to outscore BrawnGP once they had their DDD but as we know financially the BrawnGP team were suffering from the pull out of Honda and now left with the legacy of staff cuts and 50% modelling tools from which to relearn their trade (having used 100% tunnels up until the start of the 09 regulations).  Red Bull meanwhile had designed their RB5 from the ground up in 60% plying their trade and learning more than anyone about the necessary tools required to extrapolate results.

The ban on in-season testing also led Formula One to proliferate it' use of CFD, adding another tool to the pre build / test phase that can determine whether a solution is worthwhile investing time and money on.

For 2014 the Sporting Regulations have been amended to include CFD usage for the first time putting a limit on the amount of Teraflops that can be used for CFD at 30 Teraflops in an 8 week cycle.  Although this is the first time I've seen it written into the rules publicly it's long been assumed that the FIA/Teams have had an agreement bordering on 40 Teraflops in an 8 week cycle.  Whether teams have adhered to this with it not actually being part of the Sporting/Technical Regulations is a matter for debate.

The rules regarding the precise use of the Wind Tunnel has also been included in the appendix of the Sporting Regulations for 2014 with a maximum of 80 runs per week and 60 hours of tunnel occupancy allowable.  (The 60% scaling and 50m/s regulations remain)

Of course these changes have been made and stipulated by the FIA in the Sporting Regulations as F1 will return to in-season testing next season.  The re-introduction of track testing brings with it a significant cost and will also have an impact on how the teams face in-season development.  The additional limitations imposed on the scale tools is an attempt to negate the advantages gained by teams at the track, I do however fear that some teams will make significant gains because of this and especially those that can spend the most on actually testing full scale development parts.

Just as we saw with the rise of Red Bull in 2009 the regulatory changes that have been coming for some time will certainly benefit some teams more than others.  It therefore begs the question is a budget cap what Formula One needs? I'd suggest it's moreover a constriction of resources IF we want all the teams to have a similar playing field.  However I'd almost certainly suggest that I prefer a situation where teams are able to express theirselves individually and make decisions and indeed mistakes on what is the best method for them.  I'd certainly like to be a fly on the wall in the working group that is tasked to arrange the cost cap and have a plan in place for June.  Everyone that is privy to this group are opposed to one anothers agendas and finding common ground could be somewhat of a challenge.

Whatever figure the group decide to utilise I suspect it will still be too high for some of the smaller or lesser funded teams to generate. Furthermore remember the saying "There's more than one way to skin a cat"? If the teams want to spend money, they will find a way.  EVERYONE that works within a Formula One team does so because they are the best at what they do, F1 teams have been finding ways around the FIA's rules for decades and this won't stop with a budget cap.
Read more
8 Dec 2013
2014 - Powering into the future

The last magazine style layout went down pretty well so I decided to complete a quick summary of the 2014 powerplant changes that will effect the sport.

Click the image for full size which makes it great for printing off.....

As a translation isn't available for the embedded image the following is the piece in blog format:
  
The 2014 regulations bring the sport into a new era where energy recovery and dispensation are an integral part of the racing. The new power units as we must now call them comprise of many components rather than just an engine. The sporting regulations refer to them as ICE (Internal Combustion Engine), TC (Turbocharger), MGU-H (Motor Generator Unit – Heat), MGU-K (Motor Generator Unit – Kinetic), ES (Energy Store, CE (Control Electronics) they will be known as individual elements as the driver can only use 5 of each component in a season without being penalised.

Be still my beating heart

At the core of the power unit lies the 1.6 V6 engine (ICE) which differs significantly to it's outgoing brother the 2.4 V8. Needing to work in harmony with the attached components it's a floor up new design, complementing the turbocharger it will run at a much lower compression ratio. F1 also adopts direct injection with the new regulations allowing a more efficient delivery of the fuel a necessity when considering the engine manufacturers are still striving to produce the same if not more power than the larger capacity V8's did with 3,000 rpm more. That's right gone with the high compression is the need to rev the car so aggressively with the regulations capping it at 15,000rpm. It is however more likely that we see the drivers shifting around 12,000rpm as the fuel flow limits placed in the regulations mean peak power will produced much lower.



Give me a boost
Turbochargers haven't graced the sport since 1988 with the FIA reigning in the engine manufacturer's who by now had cars producing over 1000bhp in qualifying trim. The return to turbo cars helps the sport to leverage the additional power that can be generated by them and re-use it as electrical energy. The turbo's being used from 2014 however are a little more sophisticated than the one you find on your road going cars. Substantially sized they should produce lots of lag with the help of the MGU-H they'll be spooled up for action pretty much all the time.

It's getting hot in here
The MGU-H is a new unit located in the centre of the engine's V, working on the same base principles of the outgoing KERS but is instead connected to the turbo's turbine. This allows the MGU-H to extract power by slowing the turbo, which it will do under braking and by regulating the boost pressure like a wastegate would normally be used for. Energy being symbiotically harvested by the MGU-K or stored in the ES can be returned to the turbo via the MGU-H spooling the turbo and reducing lag. Energy harvested and dispensed by the MGU-H is unlimited, making it a fantastic tool for the turbo.

Filling in the gaps
The MGU-K is a redesigned KERS package, whereas KERS was tacked onto the side of the V8's back in 2009 the MGU-K has been designed alongside the rest of the powertrain. Doubling the maximum amount of energy that can be dispensed to 120KW and utilising both it's symbiotic relationship with the MGU-H and the 4MJ capacity of the ES it means roughly 160bhp is available for 33.33 seconds. As with KERS though the driver will be able to adjust the level of power it dispenses/harvests during a lap giving him 80bhp for 66.66 seconds or any other combination of time vs power between 1bhp and 160bhp. 

Just like it's older sibling the MGU-K harvests energy under braking and redistributes it via the engines crankshaft. However unlike it's sibling the control of energy release will be done autonomously via the drivers input on the accelerator pedal. (Having 5 times the time component to spend around a lap would make busy work of a steering wheel button) Although it's widely accepted that a push to pass style override may still be able to be factored in.

Saving it for a rainy day
The ES (Energy Store) has a specified weight of 20-25kg's this is to discourage use of both exotic materials to save weight but also to prohibit teams from running a smaller ES to gain ballast that could be placed elsewhere. The ES must also be placed within the survival cell.




Running on fumes
To further enforce the limit on the teams ability to extrapolate performance from the engine, the FIA have mandated 100kg's as the amount of fuel that can be used by a driver during the race. Early race simulations completed by the engine manufacturer's conclude that at some tracks this is extremely marginal and in some cases downright not enough. This will of course lead to manipulation of strategy, fuel management and clever driving by the drivers.



For a more in depth look at the 2014 regulations along with a few of the 'loopholes' available to the teams don't forget my ongoing series: Looking Ahead to 2014

I plan to get to as many of the 2014 car launches as is viable and also have an eye on making at least one of the tests. This however all costs money and so if you enjoy reading my blog and feel you can help to support financially I'd very much appreciate any donations you make (big or small). Donations can be made via the paypal button in the right hand side bar of the website.
Read more
3 Dec 2013
2014 - The shape of things to come

I've often wondered firstly how it would look but secondly how much it would constrain my analysis if I were to be restricted to print format.  With this in mind and as a handy reference guide to 2014 I present my article in A3 sizing (ie how it would be presented over 2 pages in a glossy magazine)

Click the image for full size which makes for a handy print off.....

As a translation isn't available for the embedded image the following is the piece in blog format:
   
Cool Runnings

The new V6 turbocharged power units will put a new emphasis on cooling. Not only do the designers have
to consider the core V6 engine and it's cooling parameters but also cooling the inlet charge whilst also having a keen eye on the batteries used in the much more powerful ERS system.

The V8 configuration saw teams implement radiators in both Sidepods whereas in all likely hood the more
thermally efficient V6 engine will only need one. This is ideal for the designers though as they wouldn't
want to have an asymmetric design as it's bad for aerodynamics. It's ideal because it free's up space for
the turbo's intercooler allowing the inlet temperatures to remain optimal.

The ERS (Energy Recovery Systems) battery pack will most likely be located under the fuel cell / driver but
will also require an adequate supply of airflow to keep it cool. (Supplying 4MJ of energy per lap is hot
work)

Winging it

For 2014 the Front Wing's width has been narrowed by 150mm (75mm either side), this will of course have repercussions to moving the airflow outbound of the front tyre. We will certainly see some marked changes in the design of the outer portion of the Front Wing in 2014 because of this with changes being made to the Endplate design, Cascades and the outer portions of the Front Wing Flaps theirselves.




Nosey Neighbour

The nose has been a contentious issue over the last few seasons already and 2014 will likely be another. In order to maximise the airflow to the underside of the car teams will inevitably want to run as high a nose tip as the rules permit. The last few seasons have seen the nose tip peak at 550mm from the reference plane,
however in 2014 the tip must be no more than 185mm from the reference plane.

This could lead to some rather crude looking designs as the teams look to circumnavigate the regulations. The FIA made these changes in light of safety but believed aesthetically we'd end up with a nose similar to the BrawnGP BGP001. As the regulations only prescribe a surface area of 9000mm2 at the tip it means the
teams can exploit a multi width nose to continue driving air toward the car's floor.

Bringing up the rear

The rear of a 2014 car see's significant changes with the space available for the rear wings mainplane and top flap reduced by 20mm.  The dimensions that previously allowed for the beam wing have also been re-written, meaning that teams will not only have lost a method of creating downforce but also structural integrity. The beam wings connection to the crash structure is still viable but it would mean vertical pylons running to the underside of the mainplane like we saw in 2009/10.
The other option is that the teams instead more rigidly affix the rear wings endplates to the floor.  The method employed will probably come down to how they want to run the hydraulic pipework that actuates DRS, with this being run internally in Endplates over the last few seasons.

Advantage Exhausted

The new rules have done their very best to quash any and all advantage that can be gained from exhaust blowing.  But can it really be stopped? The exhaust has for a number of years provided teams with a way in which to extract downforce from the diffuser. Sealing the side of the diffuser with energised exhaust gases is a great way of reaping additional performance.

The teams will not forget this, however with only a singular tailpipe that must exit along the centreline surely
the practice is now defunct? That's what the FIA's regulation changes for the start of 2012 were also  supposed to do though and yet again the teams outboxed the FIA and controlled the exhaust plume
with the oncoming airflow, downwashing it into the gap between the tyre and diffuser.

The central 150mm of the rear wing remains a free area in which to design, meanwhile portions of the regulations due to the dimensions of the exhaust also refer to a 200mm free zone and so I expect some clever designs in this area not only to house the Y150/200 Winglet (Monkey Seat) and exploit any exhaust gases (albeit these will be minimised as the Turbo/MGU-H work together to turn wasted energy into electrical energy) but also the potential for more a intricate Mainplane/Top Flap arrangement of the Rear Wing.

Teaching a new dog, old tricks

Rarely is anything new in Formula One, usually a team is simply re-purposing a design seen in the sport before or from an associated field. The loss of exhaust blowing will be felt by the teams but they will adjust as necessary to continue to get the best performance possible from the diffuser. Areas of the car that the teams have exploited over the last few seasons that will likely see more scrutiny are:
Sidepod Airflow Conditioners [1 Yellow], Vortex Generators [1], Vertical Floor Strakes [2 Yellow] and Tyre Squirt Slots [4]. These devices are utilsed to help the car over a wider speed and angle range creating certain flow characteristics at one speed they may not at another. Without moveable aerodynamics the designers are forced into giving up peak downforce for a more manageable, balanced experience for the driver. I expect these areas to be where we will see the most development over the first half of 2014 as the teams grapple with the new regulations and tyre construction.



 For a more in depth look at the 2014 regulations along with a few of the 'loopholes' available to the teams don't forget my ongoing series: Looking Ahead to 2014

I plan to get to as many of the 2014 car launches as is viable and also have an eye on making at least one of the tests. This however all costs money and so if you enjoy reading my blog and feel you can help to support financially I'd very much appreciate any donations you make (big or small). Donations can be made via the paypal button in the right hand side bar of the website.  
Read more
1 Dec 2013
no image

Have you ever heard the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" this is a lesson that many in the world of Formula One would do well to heed.  There are several problems facing Formula One but most are that of their own making and when I say their I mean the FIA, Formula One Management and each of the teams.  This is because they are all diametrically opposed, looking only at their own interests and not that of the landscape of the sport.  I'll give you another saying that was made famous in our household as I grew up "They couldn't organise a McDonalds children's party' and it's true because at the end of the day anything that is regulated cannot be done efficiently under a democracy.

Most people/fans don't really understand the relationship / structure of how Formula One is run and nor should they, to them it is but a sport they watch.  The problem with Formula One however is it's fluidity in terms of regulation and money impacts the sport as a whole.  I want to cover several aspects of the sport in this article that not only interest me but are seemingly a bug bear for many fans.

TYRES

Pirelli have come in for some heavy criticism since their arrival in the Sport in 2011, however their brief from the FIA/FOM was to replicate the kind of scenes seen at the 2010 race in Montreal. One of the problems that poses an issue to Pirelli when designing their tyres is that changes cannot be made during the season.
This means that we inevitably end up with a skewed performance differentiator at the start to the end of the season. Pirelli have to target their design to be lop sided in what the teams can extract from it. This means the teams struggle early in a season, which usually leads to tyres becoming a hot topic of conversation.  As the teams begin to learn how to extract performance from the tyre over the course of the opening races the challenge lessens. From here on in toward the end of the season, Pirelli's only play is to make more aggressive compound choices as the lead teams have invariably skewed their updates to extract the most from the tyres.

The debacle faced by everyone at the start of the 2013 season might never have led to the catastrophic failures seen at Silverstone had the FIA heeded some of Pirelli's warnings.  After Silverstone the FIA sat up though and took notice, now before each GP they issue criteria to the teams (limiting camber and tyre pressure settings) and stopped the practice of tyre swapping.
The events post Silverstone decided the fate of the 2013 Championship with Red Bull best placed to take advantage of the switch back to the 2012 tyre construction. The RB9 of course was the closest of the lead cars to its predecessor and so lessons learnt aero wise in 2012 could be refined for the tail end of the campaign. Meanwhile Mercedes, Ferrari and Lotus were pressing the reset button as all were running much more heavily revised cars for 2013 especially when we consider the exhaust.  Months of time and money spent developing aerodynamic upgrades for the tyres used at the first 8 rounds would now be almost obsolete, of course you learn things from adapting to new criteria you can carry over but it's not quite the same.

A proposal will be put forward in the next F1 Strategy Group meeting that Formula One adopts a rule that each car must stop twice in a race in 2014. Furthermore that they can only use the prime tyre for a maximum of 50% of the race distance and the option 30%.

Pirelli have of course raised concerns in regards to the 2014 tyre supply. Without the ability to test with a representative car it's like sticking one finger in the air to establish the wind speed.

So what can be done differently? Well firstly I'd suggest that Pirelli have an unenviable task as I often see tweets like 'Well Bridgstone made tyres that didn't explode' or 'Bridgstone from fans who's favourite team seem to be lagging behind at the time.

The problem however is that Bridgstones brief was simply to provide a Prime and Option compound, both of which could easily make it beyond half race distance.  Bridgestones tyres were also used in the refueling era (2010 excluded) and so the vehicle dynamics and stint lengths the tyres needed to cope with were dictated by the prevailing regulations.  The context of these differences are not explained by the broadcasters/written media and so the fans don their rose tinted glasses and think that racing of yesteryear far outstripped what we see today.

Don't let anyone kid you into believing that tyres aren't one of the single most important aspects of Formula One because they are.  You can produce all the aerodynamic force you want but if it's not akin to the force the tyres are capable of taking it is worthless.

So what can be done to 'fix' the situation?  Well I think you must first question the artificiality of creating overtaking by virtue of tyres that degrade more rapidly.  This (which is the bug bear to many fans) creates a scenario whereby drivers do not drive to the limits of the car as they look after the tyres.  This is not to say this is the only limiting factor behind a driver driving within his limits, we also have to think about the car being under fuelled for the race distance and engine/gearbox life.  I'd therefore suggest that the tyres are the largest factor in the overtaking we see, this is due to drivers either losing time from tyres fading and dropping back into the claws of another driver or the chasing driver, driving beyond the delta of the tyre. 
The question is though will the proposals laid down improve overtaking and/or stop drivers, driving to a delta?

The answer is no, as always the teams are simply looking for the quickest way in which to complete the GP distance and so we would likely end up with very symmetrical pit stop phases with races won or lost during the pit stops.  Realistically without safety car interruptions you'd run Option 30%, Prime 50% and then Option (or a variation of that theme).  The proposal seems to be in opposition to Pirelli's brief and moreover hangs a question mark over the safety aspect of the tyres given the extra loads the cars will produce next season.

It is and pretty much always will be difficult to follow another F1 car (especially as a regulation run matures) and so the tyres offer another way of closing the drivers together, managing the tyres is just like anything else in the sport a question of compromise, push now and go for the overtake forsaking tyre life later in the stint or conserve.

Things however do need to change in terms of tyres and that change needs to come with additional testing allocated to the Italian manufacturer.  The reset button has been pressed for next year anyway and so using a 2013 challenger still wouldn't be representative, the first few races will be suck it and see whatever happens with them likely to air firmly on the side of caution.  The problem then however is that the racing for the rest of the season will suffer, as you remember the comment I made earlier about skewing the performance of the tyre to cater for the development curve will be lost.  I suspect next year we won't hear the media blathering on too much about Pirelli's poor product but purely because they won't be able to provide a performance product.  Going forward I think it's essential that Pirelli are able to operate as many test days with the 2014 cars throughout the season to provide a better product for 2015.  Whether the teams and the FIA can put aside their short sighted differences to achieve this is a different matter.

AERO

The sport has clearly been driven by aerodynamics since 2009 and although strides have been made in other departments such as interconnected suspension etc the largest on track gains are often those that come from CFD and the Wind Tunnel.  I often see fans making comments like, "lets just ban wings that will solve the problem and create more overtaking"  Wings aren't the problem per se people...
The front and rear wing of an F1 car help to produce downforce but moreover balance for cornering but this comes at the cost of drag on the straights.  One of the biggest problems facing drivers looking to overtake is the wake generated by the car in front it's a problem that aircraft also encounter when landing at major airports in a stack.  It's because the vehicle in front is using the airflow, energising it and displacing it, with the exception of DRS we have to remember that every other surface on an F1 car is fixed.

In 2009 the FIA moved (with consultation from the Technical Working Group TWG) to work on this issue, that season the driver was able to adjust the Front Wing's flap angle by 6 degrees, twice a lap.  The idea being that by adding 6 degree's of flap in the braking phase the driver could re-balance the car and would enable him to follow more closely in the wake of the car ahead.  It was a resounding failure, not because the idea was flawed but because BrawnGP, Williams and Toyota arrived with the double decked diffusers (DDD) that everyone then copied.  The advantage of the adjustment of the front wing then became nullified as the wake generated by the DDD cars exceeded what the adjustment could achieve.  2010 saw McLaren open the door to the FIA's saviour: DRS with their RW80/F-Duct.  Since 2011 we have seen teams utilse DRS which enables the driver to splay the top flap of the rear wing by 50cm, reducing drag and increasing top speed.  A necessary evil? Well yes possibly but it would have been interesting to see a season utilising just the Pirelli tyres as a method of increasing overtaking rather than in conjunction with DRS.
2013's use of DRS seemed fairly meaningless to me, we went to seeing it's use completely restricted to the designated zones and these didn't alter in length throughout the weekend, like we had seen in the past.  This led to teams simply refining their top speed to peak in those zones enabling cars to pass with consummate ease given they were in a similar phase of the race to whom they were passing.

The 2014 regulations will finally inhibit the use of the exhaust to blow the diffuser and so it's likely for some time at least the teams will lose a proportion of the downforce they have gained under the last regulations.  Furthermore the 'Beam Wing' which has been utilised by the teams since then not only structurally aids the rear wing but is also used to generate downforce is omitted.  This too should have an effect on the wake produced by the car as it's flow structure helped to adjoin that of the Diffuser with the Rear Wing's.

I'd therefore suggest F1 should have looked to revisit the front wing adjuster concept, perhaps revised in how much it could be used etc but it may have allowed the removal of what most fans see as an artificial overtaking aid: DRS.

MONEY - The FIA / FOM (Formula One Management) / Teams

The FIA if you didn't know are the sports regulators and own the sport, Formula One Management has lived under many guises but started life as FOCA (Formula One Constructors Association) back in the late 70's.  The brain child of Bernie Ecclestone it was the intention that the group would negotiate the TV rights and distribute the money amongst the teams to fund their racing ambitions.  When Bernie decided he didn't want to run a team in the late 80's (having owned and run Brabham) he negotiated a deal with the FIA that would see him lease the commercial rights to the sport in exchange for a yearly payment.  Thus seen as the 'middle man' FOM management acted as the go between, from there on the 'Concorde Agreement' would be signed by the FIA, FOM and the teams as a way of establishing who received what from the money FOM wrangled from the broadcasting rights and any other advertising deals that the sport generated. 

The sport is obviously now a huge global player that demands vast sums of money in exchange for the right to show it's content, bear the trademark or advertise as a partner.  FOM provides a 'World Feed' from which all the broadcasters create their programming, this is why you can be in any country watching the sport and be guaranteed that only the commentary will differ (although SKY and BBC actually sell their commentary feeds to other broadcasters too).
Additional content has been made available to the broadcasters (Pitlane Channel, Onboard Camera, Driver Tracker etc) these options are only taken up by a few of the broadcasters.  BBC and Sky took these options with the latter probably doing so due to company absorbing the BBC's original deal with FOM.  The UK is incredibly lucky in the coverage it receives of F1 be it free to air via the BBC or paid content via SKY with only Germany and Italy currently receiving the same level of coverage but this comes at a price.  *The ten largest TV deals account for 74.3% of F1's broadcasting revenue, which comes to a total of $488.9m (32.1% of F1's total revenues).

FOM command huge sums for the rights to broadcast their content, compared to their income, the payments to the FIA and teams had seemed rather paltry in the past. A new work up of the Concorde Agreement see's the spoils shared a little further around the table for the next few years although FOM still command the largest portion.

Also thought to be part of the new framework to this Concorde Agreement is that the teams themselves have a say in the way the sport is run.  This is a dangerous move as the teams cannot or should not be seen to making the rules they are governed by, I wholeheartedly agree to the idea of a 'Working Group' which features team members from every team, that discusses ideas of the FIA's choosing.  The problem I have is when the teams have powers to vote upon changes and even veto them for their own interest.  Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Williams and the next highest placed constructor from the previous season have these rights which leaves the smaller teams at a further disadvantage to the one they have held in the past.

Outside of the money that's exchanged between FOM and the teams Formula One has been severely impacted by the global economic downturn.  F1 teams up and down the paddock are suffering as their global sponsors cut back on their advertising and so we have become accustomed to what many call 'pay drivers'.  In terms of the larger sponsorship deals sought by the teams to fund their racing they usually come from large corporations with global reach, advertising to these companies is not only about what exposure they gain but what corporate entertainment they can give potential clients of their own.  Furthermore advertising is a great way of avoiding taxation whilst boosting revenue but obviously the company needs the revenue in the first place in order to avoid the tax, a symbiotic relationship that requires a good balance.

Formula One teams generally spend beyond their means in order to be competitive and for teams like Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull who have major long term investment from their respective owners this is acceptable.  However all of the other teams are independent and rely on the funding generated from their own endeavors, although some obviously have other facets to their business model that symbiotically generate cash flow for the race team.  In order to top up the lost revenue from the loss of sponsorship some of the teams have turned to 'pay driver's, these drivers have established their own sponsorship deals with the view to the money paying both their wages and encouraging a team to take them on board.  This is not a new phenomenon but seems to have expanded since the economic downturn, ALL drivers have these type of deals but only the top drivers are able to demand payment from their teams and return most of the sponsorship payments too.

With so many teams struggling to stay liquid it begs the question as to which one will implode first? The teams that entered the sport in 2010 of which only Caterham and Marussia remain entered on the proviso that Formula One would become sustainable but this hasn't come to fruition.  Large investment at both of these teams has been the only thing that has kept them afloat thus far and with costs rising even more for 2014 it's difficult to see how everyone will stay in business.

With the Concorde Agreement now in place I'm quite sure it's impossible but I firmly believe that the engine manufacturers (Ferrari, Mercedes & Renault) themselves should have been included as separate entities entitled to a share of the spoils.  A financial bump from the rights for which they are a core element would have resulted in a smaller purchase power plant fee for the teams and yes you can argue your are robbing Peter to pay Paul but I think all would have made wriggle room financially for this (FIA, FOM, the teams).

Capping spending in Formula One is demonstrably difficult as the FIA doesn't want to govern the cap, an attempt by the teams themselves failed spectacularly as FOTA (Formula One Teams Association) capitulated under the strain of the teams agreeing on a RRA (Resource Restriction Agreement).  Moreover I don't think there should be a budget cap, for Formula One to remain as the pinnacle of motorsport it should be about how fast can you afford to go.

As they say there isn't smoke without fire but the rumour currently doing the rounds is that Marussia is looking to merge with another team.  Whether this is a direct assimilation of the team meaning Marussia would no longer exist or whether they are looking to tag team with someone in exchange for resources is yet to be seen.  Williams have already rejected a proposal bought to them by Marussia by all accounts but it appears that the Russians involved at both Marussia and Sauber could make better bed fellows.  Both teams will be purchasing the Ferrari power unit in totally from the Italian squad next season and so working together to share resources could save both causes.  The problem however is that their chassis must be designed independently and brings me to my next point:

Do we still need the constructor to construct their own chassis or should we allow customer cars back into F1?

In it's current guise I personally don't see Formula One as sustainable, the costs are too prohibitive and I'd be surprised if we don't lose a team sooner rather than later.  That's probably music to Bernie / CVC's ears as it's one less mouth to feed / fund, however is there another way? 

Introducing customer cars would likely see many of the midfield teams complaining as they have invested to become manufacturers in their own right.  The tail end teams would likely welcome the decision, as although they too have invested the chassis remains a key component that can make or break performance, lending heavily to the aerodynamic principles the car will utilise.

Williams have strongly opposed any move toward a customer car scenario for many years citing that customers would only purchase chassis' from the lead teams.  This of course can be regulated defining just like the engine/power units how many chassis' manufacturers can supply teams leading to the midfield teams also generating income from this.

I firmly believe that a shift in this direction would also entice more teams to enter Formula One as, as the costs reduce the opportunities increase.  It's certainly a delicate topic that would require careful regulation by the FIA but could even lead to Ferrari etc effectively running B teams.  Meanwhile the 'pay drivers' would be able to fund their own racing by developing teams and purchasing the chassis and power units to go racing. 

SPORTING REGULATIONS

The last meeting of the strategy group led to the FIA proposing a pole trophy to the driver who accumulates the most pole positions in a season.  Now although I have no opposition to this I don't see what it achieves in a sporting context with Sebastian Vettel taking all but 2012's award if we recount what was achieved since 2009.  The team will receive nothing and so it means that no more effort would be placed on qualifying in pole position.  If the last few seasons have taught us anything, it's that pole position is no longer a requirement for race victory.  With this in mind I'd propose that the anti is upped in order to make it worthwhile placing the car on pole with 5 points awarded to the driver and team who do so, making it count toward the world titles makes it worthwhile.  Of course with 9 pole positions in 2013 it could have added 45 points to Vettel's total but with an emphasis shift to points for pole it may make choosing a qualifying vs race setup more rewarding.

The question is, is F1 broken? Does it need fixing? and if so who should be charged with doing so?

*Source Christian Sylt - editor of Formula Money
Enhanced by Zemanta
Read more

Total Pageviews