New-look F1 on cards for 2013

[dhruvkaicker90]

The technical face of F1 could be poised to change dramatically within the next three years after it was revealed that team bosses will be presented with a radical design brief for the 2013 season.

According to a BBC exclusive, the quest for closer, more exciting and more cost-effective racing has been passed to respected designers Patrick Head and Rory Byrne, who will produce a blueprint for future technical regulations for discussion by the teams and F1's Technical Working Group early next year. The draft regulations are being drawn up at the behest of the FIA, and should be in the hands of the men charged with making them reality some time before Christmas, prior to a meeting of the TWG in January.

According to the report, the vision will present the biggest design change since 1983, when flat-bottomed cars were made mandatory after years of underfloor development led to venturi technology and the use of the infamous 'skirts' as designers sought to extract the most from the latest thinking on downforce. Ironically, Head and Byrne's brief is understood to call for the return of underfloor development, but in a way that will prevent a return to the sort of excessive speeds that saw the rules changed so dramatically nearly 30 years ago.

The major changes are thought likely to see vastly reduced front and rear wing sizes; greater proportions of total downforce derived from the use of shaped floors, but a major reduction in total downforce; the retention of large tyre sizes to ensure cornering speeds remain high; and a reduction in the amount of full-throttle running, from 70 per cent to 50 per cent by 2013, although there is almost certainly going to be call for compromise during next month's meeting.

Head and Byrne reportedly started work on the new rules as long ago as March, and have now presented their vision to FIA race director Charlie Whiting, who will pass them on to the teams this week. The Williams co-owner revealed that the pair were told to ensure that overtaking wasn't made any more difficult, but believes that they may actually have found an improvement in an area for which the top flight is often derided.

As the original GP2 Series car showed in 2005, creating downforce via the underside of the car, rather than using excessively large and complicated wings can produce more exciting racing as chasing cars should lose less downforce when in close pursuit of another, theoretically making it easier to pass.

"We are only going to have roughly 65 per cent of the amount of fuel and a [limited] fuel [flow] rate - that was a given," Head explained to BBC Sport, "We were just told 'that's what it will be, you've got to come up with a car spec that is not going to be more than five seconds a lap slower than a current F1 car'.

"So some circuit simulation was done by Rory at Ferrari and when we'd come up with some numbers in terms of drag and downforce it was then to try to come up with a geometry of a car that could try to achieve that."

[F1000X]

Vastly reduced front and rear wing sizes; greater proportions of total downforce derived from the use of shaped floors, but a major reduction in total downforce; the retention of large tyre sizes to ensure cornering speeds remain high;

YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES

[madmark1974]

a reduction in the amount of full-throttle running, from 70 per cent to 50 per cent by 2013"

??? Am I being stupid? What does this mean? Surely once a car is past the apex of a corner, it's full-throttle to the next braking point, so how can they change that?

[TomWazzleshaw]

a reduction in the amount of full-throttle running, from 70 per cent to 50 per cent by 2013"

??? Am I being stupid? What does this mean? Surely once a car is past the apex of a corner, it's full-throttle to the next braking point, so how can they change that?

Power-down oversteer is your worst enemy in an F1 car.

[Londoner]

Interestingly, they appear to be re-introducing ground effect floors 30 years after they were banned. A return to mid-80s F1? I would like that.

[madmark1974]

a reduction in the amount of full-throttle running, from 70 per cent to 50 per cent by 2013"

??? Am I being stupid? What does this mean? Surely once a car is past the apex of a corner, it's full-throttle to the next braking point, so how can they change that?

Power-down oversteer is your worst enemy in an F1 car.

Unless you're Rubens, in which case I would say that Michael Schumacher takes that title.

But anyway, thanks for the insight, but I can't see 20% being achievable, especially with circuits like Monza and most of Tilke creations. Imagine them all snaking under
acceleration for 20% of the straight at Korea, it'd look a bit ridiculous, if was even physically possible. Can't see Jenson Button liking it much, either ...

[patrick]

retro! turbos and ground effects, small wings and fat tyres. It'll be interesting to see what modern design makes of this.

[AndreaModa]

In case anyone was wondering, here's the original article from the BBC:

Read Me!

[Aerospeed]

NO!

Why does the league keep changing the looks of the cars? For me? I think the cars from the early 1980's (especially the ones they keep talking about with small wings and all) were quite ugly. I think the best looking cars were from 1996-97. Those cars looked great. We just had a rear wing adjustment last year, why do we need to change AH-GAIN??

[Peter]

Interestingly, they appear to be re-introducing ground effect floors 30 years after they were banned. A return to mid-80s F1? I would like that.

Uhh, Gilles Villeneuve? With more ground effect and less wings ,aren't the cars a lot more prone to taking off? Once they get an inch off the ground, they will go flying.

[tommykl]

Interestingly, they appear to be re-introducing ground effect floors 30 years after they were banned. A return to mid-80s F1? I would like that.

Uhh, Gilles Villeneuve? With more ground effect and less wings ,aren't the cars a lot more prone to taking off? Once they get an inch off the ground, they will go flying.

Villeneuve's death wasn't due to ground effects, but due to contact between his front-left wheel with Mass's rear-right wheel at a huge speed difference.

A fatal accident, however, that is due to ground effects is Patrick Depailler, whose car took off on a kerb, sucked in gravel, preventing the car from landing.

[AndreaModa]

Remember folks before this gets too carried away that we're not going to be seeing skirts on this new type of F1 car, just a sculpted underfloor, so the groud effect will be significantly less than it was in the early 80s.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing how all this turns out, hopefully it should provide a good bit of stability for the sport which is what it needs at the moment.

[Phoenix]

Patrick Head having an input on the 2013 rule changes? Wouldn't that give an unfair advantage to Williams? Or am I being confused?

[mario]

Patrick Head having an input on the 2013 rule changes? Wouldn't that give an unfair advantage to Williams? Or am I being confused?

He does, however, sit on the board of the Technical Working Group (the same body which Ross Brawn also sits on), so there are two duties; one for his team, and another in drawing up the FIA's technical regulations according to their instructions. Of course, it is possible that Head might look to introduce rules which favour his team, or at least fail to point out rules which give his team a massive advantage. After all, the same body gave us the DDD confusion when there was no consensus about defining the underbody of the car, and in particular where the floor of the car lay.

Remember folks before this gets too carried away that we're not going to be seeing skirts on this new type of F1 car, just a sculpted underfloor, so the groud effect will be significantly less than it was in the early 80s.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing how all this turns out, hopefully it should provide a good bit of stability for the sport which is what it needs at the moment.

In theory, the cars could have partial skirts. In Formula 2, they have a small lip which extends from the floor of the cars about halfway down to the ground, designed to partially seal off the floor, giving a small increase in underbody downforce. Alternatively, and more likely, we could see increased use of vortex generators, similar to what they used on the Champ Cars, where the vortex seals off the edge of the floor. Neither method is as efficient as a full length skirt, but the FIA are still keen to keep the speed of the cars down, so cutting the total downforce generated will go a long way towards that.

NO!

Why does the league keep changing the looks of the cars? For me? I think the cars from the early 1980's (especially the ones they keep talking about with small wings and all) were quite ugly. I think the best looking cars were from 1996-97. Those cars looked great. We just had a rear wing adjustment last year, why do we need to change AH-GAIN??

I'm afraid that some of the elements of the 1980's cars will reappear again. For a start, as the FIA wants to extend the side crash protection zones forwards for 2013, that will probably lead to longer sidepods. In that respect, the cars are likely to look a bit like, say, the Williams FW08, where the sidepods extended almost all the way to the front wheels:

As for why the rules constantly change, I suppose that part of it is a way of keeping the teams in check, and partially because the FIA is constantly changing the focus and public image of Formula 1 to reflect what the public seeks.

[WeirdKerr]

I for one welcome ground effect and turbos back.....

[watka]

I quite the look of the blocky 1980s cars, particularly the Saudia Williams.

[AndreaModa]

Oh boy longer sidepods? Count me in! If they can reduce the overall length of the cars (which with fuel saving technology and smaller engines, will hopefully be the case) we'll see much squarer cars rather than the 'limos' of the present day, which in my opinion will make them much more aesthetically pleasing. One of the downsides of the early 80s tended to be the enormous rear wings sometimes employed, though they seemed to come in only properly after ground effect was banned, I suspect to make up for the loss in downforce. Either way I can't wait for these new rules! Time to re-write F1 properly and get it going in a new direction, rather than the half-baked ideas we were dealt with in 2009.

[Cynon]

Vastly reduced front and rear wing sizes; greater proportions of total downforce derived from the use of shaped floors, but a major reduction in total downforce; the retention of large tyre sizes to ensure cornering speeds remain high;

Hello, Panoz DP01.

Seriously, that's what this sounds like. The Panoz DP01, which ran in only one season in Champ Car, made the racing much better despite looking really weird. I like the look of the modern F1 cars, but the fact is that the cars seldom allow for a good race, barring rain or bad track surface, so therefore, change is both required and welcome.

[Irisado]

If these proposals go ahead, I think that it will benefit Formula 1, as the dependence on aerodynamics has consistently made it harder and harder to overtake. My concern is that the teams will drag their feet, due to their addiction to aerodynamics, and the proposals will get watered down to such an extent that they won't be worth the paper that they are written on. The FIA actually needs to take a positive lead here, and force the teams into adopting these proposals. 2010 was a desperately poor year in terms of overtaking, and these changes are desperately needed in my opinion.

[Aerospeed]

Less overtaking? That's what we don't want here...

The only thing I'm looking forward to besides the possibility of turbos? The rear wings. At least they look more credible than the ones we have right now.

[Barbazza]

If cars end up looking remotely like the ones in what for me were the glory days of F1 (1982-1985 roughly) then I'll be a very happy man. However, this is the FIA, so it'll probably be terrible.

[IdeFan]

Vastly reduced front and rear wing sizes; greater proportions of total downforce derived from the use of shaped floors, but a major reduction in total downforce; the retention of large tyre sizes to ensure cornering speeds remain high;

Hello, Panoz DP01.

Seriously, that's what this sounds like. The Panoz DP01, which ran in only one season in Champ Car, made the racing much better despite looking really weird. I like the look of the modern F1 cars, but the fact is that the cars seldom allow for a good race, barring rain or bad track surface, so therefore, change is both required and welcome.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, the front wing is a little small, but that rear wing is pretty huge. Aside from the lack of an airbox above the driver's head (which is pretty standard for champ cars) I think it looks pretty ordinary for a single seater, especially an American one.

(I think thats Roberto Moreno, do I get bonus points for a gratuitous Moreno picture?)

[Ferrim]

a reduction in the amount of full-throttle running, from 70 per cent to 50 per cent by 2013"

??? Am I being stupid? What does this mean? Surely once a car is past the apex of a corner, it's full-throttle to the next braking point, so how can they change that?

A few years ago, when we had V10 3-liter engines, the amount of full-throttle was considerably smaller, because these engines were more powerful. They had to brake earlier for the corners, as they reached bigger speeds, and they had to lift up for some corners which currently are taken full throttle, because the speed they carry into them is bigger, and downforce is higher. So there clearly is a lot of room to reduce full-throttle running.

Let's say you were driving a Renault Clio around Silverstone; you couldn't take flat-out any corner I think, so you would be full-throttle only on the straights. That's an extreme example, of course, but it shows that is not as easy as going full-throttle from a corner to the next one.

[Cynon]

Vastly reduced front and rear wing sizes; greater proportions of total downforce derived from the use of shaped floors, but a major reduction in total downforce; the retention of large tyre sizes to ensure cornering speeds remain high;

Hello, Panoz DP01.

Seriously, that's what this sounds like. The Panoz DP01, which ran in only one season in Champ Car, made the racing much better despite looking really weird. I like the look of the modern F1 cars, but the fact is that the cars seldom allow for a good race, barring rain or bad track surface, so therefore, change is both required and welcome.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, the front wing is a little small, but that rear wing is pretty huge. Aside from the lack of an airbox above the driver's head (which is pretty standard for champ cars) I think it looks pretty ordinary for a single seater, especially an American one.

(I think thats Roberto Moreno, do I get bonus points for a gratuitous Moreno picture?)

I was referring mostly to where the car is getting it's downforce from. The rear wing was the only difference. That is indeed Roberto Moreno driving that car, because he was in fact the development driver for that car! He got a run in it as well at Houston, but ran into Matt Halliday early in the race.

[F1000X]

Cynon, isn't it a shame the IRL didn't make the switch to the DP-01 when the reunification happened? The chassis was even designed to fit the 3.0 Honda engine Indycar was currently using. I can't believe they are still using the crapwagon. At least they've got big plans for the future. At least the chassis developments are being put to some use in Superleague.

[thehemogoblin]

Cynon, isn't it a shame the IRL didn't make the switch to the DP-01 when the reunification happened? The chassis was even designed to fit the 3.0 Honda engine Indycar was currently using. I can't believe they are still using the crapwagon. At least they've got big plans for the future. At least the chassis developments are being put to some use in Superleague.

The DP01s weren't oval-ready, I don't believe. ChampCar had gone to strictly road courses and street races at that point.

[Cynon]

If you discount that the DP01 was very poorly constructed (see Paul Tracy's Long Beach injury amongst other things), then yes, it is a shame the IRL didn't use it. The current Dallara is a great oval car, but it's 8 years old. Frankly, I can't wait for the new IRL car along with Chevrolet's inclusion, especially since Penske is making the jump to the Chevy camp.

Lotus will be coming in with KV, but I don't expect much from them other than many many crashes.

[F1000X]

If you discount that the DP01 was very poorly constructed (see Paul Tracy's Long Beach injury amongst other things), then yes, it is a shame the IRL didn't use it.

It was poorly constructed? Any links where I can read about that?

[JohnMLTX]

Cynon, isn't it a shame the IRL didn't make the switch to the DP-01 when the reunification happened? The chassis was even designed to fit the 3.0 Honda engine Indycar was currently using. I can't believe they are still using the crapwagon. At least they've got big plans for the future. At least the chassis developments are being put to some use in Superleague.

The DP01s weren't oval-ready, I don't believe. ChampCar had gone to strictly road courses and street races at that point.

My uncle worked at champcar in those final years, and he said that there was a full speedway package for the dp01, and it had passed all crash testing.

He also claims that there were rumours of a return to eurospeedway in 2009 on the oval.

and here's another pic, of the dp01 in IRL oval form:


oh, and on paul tracy's accident: he went a meter up a wall, then crashed back down HARD. it was a compression fracture; car design wasn't really a factor.

[FullMetalJack]

Patrick Head having an input on the 2013 rule changes? Wouldn't that give an unfair advantage to Williams? Or am I being confused?

That wouldn't be a bad thing though.

[mario]

a reduction in the amount of full-throttle running, from 70 per cent to 50 per cent by 2013"

??? Am I being stupid? What does this mean? Surely once a car is past the apex of a corner, it's full-throttle to the next braking point, so how can they change that?

A few years ago, when we had V10 3-liter engines, the amount of full-throttle was considerably smaller, because these engines were more powerful. They had to brake earlier for the corners, as they reached bigger speeds, and they had to lift up for some corners which currently are taken full throttle, because the speed they carry into them is bigger, and downforce is higher. So there clearly is a lot of room to reduce full-throttle running.

Let's say you were driving a Renault Clio around Silverstone; you couldn't take flat-out any corner I think, so you would be full-throttle only on the straights. That's an extreme example, of course, but it shows that is not as easy as going full-throttle from a corner to the next one.

Interestingly, over in the F1technical forums, one observer has provided the full throttle figures for the current venues used:


So, only a handful of circuits see the drivers on full throttle for more than 70% of a lap, which are Spa Francorchamps and Monza - both notable for their high average lap speeds and the length of the straights. So, in reality the average amount of time spent on full throttle is substantially lower than 70%, and so the likely drop will probably be smaller than stated.

If cars end up looking remotely like the ones in what for me were the glory days of F1 (1982-1985 roughly) then I'll be a very happy man. However, this is the FIA, so it'll probably be terrible.

Yet the cars in 1983 to 1985 were not ground effect cars, but conventional wing cars, after the imposition of the flat floor regulations which are still in force today. And there is evidence to suggest that overtaking increased after ground effects were banned, which does kind of run counter to what might be expected.

I admit that for the moment I am not expecting the floodgates to open, and there to suddenly be massive amounts of overtaking action on track in 2013. At the moment, what is most unusual about the current grid is, thanks to the standardisation process of the FIA to cut costs and close down loopholes, is how tight the field is. The typical gaps between drivers in qualifying and race trim is often in the order of a few tenths, and the grid as a whole is covered by a few seconds (amongst the established teams). On top of that, the qualifying and race order is normally relatively predictable - Red Bull, Ferrari and Mclaren would normally fill out the top six grid slots, with Renault, Mercedes, Williams and Sauber fighting over the lower half of the top 10.
You didn't often have a particular car out of position - Malaysia being one major exception, and was also notable for the number of passing moves that the Ferrari and Mclaren drivers had to do in order to recover their positions. And you don't often have a situation where a particular driver and car combination was abnormally high up the grid (except Monaco, with Kubica nearly beating the Red Bull drivers to pole).

Moreover, the relative difference in car performance in each area is fairly small - the brakes and tyres are all the same, so it is hard to outbrake somebody, and the engines produce pretty much the same power, and have fairly similar fuel consumption. On top of that, the teams all use similar strategies, because the tyres did not favour any alternative strategy, and the tightening of aerodynamic and mechanical regulations mean that the difference in performance between cars is decreasing. So, in effect, the drivers are becoming the biggest performance differentiator, and even there, with the tougher standards in junior series and in Formula 1 itself, the differences in driver performance is not huge either.

All of that means that the actual difference between drivers and cars is not that big, so with the number of passing places on a track being limited, often there is not enough of a performance difference for the car behind to catch up and overtake the guy in front. And, with the FIA keen to increase standardisation as a method of cutting costs, I can't see the situation drastically changing in 2013.

[nome66]

I also miss the late 80's/early 90's because it was about who's driver-chassis-aero-tyre-engine combonation was the best, and it showed.
I am not a fan of spec racing, though sometimes, it seems to be the most honest, seeing which driver is the best. I, and many others, miss the distinction of the cars in F1. Lower V8 sounds, middle/higher V10 sounds, and screaming V12 sounds are part of what got me into F1 in the first place. The FIA is turning more and more into what NASCAR and IndyCar have become. Focusing on two or three Corporate/factory "heavy hitters", and dismissing the lower budget or independent teams.

I'll save the rest of this for the rantbox, sorry.

[Phoenix]

I agree there should be more variety in F1, but things are tough right now...