+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 2011 F1 Rule Changes

  1. #1
    anyone really interested in F1 NEEDS to read these documents:

    http://www.fia.com/sport/Championshi..._one_2011.html

    long story short, 2011 rules change proposals include attempts to keep accelerations and top speeds roughly the same but with 50% of today's fuel consumption, a drastic reduction in team's expenditures, and closer racing. how? a few examples are:

    1) either moving to a 1.3~1.5L turbo inline 4, or a 2.2L turbo V6
    2) elimination of all barge boards, mid wings, chimneys, etc
    3) active wing elements (!)
    4) turbulence sensors for when in leading car's wake coupled to active ride height control
    5) thermal and kinetic energy recovery with 4WD and a "push to pass" style deliver system
    6) spec undertray & wheel packages

    there's some exciting stuff in there, even mentions of plasma generators and MEMS turbulators to delay flow seperation. have a look see.
    John Valerio
    Queen's FSAE
    http://engsoc.queensu.ca/formulacar/

  2. #2
    anyone really interested in F1 NEEDS to read these documents:

    http://www.fia.com/sport/Championshi..._one_2011.html

    long story short, 2011 rules change proposals include attempts to keep accelerations and top speeds roughly the same but with 50% of today's fuel consumption, a drastic reduction in team's expenditures, and closer racing. how? a few examples are:

    1) either moving to a 1.3~1.5L turbo inline 4, or a 2.2L turbo V6
    2) elimination of all barge boards, mid wings, chimneys, etc
    3) active wing elements (!)
    4) turbulence sensors for when in leading car's wake coupled to active ride height control
    5) thermal and kinetic energy recovery with 4WD and a "push to pass" style deliver system
    6) spec undertray & wheel packages

    there's some exciting stuff in there, even mentions of plasma generators and MEMS turbulators to delay flow seperation. have a look see.
    John Valerio
    Queen's FSAE
    http://engsoc.queensu.ca/formulacar/

  3. #3
    These changes sound interesting, and they will definately cut costs, and maybe improve the show. But the downside is they will reduce engineering jobs in F1, from the homologation of chassis components and the standarization of parts.
    Vince Libertucci
    U of T Racing Alumn
    2004 - 2008

  4. #4
    Teams will spend whatever they have on whatever they are allowed to develop. Trying to cut costs isn't going to work. This is F1, which is supposedly the pinnacle of motorsport, and they're trying to make it cheaper? I'm all for rules changes that would make for better competition, but stifling development and ingenuity is just plain dumb.
    Jerry Harding
    University of South Florida - Formula SAE
    Engine/Drivetrain

  5. #5
    Yup. I call BS on the cutting cost stuff. The $10 million they'll save on engine stuff will go to damper testing or more lapsim work or wherever they can put the money to squeeze out the extra .01%.

    Any claims of pioneering new technology for the passenger market.. I also claim as BS.

    I'm not a big fan of the changes. I say let there be diversity. Let em run say either a 2.8L 19krpm gas engine, a 1.4L turbo gas, or maybe 2L biofuel turbo with a 12krpm rev limit. I like watching old F1 footage with good battles between the small displacement turbo and big displacement NA engines.

    One thing I thought would be cool would be to have the rules on aero and tires inversely related. Ie, you can either run powerful wings (with some high downforce coefficient) and narrow tires.. or less powerful wings and big tires. Ie have to decide if you want to focus more on mechanical or aero grip.

    Make the field more diverse!
    Colorado FSAE | '05 - '07
    Goodyear Tire & Rubber | '07 - '11
    NASCAR Engineer | '11 - ??

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts