solutions were being used for short times in qualifying and then being changed for more durable solutions for the race. We felt that this was certainly against the spirit of the parc fermé regulations but, more importantly, the relevant regulations simply do not allow changes to be made whilst the cars were being held under parc fermé conditions. Connections to the car may be made, and electronic units freely accessed, but no changes to the set up of the car can be made. We therefore informed the teams on 14 June that we would take these measures in Valencia. This was done, and cars run accordingly, with very few difficulties.
Why was the matter still being discussed over the weekend of the British GP, and why did the clarification change from Friday to Saturday? The matter was still being discussed because one engine manufacturer [Renault Sport] was reluctant to run with the settings we had imposed and continued to try and convince us that they would require alternative settings in order to maintain their perfect reliability record. At the last minute additional information was provided to us, which we felt would be hard to refuse having already made a small concession to another manufacturer [Mercedes Benz HPE]. However, further discussions on Friday evening and Saturday morning resulted in us deciding that we had conceded too much and, to be fair to the manufacturers who had presented cars in what we considered the correct configuration, we should revert to the specification we had specified in our note to the teams on 20 June. This is how all teams then ran on Saturday and Sunday in Silverstone.
What was the purpose of holding two Technical Working Group meetings in Silverstone? Following the events of Friday, the FIA president felt it would be useful to have an open discussion in order to see if consensus could be reached. Following these two meetings there was unanimous agreement among the teams to revert to the engine
mapping regime used in Valencia ie freedom on settings but no changes to the maps between qualifying and race. This was felt to be the most sensible solution to a very complicated matter as the possibility of finding an alternative solution, which would be fair to all engine manufacturers, was becoming increasingly unlikely.
If the FIA had not acted, would there have been a protest? As all the teams had reached consensus there would have been no point in doing so.
Has the matter now been settled then? Yes, and all cars will run under ‘Valencia conditions’ for the remainder of the season.
Are there likely to be any protests now that this matter seems to have been settled? We are optimistic that there will be no protests over any engine mapping and exhaust tailpipe issues this season. In addition to the main part of the agreement reached in the TWG meetings,
COMMENT
Just before the Chinese Grand Prix, engine supplier
Renualt Sport F1, made something of a surprising announcement. To get the best out of front-exiting exhausts and other blown floor concepts, the cars use as much as 10 per cent more fuel. To power a blown floor effectively and generate additional downforce, an engine must produce significant amounts of exhaust gas. Simply put, the more fuel burned, the more exhaust is produced, and therefore potentially more downforce. It is startling that the French engine manufacturers would highlight this in the way it did – in a press release – as it was pretty much an open invite for the FIA to ban these exhaust layouts. There are three main reasons
why the FIA should have banned the concept properly: firstly, the blown floors are expensive to develop, requiring complex wind tunnel / CFD work and trick
composite production methods. Look how much McLaren struggled with its solution, before giving up on it. Secondly, the blown floors and
complex exhaust layouts increase downforce and, as a result, increase apex speeds, so to keep the speed of the cars under control it seems an easy thing to outlaw. But apparently not. Thirdly, and most importantly,
a ban would bring motorsport in line with manufacturers’ general trend towards being greener. It’s hard to justify burning 10 per cent more fuel per session just to go around a corner slightly faster. It equates very roughly to around 15 litres of fuel per car per race. If all cars on the grid had blown floors and all used the same amount of extra fuel, that’s around 360 litres of fuel per race and around 7000 litres over the course of a season. Imagine the green lobby seizing on it, just at the time when the entire automotive
industry is trying to talk up its green credentials. It simply cannot continue
now that the consumption increase is out in the open. It would be easy for the FIA to regulate exhaust outlets, by stating two symmetrical outlets exiting within 500mm of the rear of the engine, or similar. The flip side is that there is some genuine innovation is on display but, for 2012, it seems that blown floors will be outlawed. Perhaps that was what Renault Sport F1 wanted. At the Valencia pre-season
F1 test, a senior Renault engine man told Racecar Engineering that it was difficult to cater to all the different layouts employed by its teams. And, while he did not say it outright, the implication was clearly that the increased costs faced by the engine supplier were hard to stomach. Mind you, it could be a case of making something out of nothing…
it was also agreed that no team would raise a protest against another on these matters for the rest of the season.
What will happen in 2012 and beyond? The teams have already agreed to strict constraints on exhaust tailpipe position, which will result in them exiting the bodywork much higher up and no longer
in the vicinity of the diffuser. Therefore, any aerodynamic benefit from exhaust gas flow over bodywork will be kept to an absolute minimum. Engine mapping will remain free (within the existing constraints of the FIA SECU) as, with the exhaust tailpipes in this new position, it is felt that any aerodynamic benefit will now be incidental to their primary purpose.
Low-mounted, oddly-shaped exhausts such as this have been a feature of Formula 1 in 2011. They will be outlawed next season
Sam Collins September 2011 •
www.racecar-engineering.com 89
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100