2010 F1 Car and Strategies
Now that additional details about the 2010 rules came to light following the signing of the Concorde Agreement, let’s add a bit more info to a previous entry about what it would take to compete in 2010.
One of the major changes will be the lack of refueling. This will affect qualifying, race strategy, tire wear and much more.
QUALIFYING
Due to this dramatic change in the sport, qualifying will be updated. Q3 will now be very similar to the small amount of Q1 and Q2 fuel loads. What will be interesting to see will be the first few laps. I am guessing that some cars and drivers will struggle quite a bit with heavy fuel loads, which will put even more focus on the practice sessions. Q3 lap times should be very telling as to the actual non-fuel adjusted pace of each individual chassis, and this will ultimately tell us who will have the greatest advantage in the closing laps of each Grand Prix.
ENGINE
As I mentioned before, Cosworth engines will not be as fuel efficient when compared to the Constructors engines. This means more fuel (and weight) on board for the new F1 entrants. More weight to pull will also translate into additional pressure on already very fragile parts, and greater wear on the tires. This in turn affects chassis weight distribution and balance, limiting the engineers options for ballast placement.
We will also see how reliable the engines are through the grueling season. With the addition of another Grand Prix weekend to the provisional 2010 schedule, each Constructor must make each lump last more miles between changes.
AERODYNAMICS
Cars will weigh dramatically different from the start of the race (fully-fueled) to the end of the race (i.e.: the last drop) and cars will behave much differently, therefore the aero package has to take that into account. Does that mean an entire (re-)re-design again for next year, or an evolution of the current packages that 2009 teams are already running? On thing is for certain, this is not going to help the cost-saving measures…
FUEL TANKS
I foresee most of the Team’s costs to develop new/exciting ways to design new fuel tanks, even more so than in the past. Cool new designs will be coming up for new air-tight chamber systems within the fuel tank (eliminating water movement and its consequence on balance), acting as ballast for the car. I wish we could have access to their engineers telling us the what/how/where of their solutions. They will defiantly be carrying over twice as much fuel as the 2009 spec tank will allow.
TIRE WEAR
With traction control already gone, and hot/fast tracks in the calendar, tire wear may be more noticeable next year. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a rise in tire consumption, which will also affect tire allocation strategies for practice, qualifying and race sessions. Will we see a team run out of tires in a race? Someone may want to try to leapfrog the competition by using prime tires for all qualifying sessions and be caught using less performing tires for the race.
FUEL STRATEGIES
Do you under-fuel the car to 90 or 95% and hope for a safety car on accident prone circuits, so that you run 5 to 10% fast than the rest of the field for the majority of the race? Visions of Massa, having to slow down, and lean out his fuel mix with 4 laps to go in Barcelona, come to mind. Will we see cars not make it to the finish? Strategists and world-class pit refueling crews will be out of a job… Gone is the leapfrogging qualifying surprises that made the sport so exciting over the years. Not to worry, new excitements will surely happen in F1… as always.
What are your thoughts about how the new teams will compete in 2010? Will a newcomer win it all?
Since we were talking about new rules for the year ahead, how about we also open it up for future rules you’d like to see…
For example: what would you think of a fuel-saving measure, requiring all teams to use 20% less for the actual races? Maybe replacing the KERS initiative with recyclable/natural energy devices (from wind, heat and solar)? … and how about a 20 race calendar scheduled for every other weekend, taking place in all current locations, with the addition of the US and FRANCE street circuits?
photo credit ©WRI2
Author: Laurent
18 Responses to “2010 F1 Car and Strategies”
Leave a Reply
USF1blog.com Active Poll
Loading ...Recent Comments
Popularity Contest
2010 F1 World Championship Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Adrian Sutil Autodromo Nazionale di Monza Belgian Grand Prix Bernie Ecclestone Brawn GP Chad Hurley Cosworth European Grand Prix Fernando Alonso Flavio Briatore Force India FOTA German Grand Prix Hungarian Grand Prix Hungaroring Italian Grand Prix Japanese Grand Prix Jenson Button Ken Anderson KERS Kimi Raikkonen Lewis Hamilton Marina Bay Street Circuit Mark Webber McLaren Mercedes NASCAR Nelson Piquet Nurburgring Pat Symonds Peter Windsor Red Bull Racing Renault Rubens Barrichello Scuderia Ferrari Sebastian Vettel Singapore Grand Prix Spa-Francorchamps Team US F1 United States Grand Prix USF1blog.com Valencia Street Circuit Yas Marina Circuit YouTube
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
I know most will disagree with me, but I like KERS on the cars. I've read recently opinions that Kimi would not have won Spa if not for the supernatural burst of power from his KERS. Who knows. But sinking money into KERS is an option to every team, just as developing a better aero package or building a more reliable engine. It's that simple. Its value during the race is up to a driver's judicious application. I'd keep it.
Stace
I am partial of KERS as well. I think in the first half of the season when non-KERS equipped chassis (Brawn) were dominant, the general public looked at KERS as uncompetetive and a waste money in the budget. Now that Hamilton and Kimi have shown that it is race viable, more people are starting to get behind it.
I loved the idea when it was introduced last year and feel like it has huge consumer market applications. What I really want to see is the Williams Flywheel based KERS system in action.
Yeah, the flywheel idea — 20 years ago in high school physics class, I dreamed of the power of kinetic energy stored this way to recapture "braked" energy. Teacher said it just wasn't possible/practical.
Then I hear about Williams' flywheel the size of a roll of toilet paper putting out 80HP! So cool. I wonder about the gyroscopic effect — would you need two spinning in opposite directions? And would it be as valuable on the start as the battery systems? Would the flywheels begin to loose momentum after the line-up lap and while waiting for the lights?
Stace
I have never thought of that aspect of the Williams KERS. According to the sporting regulations, you must be in your grid position 5 minutes before the start of the parade lap. They would either want to get in the box late or have a way to get the flywheel up to full speed on the warm-up lap, and hope they don't loose much momentum while they are sitting still.
There is no denying that KERS is a huge advantage on the drag to the first turn, as demonstrated by Kimi this past weekend at Spa.
Stace/Jeff – Great points! Here's a video on Williams' KERS system [youtube 04CarbWxX4o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04CarbWxX4o youtube]
Stace/Jeff – Great points! Here's a video on Williams' KERS system [youtube 04CarbWxX4o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04CarbWxX4o youtube]
I like the idea of a future fuel-saving measure being put in place, where each year the fuel mileage must improve by a certain percentage (maybe 2-3%) from the previous year over the course of the next 10 years. Like StaceCaseria, I also like KERS and this would possibly put emphasis on KERS development again, or just in improving efficiency of the engine. It gives the engineers new challenges to focus on. Then again, it might also stray from the idea of cost-cutting.
One thing that I think should be considered is an increase in the minimum weight. If teams have all that fuel on board and try to save weight in other areas, we could be seeing potentially dangerous things being done to save weight. Safety should be number 1. Has the minimum weight been adjusted for 2010?
Yes it has raised from 605 kg to 620 kg. Or in lbs 1333.8 to 1366.9, a change of 33 lbs.
Hey Travis,
Seems like any tweak to rules and regulations would go against the cost-reduction measures. How would you envision the next Concorde Agreement, in order to address this?
@JeffUSF1Blog:
Thanks for the clarification on that! Now I'm curious as to how much fuel will need to be carried to make the race distance…
@LaurentB:
Honestly, I really don't know enough about the details of the Concorde Agreement to really have an answer for you. Since it runs through 2012, I am not sure such changes could be implemented until after that. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much of the Concorde Agreement is about the actual technology rules as it is about the teams agreeing to participate, and the CVC agreeing to share the revenue. Since the FiA makes the rules, I don't know how adhering to the FiA's rules fits into the Concorde Agreement. I understand there was also some sort of "resource restriction" that was agreed to, but who knows what that entails. It's probably as much a gentleman's agreement as anything. FOTA also seems to add another level of confusion, as they seem to want to make their own agreements, but that doesn't change the FiA rules. For example, the recent discussions that they would agree to drop KERS. From what I could tell, that was purely a FOTA thing, but KERS would still be legal according to the FiA. Ask Ferrari about that after Kimi's win at Spa now. The teams that are using it sure seem to like it now.
With regards to costs, I think the refueling ban has the potential to change how teams approach performance and how they focus their spending. This provides a whole new challenge. I think teams would instinctively work towards improved fuel mileage in order to reduce the amount of fuel they need to carry at the start, and thus reduce weight to gain a competitive advantage. Case in point is the rumor that the Cosworth-equipped teams will be at a disadvantage because the engines won't get decent mileage. We'll see how it goes, but if these teams are shown to be at a huge disadvantage, will FOTA, the FiA, and CVC agree to tweak the rules to give them a fighting chance?
I think next year will be very interesting because of the lack of refueling, especially with the engine freeze in place. Will we see some changes in driving style to save fuel? Will teams with KERS find an advantage? With increased weight, the KERS weight penalty is now smaller, percentage-wise. That extra 80 bhp might be even more helpful for a fuel-heavy car when the lights go out at the start. It will be very interesting.
As always, I think the teams will continue to focus on what gives them the most bang for the buck. Having an engine freeze in place is supposed to reduce costs, but teams will just focus and spend on something else. That is another aspect of KERS that I like – it provides a _different_ challenge for teams to focus on (and spend tons of cash). Otherwise, they'll just continue to spend their time in the wind tunnel, which appears to be a big cost with diminishing returns. Since KERS is still in its infancy, it seems there is so much potential to be had there. But, in order for KERS to really see it's full potential, I think they need to loosen the restrictions on it, which then goes back to tweaking the rules and regulations.
Anyway, I agree with you that tweaking the rules and regulations too much could go against the idea of cost-reduction, but I don't know if we'll ever get away from constant tweaks, whether for safety reasons, sporting reasons, or whatever – the rules are always under review. The Concorde Agreement, FiA rules, and FOTA agreements are a delicate balance of technology vs. cost vs. sport vs. entertainment (and probably politics, too!). I don't know if I answered your question at all, but I enjoyed trying!
Generally speaking (as all race distances are different), the 2010 chassis will need a 200L fuel tank. For comparison purposes, the 2009 Formula cars have a ~90L tank.
Obviously this changes the entire dynamics of the race as described by Laurent in the post. Because the cars will weigh so much more as the start I see the 2 stop 2010 tire strategy unfolding like this:
Prime tire for Q1
Option Q2
Option Q3
Prime to start on
Prime 1st stop
Option 2nd stop (and sprint to the end, with low fuel and a faster tire)
The best chassis next year will be the one that has the best weight distribution, and has the least amount of tire graining.
The current cost reduction measures are a bit draconian, and "one size fits all'– this season, we've seen three teams need some test drives, and I'm convinced McLaren could have gotten a handle on their problem much faster (and cheaper) with some full-scale wind tunnel work, as opposed to three months of the entire team running flat out on R&D.
I'd rather see each team get "research points" (for lack of a better term) that they can spend as needed– new teams get a higher amount, and established teams could, in theory, earn more by assisting newer teams to become more competitive.
I'd also suggest that each year has a "theme"– for example, 2010, by eliminating refueling, could be the "fuel efficiency" year, where teams are allowed more leeway in making changes that improve the fuel efficiency of their cars– it's silly to me that things like variable timing and inlet geometry are forbidden, when at the same time, they implement a rule like no refueling.
Formula 1 is supposed to be about pushing the technical boundaries of automotive research– But lately it seems more about pushing the boundaries of spectacle instead.
Why just make the fuel tank bigger, why cant the engine makers (merc, cosworth, ferrari etc) make more economical engines?
Look at this years cars, they're supposed to be ~30% down on downforce but still putting out the same laptimes as last year, if development like that can be made on cars why cant the boffins get working on the engines?!
@Andy
Because there is a engine development freeze in effect. Ferrari has been reporting that their lump is getting less MPG than the competition, most notably the Mercedes FO108W. I believe that they are looking to make some minor changes to keep up with the competition, a la Renault's changes last year.
Here's an interview with McLaren engineering director Paddy Lowe about the 2010 car and strategy.
http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews/2009/10/1...
Good website. This was pleasant to me.
This is exactly what I’ve been seeking all day. I should have found your blog post faster.
Just when I thought I had seen every Formula 1 related video on YouTube, you show me this gem. Nice find!
Looks like the video is from the 2008 season, and Williams was looking to actually use there system. Rumor has it that they cannot get the weight down enough to apply it to the FW31 and keep the chassis competitive.