| Welcome to The Pit Lane. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| 2010 vs 2009; what's new... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 5 2010, 10:49 PM (389 Views) | |
| John | Jan 5 2010, 10:49 PM Post #1 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Formula1.com has added some diagrams highlighting the diffrences between the new look cars for 2010... and the 2009 cars 2009/2010 overhead comparison: ![]() The changes for 2010 are perhaps most striking from overhead. As a result of the ban on refuelling, the fuel tank (4) will be longer and wider. The wheelbase is likely to be about 15 cm longer than in '09 to accommodate this larger tank (6), though teams could opt to move the driver forward slightly (3) or build shorter gearboxes (5) to minimise this increase. At the front, the narrower front tyres (2) will change the handling characteristics and weight distribution of the car, while the driver has control of the front wing flap angle (1) from the cockpit. 2009/2010 side comparison: ![]() Although the refuelling ban for 2010 is a change to the sporting regulations, it has technical implications too. The fuel tank's capacity (2) has almost doubled from around 120 litres to at least 235 litres, while the car's minimum weight has been increased from 605kg to 620kg. To accommodate the larger tank, the car's wheelbase will likely be increased by around 15cm (3). Another 2010 change is that wheels covers (1) have been banned. This is primarily to avoid problems during pit stops which, with no refuelling, will be incredibly fast. It's been estimated that pit stop times will be cut to under four seconds. 2009/2010 front comparison: ![]() From the front, the 2010 cars will look distinctly different to their '09 predecessors due to the narrower front tyres (1) and the wider rear bodywork needed to accommodate the larger fuel tank (2) required following the ban on refuelling. The slimmer front tyres - which address the imbalance of front and rear grip that resulted from the reintroduction of slicks last year - will widen the space between tyre and chassis, thus making this area even more important aerodynamically, so expect to see it featuring some interesting aero components. |
![]() |
|
| Rob | Jan 5 2010, 11:00 PM Post #2 |
![]() ![]()
|
Not radically different given the tech specs for 2010. |
![]() |
|
| John | Jan 5 2010, 11:12 PM Post #3 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So who benifits most by it... Lewis over Jenson, Rubens over Hulkenberg, Nico over Michael...
|
![]() |
|
| Brave_Lee_Flea | Jan 5 2010, 11:38 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hopefully *we* the fans win! I am desperately hoping that I am wrong in thinking that banning refuelling will simply lead to even more processional races and that it will in fact increase the amount of overtaking. Strategy will be different in 2010 in as much currently the advantage lies with being able to stay out for a lap or two longer than the person you are racing for track position whereas in 2010 there should now be an advantage in coming in to pit for tyres a lap or two earlier. |
![]() |
|
| AndyW76 | Jan 6 2010, 10:45 AM Post #5 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, narrowing the front tyres will be interesting because it means that there will a lesser burden on the rear tyres. Not sure who will benefit. |
![]() |
|
| Brave_Lee_Flea | Jan 6 2010, 11:21 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I can't quite work this out; why should narrowing the front tyres lead to a lesser burden on the back tyres? Is it just that because there will be less grip at the front corner speeds will be lower? If there is less grip at the front I'd guess that those drivers that like a very "pointy" front end will be most disadvantaged by this change. I believe that would include Schumi, Alonso and Hamilton, no? |
![]() |
|
| AndyW76 | Jan 6 2010, 12:03 PM Post #7 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A car can be set up to be "pointy" or not. What I'm saying is that drivers that like an oversteering car will be able to set their car up to do that but a wider rear tyre will allow a lower rate of attrition of the rubber. Though it is swings and roundabouts becasue drivers who prefer understeer will probably find the car easier to set up but the front tyres, being narrower, will wear more quickly than previous. |
![]() |
|
| flood1 | Jan 6 2010, 01:34 PM Post #8 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When the front tires really stick the rotational force then moves to the rear. The 2009 cars were very over steery. The fronts would grip and the backs would break loose. If the fronts don't stick then the car understeers. Lewis was happy with lots of oversteer. Kimi and Alonso were not. In the states we say that when you oversteer you hit the wall with the back of the car. When you understeer you hit the wall with the front of the car.
|
![]() |
|
| AndyW76 | Jan 6 2010, 01:55 PM Post #9 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not so much thinking about how hard the cars will be to drive but more what the influence on tyre degredation will be. As I understand it, with front narrower tyres, there will be a tendancy towards understeer (though that can be tuned out through weight distribution and set up) and will cause the front tyres to wear more aggressively than previously. Also, a narrower tyre will wear more rapidly as there is less volume of air and rubber to heat up. |
![]() |
|
| flood1 | Jan 6 2010, 02:50 PM Post #10 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's true Andy. My question has to do with the compound. Bridgestone is changing the tire compound and construction to deal with the extra weight. We won't know more about that until they test. Another question I have been pondering is how the balance will shift as the fuel load diminishes. Will the CoG move further back as the fuel weight goes dow, or can they place the load so that it stays pretty much in the middle of the empty CoG. Sportsman and i have been talking about this for awhile, and we have come up with answers that we agree with, only to think about it further and to change our minds. We still don't have an understanding of what will happen. I suspect that all of our conclusions may be evident in one car or another. Different strokes for different folks. |
![]() |
|
| sportsman | Jan 6 2010, 03:12 PM Post #11 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Needless to say, I agree with flood1. I have constructed sevral different simulations of how the car will change as the fuel load diminshes. The biggest challenge is to maintain the corner weights as the car consumes the fuel. The weight of the engine and gearbox then increase proportionally in the cars corner weights. I simply don't know what will happen.There are so many unknowns at this stage.Tyre compounds, new wing designs and a host of other variables. It is only when we see the cars testing can we get any clear idea of what will be likely to happen. |
![]() |
|
| AndyW76 | Jan 6 2010, 04:14 PM Post #12 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I expect the teams to design their cars with the fuel tank as close to the CoG as possible to minimise the impact of an emptying fuel tank and make the car's behaviour as predictable as possible. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)









8:49 AM Jul 11