|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Nov 3, 2018 1:24:12 GMT -8
After the meeting of the World Motorsport Council on October 13th the definitive regulations for the 2019 season were finally ratified - and released on October 15th - just two and a half months before the end of the year. A number of changes are detailed, including sweeping changes to the front wing geometry (the details of which will be discussed below), a new front brake duct volume, shorter bargeboards, a taller and wider rear wing with increased endplate area, new rain warning lights on the rear wing endplates, a minimum driver plus seat weight of 80kg, new camera locations to minimize the halo interference, and a more prescriptive rear view mirror position. Full text of the regulations can be found at fia.com/regulations. In this article we will focus on the new front wing rules, which are some of the most restrictive bodywork rules ever seen in F1, requiring nine separate clauses, over 2300 words, and over five and a half pages to define - to put that in context go back a decade and while there were eight clauses to the front wing rules, they required less than a page of text to define. One of the key changes to the front wing rules is the splitting of the components into a more common vernacular, in particular the “endplates”, “profiles” and “strakes” are defined, as well as a separate definition for “auxiliaries”; which describes everything else permitted within the front wing volume, namely tyre temperature sensors, profile slot gap separators, and flap incidence adjusters. There is also a new definition for a “virtual endplate surface” which helps describe the endplate, inwards facing region of the footplate, and the termination of the front wing profiles.
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Nov 3, 2018 4:50:44 GMT -8
Every additional word written into the regulations costs the participants more money as the engineers spend more wind tunnel and CFD time in defeating whatever whatever the regulations are trying to specify.
KISS is a concept F1 has never accepted, favoring the Rube Goldberg complexity.
|
|