Expert analyst Mark Hughes takes a detailed look at the approach each team has taken, and explains how the different solutions highlight the uncertainty the new rules have given rise to over the best trade-off between weight distribution, aero balance, accommodating KERS and the other key design challenges.

Mark reckons McLaren’s advanced tyre modelling capability may well have given it a head start, but with so many new variables he says nothing can be taken for granted.


This week’s launches from BMW, Renault and Williams, hot on the heels of Ferrari, McLaren and Toyota the previous week, confirmed that there is more visual diversity in the designs than has been the case in recent years.

It is a result of how radically the regulations have changed, meaning the optimum solution has not yet been established. Which of them has got it right only time will tell.

Compare, for example, the new Renault R29’s bluff-looking, slab-like front with the long, elegant nose section of the new Williams FW31.

Look at the quite intricate detail in the shaping of the Williams’s front wing endplates in comparison to the set-square brutality of the BMW F1.09’s.

There appears to be significant variation in wheelbases and general packaging too.

Both the Williams and Renault appear fairly short in the wheelbase, albeit within quite long cars, whereas the BMW looks short in both wheelbase and overall length.

By contrast, the Ferrari F60 and McLaren MP4-24 each appear long in both wheelbase and in total.

Nose heights: There are low and sleek (McLaren, Williams), medium (Ferrari), and high (Toyota, Renault, BMW).



Front wing formats: Plain single flaps (Renault, Toyota), single flaps with outer winglets (Ferrari, Williams) and twin flaps (McLaren, BMW).

Sidepod width: Narrow (Ferrari, Toyota), narrow but with an upper bulge for the radiator inlets (McLaren), medium (Williams, Renault), wide (BMW).

Sidepod profile: High at the front, dropping down dramatically to the rear (Renault), high at the front with a little dropaway (Ferrari, BMW, Toyota), high at the front and very short, leaving the back semi-exposed (Williams) and high throughout (McLaren).

Diffuser exits: Plain and simple (McLaren, BMW, Renault, Ferrari) and very intricate (Williams, Toyota).

Whichever part of the cars your eyes rest upon, you find significantly more variation between the teams than has been the case for years – which is a logical outcome when the latest rules are so radically different that no one knows for sure the relative importance of each of a raft of performance factors.

For example, it is expected that the new slick tyres will demand a more forward weight distribution.

However the fitting of the KERS regenerative energy devices – the electrical boost of which is estimated to be worth around 0.3s per lap – tends to put more weight towards the rear.

A shorter wheelbase will bring the weight distribution forwards, but will leave less room to accommodate the KERS device and associated batteries – meaning you might need to make the sidepods wider to fit it all in.

Then there is the complication of matching up aerodynamic characteristics with the weight distribution of the car.

Shortening the wheelbase by bringing the front wheels closer to the sidepods tends to cost you rear downforce, because the airflow quality to the bodywork and underbody is choppier and therefore less effective.

That will move the aero distribution forwards, which is convenient for matching it to the more forward weight distribution, but at the cost of total overall downforce.

Where is the cut-off point of best compromise? No one yet knows.

The teams’ wind tunnels and CFD programmes will have suggested the answers, but the effect of that downforce on the new generation of tyres can only have been an estimate.

Software modelling for tyres is in its infancy compared to that of aerodynamics because a tyre is massively more complex in its behaviour than airflow.

Anyone that can get a handle on that part of the equation is far better equipped to make informed calls on the ideal weight and aero distribution.

That’s why McLaren must be feeling confident.

It has what is generally reckoned to be the most advanced tyre modelling capability of all the teams, with a project that was initiated at the turn of the decade.

It last paid spectacular benefit when the team had to switch from Michelin to Bridgestone rubber – and did so with remarkable ease, in contrast to all the others making that switch.

So the distinctive features of the MP4-24 – its longer wheelbase, square-profiled sidepod, wing configuration etc – could all have their roots in tyre modelling answers that the others do not yet have.

Which must make Lewis Hamilton feel pretty good.

source[www.itv-f1.com]

 

All the necessary ingredients to create a less predictable outcome to the Championship!

I can't wait to see the cars lined up on the grid @ Melbourne!!!

 

Just a shame that you could be turned off from F1 because of how inexplicably ugly the new cars are.

 

Ditto! If you thought last season was good, just wait. This season will be INCREDIBLE!

 

I really like (most of) the new cars! I think the new sleek profile fits them very well. The little fins and spoilers sticking out of the cars for the past few seasons looked really bizarre to me.

Welcome to the Team by the way!

 

It's just the fronts that get me, just completely out of proportion with the rest of the car in every case.

Gonna cause a lot of front wing replacements due to little incidents at first corners in each race I reckon.

Still, if it makes overtaking easier then I guess that's all that counts eh?

Oh and, thanks for the welcome