Technical 2014 Technical Regulations

Blog Zbod said:
Adrian Newey has christened the 2014 Red Bull RB10 "ugly." Which seems to be par for the course when nothing apart aerodynamics calls the dance tune. I thought the Gumpert Apollo was ugly until I saw the 250-mph Weber hypercar, which was the first car I ever saw advertised as having been designed entirely with aerodynamics in mind and no consideration given to eye-pleasing styling.

weber-sportscar-the-_460x0w.jpg
Click to expand

Eww - that front end looks like an attempt to copy a BMW, but in cardboard.
I wouldn't say no to one though.
 
Honda engine sound:


Sounds pretty similar to what we've heard already. Very sanitised sound that we have to hope will sound much better when it's bolted in to the car. I die a little bit inside every time I hear one of these videos though.

What is significant is that Honda have released an engine sound not too long after the likes of Renault and Mercedes despite them not entering until 2015.
 
Auto Motor und Sport quote Ross Brawn saying he expects the customer teams will be disadvantaged next season because the 2014 power packs will be bulkier than the 2013 versions, and they are not customer-configurable. I've not been able to find the referenced rule in the TR but the article states the customer is forbidden modifying the power unit in any way, except the exhaust. And the contract with the engine builder forbids them modifying that, because you can't modify the exhaust system without affecting performance characteristics. The disadvantage comes from the fact that constructors get to configure engine, gearbox and ERS to suit their own chassis, but customers will have to design their chassis around the engine exactly as supplied.

Also quoted at ESPN, Ross Brawn speaks in a string of ambiguities and couched phrases, artfully dodging the contention that the 2014 season will be a fuel economy contest. In fact, the article is titled, "Brawn allays 2014 fuel fears." However, the only concrete statement he makes is, "...In qualifying you'll be controlled by the fuel flow rate and in the race you'll be controlled by the overall fuel amount...."

I have to admit my English comprehension isn't the best but the only take-away I can find in "...in the race you'll be controlled by the overall fuel amount...." is an admission that 2014 will be a fuel economy contest.

How that could be coloured as allaying 2014 fuel fears is beyond me.
 
[quote="Blog Zbod, post: 220283]

I have to admit my English comprehension isn't the best but the only take-away I can find in "...in the race you'll be controlled by the overall fuel amount...." is an admission that 2014 will be a fuel economy contest.

How that could be coloured as allaying 2014 fuel fears is beyond me.[/quote]
Personally, I can't see how this is any different from f1 in the mid 1980s, nor why this is such a terrible thing!
 
Your quote hasn't worked properly The Artist..... because the opening string is wrong it should read
Code: 
[quote="Blog Zbod, post: 220283, member: 2175"] text.[/quote]

Also I think it is a bad thing because sprint racing is not about fuel management unlike endurance racing...
 
Last edited:
I'm sure sooner or later the teams will figure out how to overcome any fuel limitations. It's funny how two or three years ago, people were talking about the Renault engine's power deficit to the Mercedes yet they've walked the past 4 constructors almost. Aero will always be king in F1.
 
Quintessentially said:
I'm sure sooner or later the teams will figure out how to overcome any fuel limitations....
Click to expand
And when they do, they will change the regs to further limit the allowable fuel load. It is blatantly obvious from the numbers chosen -- 100 kilos of allowable race fuel and a maximum fuel mass flow rate of 100 kilos per hour -- that this formula was designed to keep the teams in fuel difficulty. They WANT the 2014 WDC to be predicated on the quality of the electric motors. This is only the camel's nose under the tent; F1 will never burn little enough fuel to sate The New Green Religion. It is a fool's errand to try.
 
The Nige has some quotable quotes regarding the new emphasis on driver weight. Says it's discriminatory (nuclear word, that) against the "medium-sized large driver," whatever that is. Says "It's wrong … they're not jockeys...."

They're not? :s
 
Maybe this new formula will have more say in the 'power circuits' but I just don't share the optimism that it will somehow overhaul the pecking order. Fuel efficiency is linked to all areas of performance from tyre usage to gearing to brake stability etc but aero will always remain the predominant factor. This would be immediately obvious to anyone who has watched the way the past 5 seasons has evolved. The first few races will no doubt throw up some random results but inevitably things will stabilize as teams familiarise and copy best practice. Let's be honest, what most avid F1 fans want to see is for Redbull to be challenged on a consistent basis but I fear they are so far ahead with their technical operations that it will take more than a performance wipe-out akin to McLaren for the field will stabilize again. It is easily overlooked that they are very fast even without performance aids like kers and DRS.
 
Renault F1's Rob White claims they told the FIA some time ago that in terms of size and weight, their goals for the new engine formula were too ambitious. But Ferrari and Mercedes disagreed, and the FIA concluded they knew better than Renault.

Auto Motor und Sport are reporting the 2014 spec fuel flow sensors are not meeting QC requirements. They're allowed an error rate of just 0.5% but they're running nearer 1.5%. The article makes the point that the 2014 TR do not regulate fuel tank size so the only method for ensuring teams are in compliance with the 100 kg race limit is a fuel flow mass sensor. A +/- 1.5% error on 100 kilos/135 litres amounts to a difference of +/- 2 litres of petrol. To this date the sensors have not been track tested, which could reveal still more problems that bench testing has not, but the where and how of the track testing is yet to be determined.

In the previous turbo era, teams chilled their race petrol before putting it in the car because a fuel tank of size 'X' will hold more chilled fuel (by weight) than room temp fuel. The use of a mass sensor -- if it is working properly -- makes fuel temperature largely irrelevant, and helps keep the teams honest(er).

The article also mentions the engine suppliers all continue to encounter developmental problems with the 2014-spec engine, and doubts remain that any of them will have a product ready in time for the 2014 season that can produce 750 PS (740 bhp), can run 305 km on 135 litres of fuel, and each unit will last 4000 km.
 
Because the 2014-formula ERS/CURSE will apply such variable loads to the rear wheels each time the car's brakes are applied, the new regs allow for a sef-adjusting brake bias. Which Italian BlogF1 opines is the camel's nose under the tent towards the entirely electrically controlled F1 car. Brakes, steering, throttle, the works.


Not addressed in the blog but once you've got all these control systems computerised and linked, stability control is inevitable. regardless what the TR might read.
 
Sorry, I lost the source, but I've read that the 2014 Pirellis will be nigh on indestructible. They created completely new compounds based of the huge increase in torque forecast by the engine suppliers. Speculation is this change spells the demise of the disinte-Pirelli.
 

Similar threads

FB
  • Article
Grand Prix 2023 United States Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
    • Like
3 4
Replies
60
Views
3K
Bleu
Bleu
F1Brits_90
You Bet 2024
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Il_leone
Il_leone
FB
Pre-Season F1 2022
    • Like
    • Thumbs Up
18 19
Replies
360
Views
27K
F1Brits_90
F1Brits_90
F1Brits_90
You Bet 2023
    • Like
12 13
Replies
245
Views
14K
Il_leone
Il_leone
F1Brits_90
You Bet 2022
    • Like
17 18
Replies
342
Views
23K
F1Brits_90
F1Brits_90
Back
Top Bottom